CNN BREAKING: DASCHLE VOTED *FOR* LATE TERM ABORTION BAN!!!

WHAT THE FRIGGEN FUCK???????????????????????????????

tell me i did NOT hear that right!

they have ALREADY over 50 votes and its ALMOST DONE!

:argh:

Daschle votes in favor of ban.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He is up for re-election in a fairly conservative state. He knows this PBA ban is going to pass by a fair margin, so he votes for it to take away a campaign issue. Same with his support for the gun lobby on a measure that will limit their liability. You may not like it, but is ALL about politics and survival in a conservative leaning state.

The fuckers in my state are borderline fascists.

RC

I'd love to kick his ass.

Too bad it's not as cute as yours, matcom. I may reconsider.

That he's pathetic and you'd like to kick his ass, that is. You're not going to give him a pass on this, are you?

I'm a Democrat and pro choice but I do not support the partial birth abortion procedure. I personally oppose abortion but believe it's a woman's choice. Many other Dems feel the same.

:eyes:

on edit: it is VERY interesting to me that YOU call it "Partial Birth Abortion" and I call it "Late Term Abortion".

hhhmmmmmmmmmm

i'll get back to you

The so-called "partial birth" abortion is not a medical term. It's something made up by the anti-choice crowd to make abortion of any stage seem like murder, which it is not. I think those who say "I'm against this procedure but not against the right to choose" are not looking at the big picture. This only the first step on the road to making abortion illegal again. I don't understand why you are not getting that.

My blood boils whenever "the news" calls it such. Since when do we rely on a religious fringe group to name medical procedures? (don't answer that) Not to mention that (virtually - I can't fathom a Dr. doing it otherwise) every time this procedure is done it's for a sound medical reason - not a woman suddenly changing her mind.

and a logical fallacy.

The fact that it may or may not pave the road to anything has no bearing on whether or not late term abortions should or should not be legal.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Now put on your asbestos underwear, I hear a flame fest approaching.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't think women have late term abortions out of anything but medical necessity. This is a decision that should rest completely with a woman and her doctor. Other people's feelings regarding the morality of it should never be a factor.

If it were my daughter, I most definitely wouldn't want politicians involved in any way.

We Dems are SO FREAKING LAME when it comes to letting the moralistic goose-stepping rightwingers frame a debate like this.

It's a RARE MEDICAL PROCEDURE that tends to only be used when the mother's health is at risk. It's done LATE TERM only under the guidance of the woman's physician, as was laid out in Roe v. Wade.

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!

My god we are gonna lose this next election. Apparently all the rePukes have to do is challenge our patriotism, our 'moral relativism', and our allegience to God (THEIR GOD), and we are gonna piss all over ourselves in trying to explain why they are such big meanies when they do that.

Meanwhile, the facists will laugh all the way to fucking bank as more and more doctors sell their practices, buy ranches, and say fuck the human race. They don't believe in science and law anyway.

Aaaaaarrrggghhhh!!!!!!!!!

Just try to come after one of my sisters, or my niece on this. I DOUBLE DARE YA!

:nuke::nuke::nuke:

Right on!!
If we are not careful, these repukes will crack all unity amongst Dems and win.

OK, so "partial birth" abortions are illegal. Here are my questions:

1. If the woman's life was in danger, wouldn't the doctor still induce early labor, which would likely kill the fetus, but spare the mother? I was never really sure of the circumstances surrounding this issue.

2. What are the odds this gets shot down by the Supreme Court? I think we have a big legal battle coming over it.

up to 24 weeks gestation.

This is just one of many fronts in the "War on Women." They will chip away at our rights until they're gone. Partial Birth or Late Term abortions are rarely performed and only if the mother's life is in danger.

Too bad he is not senate minority leader - if he was, it wouldn't be for long - we'd have the majority, or he'd go down fighting every inch of the way.

UNLIKE DASCHLE!

I don't know how many times we have to go over this. The term "partial birth abortion" was an invention of the religious right nutjobs who want control over women.
Nobody, but nobody, has any right to tell me, a woman, what to do with a group of cells growing inside my uterus. From cancer cells to zygote....it's nobody's business but my own.
This sickens me.

And don't use CNN or Fox as your sources.
You clearly have a LOT to learn about it.

I wrestle with the abortion issue. I have heard compelling arguments all around. I think a thoughtful, intelligent person cannot help but be a bit affected by the stories from both sides of the issue. The well opined stories, not the nutbag mythical ones. I believe it isn't my decision to make, however. Definitely the woman's right to choose. This isn't a black and white issue for me either way though. Pretty complex moral issues all around.

In virtually all cases, these are done out of medical necessity and to save a woman's life. I cannot argue against that at all. Very necessary.

than it is about a medically necessary, although very rare, procedure to save a woman's life.

I'm not sure any reputable doctor would perform this procedure simply because a woman decided to end a pregnancy on a whim. Now they won't even have that option.

I object to legislators deciding they know more than doctors.

IT'S A LATE-TERM ABORTION! the RW has successfully brainwashed you and lots of others with this term. they do this to EVERYTHING.

in the House/Senate watch threads...the quotes are critical.

MEDICAL term is dilation and extraction.

using either of the other terms is simply falling into the rhetoric of the right-wing and obscuring the facts.

However, that doesn't work in the Senate Watch threads...I can't fit the following into a subject line:

SENATE WATCH-10/21/2003 (#1-9:30 AM) {Dilation and Extraction bill VOTE today}

Many years ago, my baby died inutero while I was in my seventh month. In order to save my life the my ob performed an abortion. This procedure is used only when the baby has died and the mother is in jeopardy.

he's been rolling over on his belly ever since * took office.

their would be Sen. Thune. My guess is that this vote means he is going to run for re election. If I recall there may have been some debate.

if you are going to say "Fuck" anyway?

:)

But the thing that should be noted about this bill is this: there is NO exemption for the Mother's health in this bill.

As per Daschle--no surprise. He's signaled that he'd vote for this a long time ago. There's supposed to be close to 15-18 Democrats crossing the line on this one.

before people will understand the ramifications of this bill. It was NOT healthy women with healthy fetuses undergoing these procedures.

:mad:

prolesunited,

You said "It was NOT healthy women with healthy fetuses undergoing these procedures." How do you know for sure? Just asking.


Also, does Late Term Abortion differ from regular abortion, other than timing? I've always been under the impression (maybe incorrectly??)that LTA involves the doctor inducing labor to the point where the head is exposed, then the fetus is terminated and the body pulled out. I want to make sure I have all the facts. Sounds like what I've always heard may not be the case after all.

PBA is a procedure, not a calendar event.

You could do a late term abortion by C-section. That would not be a partial birth abortion. PBA is one procedure correctly called dilation/extraction. I don't know why some try to say PBA and LTA are the same things when they clearly aren't.

"late" in the pregnancy, usually considered third trimester for late.

A partial birth abortion is a particular procedure. It may happen third trimester or second trimester. It's when labor is induced and the fetus/baby is almost birthed, but the head is kept in until scissors can puncture the skull, and the brains can be sucked out.

They are not the same thing.

but I have to go attend a work event and I'm leaving now.

Could someone else please explain this in more detail or perhaps I can get back to it when I get home.

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=143

"Don’t women seek elective third-trimester abortions?
No. Women do not carry healthy pregnancies for seven or eight months and then abort on a whim. On those extremely rare occasions when women have third-trimester abortions, they do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health.

Don’t doctors provide elective third-trimester abortions?
No. Only a handful of doctors in the United States perform third-trimester abortions, and these few do so only when the fetus is severely or fatally impaired or when the woman’s health or life is seriously at risk."

there is an exemption if the mothers LIFE is at risk, which is probably why daschle et al went for it.

There's NO exemption, according to the news reports I heard. (Guess I need to see the text of the bill myself.)

Most often the baby has hydrocephalus and could not be delivered vaginally anyway. Many of these that go full term will die after delivery without massive medical intervention. The number of these procedures per year is around 3400 a year.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

The interesting part will be to see how nearly bankrupt states will like spending hundreds of millions of dollars keeping some of these babies alive. Neonatal care has advanced to the point where preemies weighing only a pound or less can be kept alive. So lets say there are two thousand, congenitally damaged infants who will be born and require a half million in intensive neonatal care and then social security benefits and institutionalization. Want to guess we are talking about billions and billions of dollars?

There will be lawsuits aplenty re: pulling the plug and from mothers who were rendered sterile or stroked or became deranged from the ordeal. Insurance costs will rise even further. Meanwhile those with the cash will simply fly to Canada to have the procedure.

I doubt the domino theory applies here with regard to abortion. This is a sop to the religious right. The Pugs will never allow abortion to become illegal, because the social costs are too high. They simply want to pretend they care about fetuses to distract us from the clear truth that they don't give a shit about children and adults already living on the planet.

and this is part of a chipping away campaign, anyone who sees it as anything but needs glasses

I've strongly disliked Daschle for a while now, this has turned to detestation today. He's got to go.

nt

reelection time in South Dakota.

Get ready for the push for parental notification.

That's coming next. Just in time for the next election campaign.

that means you think the majority of the state's voters agree with the ban?

That the majority of voters in SD agree with the ban. SD is a very conservative state. Also, keep in mind that Daschle is Catholic.

as do many other Catholics. Please don't presume we are all the same.

Daschle has no business being minority leader. If he must vote Republican on issues to be elected, he is NOT the person to be Democratic leader. He's an ineffective mouse and he needs to step down.

Just saw your message here, and I wanted to thank you for it. :hi:

Sorry, I didn't mean to presume or imply that all Catholics are in favor of the ban. Far from it.

Daschle has taken a lot of heat from both his conservative constituents and from the Catholic hierarchy over this. I'm not surprised he rolled over. Not pleased, by any means, just not surprised.

Thune would have made this a huge campaign issue in 2004.

I didn't mean to presume you presumed.

Some people use the "Catholic" argument to justify things around here, and it gets old.

If Daschle is in an area where he can't win unless he votes for atrocious things like this, it's up to him what he does. But he shouldn't be the leader of the Democrats if he's going to vote contrary to such an important platform position - one that means a lot to a significant number of party members (choice was a HUGE issue in women choosing to vote for Gore over Bush in 2000.) Imagine if Trent Lott voted against this ban.

A Lot of Catholics see through this as a way to prevent women from receiving necessary medical treatment. As one of my posts points out, I have a sister-in-law who nearly died. If this procedure was denied, she would have left five motherless children.

SD only votes for Dems because of farm issues - same as ND

I bet that both Dorgan and Conrad (ND) voted for the ban also

It was going to pass. They are just watching their asses for re-election.

if it passes, the MD. who filed suit in the state case that went before the Supreme court (I think it was Nebraska??) vowed to file suit again should this measure pass in the US Senate. He raised the concern that the language of the bill was not limited to any one type of medical procedure (and was potentially subject to much interpretation)and had no exceptions for medical emergencies. The Supreme Court agreed with him last go-round.

A small ray of hope.

Eloriel

Laugh, matcom. The whole system is a farce.

I favor an exemption to protect the health of the mother, which I would interpret as meaning just about anything.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---64
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---34
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Edwards (D-NC)
Hutchison (R-TX)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

I believe that Hutchison is pro-choice.

In both cases their personal beliefs were obviously out of joint with their largely Southern, conservative constituencies. Otherwise, the vote seemed to break down more on regional, religious and gender lines than political. Sometimes, like Leahy, religious and personal feelings overrode political and regional concerns.

However, Edwards missed that vote too.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051

just fuck him!

Byrd actually voted for the ban. Fuck him too, right? Let's kick him out on his sorry homophobic, religious-bigot, anti-woman ass ... right?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340

Edwards voted no in October of 1999.

When it comes to presidetial candidates I believe that only Gephardt supports the ban.

Kucinich voted for it in 2001 but changed his postion for the 2003 vote.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=242

she would have voted for it as she tends to vote the party line most of the time.

I don't know about his background with these issues, but I wouldn't have expected him to vote that way.

I'll see if I can dig up a floor statement or something.

My 2 senators have backbone and voted no.

Kohl (D-WI)
Feingold (D-WI)

They will catch hell here for it, especially from the Local Rush wannabes, like Mark Belling, the prick who's sitting in for Rush while he buys more drugs, er, I mean, gets treatment.

is always a lock when it comes to key votes. This is a horrible law and will most definately result in useless deaths. These people must be held accountable for these deaths of innocent mothers!

Susie and Olympia have come through for the women of the US again.

Thank you, ladies. Keep listening to your constituents.

I'm impressed. :)

There's a shocker.

Dem, voted yes, woman.

n/t

next it'll be all abortions!

if you're not married, finally out goes sex.
put the prayers back in the schools,
install parochiad
allow for corporal punishment
and then you've got it made.

we're going back, back
to the good old days
when men were really men
and women were their slaves,
back, back, a couple of centuries
and welcome back the days
of the the theocracy

they're sitting in the capitol
they're voting on our lives
if we don't fight them soon
our freedom will not long survive


(my apologies to kristen lem, and "days of the theocracy"
original date not remembered)

Hey, sodomy used to be a convictable crime, maybe we may turn back the clock and be like a certain culture and execute folks for sex outside marriage...

We could then start with Arnold....WOOHOO!...no, wait, those types have a tendency to execute the women....

He is beyond my contempt.

And he IS in a conservative state.

To be fair to the guy.

Be "Fair"?

Fair my fucking ASS!

:argh:

Daschle can't be Barabara Lee, so he is a DINO. Even though Daschle's constitutents probably agree with his vote the opinions of a small minority of left-wing activists are what he should make his first priority.

If he has to vote against the Democratic platform to stay elected, HE IS NOT THE MAN TO LEAD THE DEMOCRATS!

He's an ineffective, inept, timid little person who prefers rolling over and playing dead to playing to win. Under his so-called "leadership," we LOST the senate, and if we manage to get a Democratic president in 2004, it will be in spite of him, not in any way because of him. I barely tolerated him before, but this is war. I want him out of the leadership position. NOW.

We need more forceful and steadfast leaders that don't "back down" when they think it'll give them some gain.

The likely successor to Daschle is Harry Reid of Nevada who isn't just supportive of this ban but completely pro-life. The other person mentioned as a possible successor is Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Dodd lost to Daschle by one vote in 1994 and decided against a challenge in 2004. Apparently, when people thought that Daschle might run for president and step down as minority leader, Reid rounded up a majority of the democratic senators' support. Dodd opposes the "partial birth abortion ban" but is generally kind of moderate like Daschle is.

Nobody else seems likely to challenge Daschle.

One interesting thing is that I believe that the only reason Daschle won was because of Ben Campbell's vote who then left the party of few months after the vote. I also think that Daschle made a deal with Carol Moseley-Braun to get her a seat on the Finance Committe in exchange for her support for him.

what a bunch of ticked off women can accomplish. Don't count your chickens.

Those ticked off women didn't do anything after he voted for it in the 1990's so I doubt that they will do much now. I just don't see this as his downfall, however I would think that if the democrats stay in the minority after the 2004 elections that he would step down. He will have been the democratic leader for 10 years and it is time for change, especially considering how we have been in the minority for all but 1 and a half of those years.

Most people don't pay a whole lot of attention to things that don't pass.

This will create a stir (much to your dismay, I'm sure.)

This isn't the most important issue in the world to most people.

What kind of stir do you think will be created?

There isn't anything that can be done about who is the democratic leader in the senate. The democratic senators were prepared to place a pro-life democrat in as minority leader if Daschle ran for president so I don't think they are going to care about a handful of e-mails that they get against Daschle's vote on an issue where over a third of democratic senators agreed with Daschle anyway.

Also, the senators know that Daschle actually prevented the partial-birth abortion ban from being passed in 2001 when he stopped a vote on it. So, they might realize that behind the scenes he hasn't been that supportive of this legislation. Maybe he is just doing it for political reasons and I think that most democrats hope that there is Tom Daschle instead of John Thune as the senator from South Dakota come January 2005.

I was going to give you the short and sweet answer, but you seem to be hell bent on marginalizing women, so I thought I'd spend a little more time annoying you.

To women, choice was THE deciding issue as to whether to vote for Gore or Bush. Women are also the margin that decided Democrat vs. Republican in this and many elections. If your point is that the Democratic party will discount the anger women will feel over this, then perhaps you are right. They do tend to play their cards rather poorly of late. But I suspect they aren't quite that stupid. Will Daschle be removed from power? He should, of course, for a lack of leadership in this and many other areas. But until Democrats lose once again in 2004, he might remain, so never fear. Daschle remains and abortion is well on the way to being banned completely. The world is going your way. But does this mean there won't be "a stir"? Don't bet on it. Again, I repeat what you so readily dismissed - never underestimate the power of a bunch of ticked off women. The fact is, this bill was unnecessary, as Roe v. Wade already covered abortion restrictions to the satisfaction of the majority of the country. A strong leader and a strong party would have capitalized on this fact, and headed off the propaganda blitz that led up to the legislation today, that was the first but very crucial step in overturning it and ultimately banning abortion altogether. Once most people realize what this was all about - no more abortion (and the next step for Bush - no more contraception), will the votes of the red state Democratic Senators seem quite so wise as they do to you today? Do the votes of the red and blue state Senators authorizing Bush a blank check for war in Iraq seem so wise now? We are women, hear us roar. This issue IS important to a LOT of us. We WILL make noise. Dismiss us if you will. But you'd be a fool to.

Harkin Amdt. 260 to S. 3, the Intact D&E Ban bill

Yeas 52 Nays 46

Democrats voting in the Negative: Breaux, Miller, Nelson (NE), Pryor, and Reid (NV)

Republicans voting in the Affirmative: Chafee, Collins, Hutchison, Murkowski, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, and Warner

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00048

Feingold, Graham, or Harkin??? :shrug:

Any other nominations??

Republicans and their RW shills in the media won the war on this by casting it as a "partial birth" abortion rather than the more proper "late-term" abortion.

They set back the concept of multiculturalism by winning the war on the term "political correctness" and all of what that supposedly entailed.

They're winning the war on the "Democrat Party" versus the "Democratic Party."

Don't let the GOP get away with it! Call them on their BS.

God, do we need a liberal media!

:grr:

DTH

for it. He's up for re-election in 04', and has a tough race ahead, but I doubt this issue would have win or lose it for him.

So his vote isn't surprising.

He's not a DINO, yet sometimes he acts just like one!

:scritch'n my cranium:

Let him be a DINO on the sidelines. We need a real Democratic leader who is willing to FIGHT for our rights.

Daschle has always been sketchy on this, I think awhile ago he even said he'd vote for the late term abortion ban.

I think personally this is ridiculous, because late term abortion is typically done only under the supervision and suggestion of the primary doctor, and usually only necessary when the mother is put at risk from having the child.

or demanding that women do what THEY want them to do with their own bodies, they will take it further and to the max and will be smiling all the way to the forum. If let go to do with women what they like, eventualy women will be subjected to prosecution and incarceration for disobeying the "law" passed out to them by the good old boys as they chuck those Viagras down their throats in desperation. Everyone should support a woman's right to choose, no matter if it is something THEY would do or not.

yawn :boring:


no wonder so many dems consider the greens to be an opposition party, cause they sure ain't opposing the repooks! :)

When Tom Daschle was majority leader in 2001 and 2002 he prevented a vote on the partial birth abortion ban. He could have gotten it passed but he didn't. So, perhaps he is just voting for it for political purposes and not because of his true opinion.

It means that our party refuses to admit that we have a problem. He is a perfect example of the wimpiness that has destroyed the Democratic party.

Daschle is a failure as a leader. He might be a great Senator for his state, but he is not a leader who will lead the Democratic party to big victories. No one is excited by Tom Daschle.

Daschle knows damned well this is a bad law designed to pander to the right-wing. In all likelihood, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, women's lives are at stake. In addition, many couples will be facing the reality of being forced to bring a severely deformed child to term and to wrestle with the decision of whether they want to face a lifetime of 24 hour/day care or giving the child up for adoption so the state can pay to preserve it's life.

A REAL leader would vote his conscience regardless of how his constituents feel, and then lead his constituents to his way of thinking. THAT'S leadership.

If he can't represent the majority of dems on this issue, then he should be in such a position of power. He's nothing but a spineless sell out ever since the repugs took control. We need someone who is willing to stand up to the radical fundie neocons that are taking over this country. Go back to South Dakota asshole.

You have let us down too many.....so many times.....please just go away! Where is our leadership that such a Puny ,Muelie person could be our Senate Speaker! Please......GOAWAY! Save Yourself! GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if they can tell you what you can't do with your uterus, then they can tell you what you must do with it, whether it is required pregnancy or required abortion.

This is hardly the first time.

Daschle has voted this way for years. I'm not sure there has ever been a "partial birth" vote that he DIDN'T vote that way.

Clinton's veto of the law in '98 or '99 failed to be overidden by just one or two votes... and Daschle voted to overturn. This would have been law years ago.

I guess the man has principles and actually sticks by them in the face of his party. You may not agree with him, but at least he isn't changing his votes with the blowing political winds.

Actually, I've been saying for awhile that if you look at his early career he was pretty middle-of-the-road (how do you suspect he gets elected in SD??). He's been forced to the left in his role as minority leader (and I suspect it could hurt him for re-election).

Regardless, he is exactly where his constituents want him to be. The bill is very popular there (and nation wide).

Seriously, anyone who has actually followed the partial birth abortion debate would already have known that Daschle supported the bill. They'd also have known that many Democrats (including some who otherwise have strong pro-choice records) support this bill.

Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Why should Daschle be expected to take a position that an overwhelming majority of his constituents disagree with, especially when he's up for reelection next year? The bill is supported by more than 60 senators -- it's going to become law with or without Daschle's support. So why should he voted against it, and put his seat in jeopardy, when at the end of the day his vote isn't going to make any difference?

Of course, I thought voting for Nader in 2000 was a stupid idea, and many DU'ers are bound to disagree with me on that one . . .

YOU a woman Dolstein? well, NEITHER am I DAMMIT!

now, if YOUR wife was ever in a life threatening situation, (BTW, mine HAS BEEN *Cervical FUCKING CANCER* i would simply say THIS:

WHAT THE FUCK is it any of YOUR business??????????????????

this is the FIRST step in the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. THIS FUCKING SUCKS!!!!

now, give me MORE of your "wisedom"

:eyes:

If you want to have a debate about whether you or anyone else around here is ignorant in other ways, I'm certainly prepared to oblige :-)

But I stand by my post. Many DU'ers ARE surprisingly ignorant of current affairs. The fact that Daschle voted in support of this bill shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who is familiar with this topic, since he has voted for identical legislation in the past. His stance on partial birth abortion is nothing new. It certainly doesn't qualify as "late breaking news" under even the most lenient standard.

I would say anything posted or discussed here is everyone's business.

Context clues...

FEDERAL JUDGES WHO MAY END UP ON THE SUPREME COURT ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!!! IF ROE V. WADE IS OVERTURNED, IT WILL BE IN THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!

IF YOU DEMAND THAT DASCHLE LOSE HIS SEAT, THEN YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!!

HOW DARE YOU!!!!

AND IF YOU WANT BYRD TO LOSE HIS SEAT, THEN YOU MUST BE IN FAVOR OF INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!!!

EDIT: LEAHY TOO!!! RANKING MEMBER OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!!!!!

This bill is NOT what it seems - it depends on how you ask the question - and if you ask the question truthfully - this bill is NOT popular

This is every bit the right wing power grab that the recall was, and if you don't see that, open your eyes. The line between separation of church and state just got blurred, the rights of women have just been diminished - and this is just the beginning - and George W. Bush just sewed up a bunch of extreme voters/contributions, among other things.

I care not a damn what Daschle's principles tell him to do - he's up there as leader of the Democrats and he just went against a very important part of the platform (the most compelling reason women voted for Gore over Bush was choice.)

And the more you describe the procedure, the more they are against it.

Only 20% of people think the procedure should be legal in all cases. With a substantial increase for "health of the mother" reasons (arguably a small percentage of such cases - but the bill makes no allowance for them).

Even when the question is asked correctly - ""Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother?" - it was still supported by 57% (and a MAJORITY of Democrats).

Women can and probably will DIE because of this law!

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

This man needs to be replaced. The sooner the better. It's been nothing but one betrayal after another from so many of these people, STARTING with not saying enough during the 2000 Recount, not to mention REFUSING to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus when they wanted to challenge the FL Electors.

It's been pretty much downhill from there. I can't contain my contempt and outrage.

Eloriel

extend to Robert Byrd? Should he also be replaced ASAP? Just curious.

I'd like to point out the following --

First, Daschle's not Repug lite. He's not even Democrat lite. He's a solid Democrat. Go visit the Project Vote Smart web site if you doubt me on this. There is no way any rational person would confuse his voting record with that of a Republican. You certainly aren't going to find any Republicans in Washington who consider Daschle to be a political ally -- why do you think Republicans have been running negative ads against him in South Dakota for the past few years?

Second, what's the alternative? South Dakota isn't a hotbed of liberalism. Bush carried the state in 2000 by 22 points. Daschle and his Democratic colleague, Tim Johnson, have been able to win in that state because, despite their liberal voting records, they know when they have to put the interests of their state ahead of the national Democratic Party. So to ensure their reelection, they break with the party. Better to have a Democrat who votes with the Democrats 95% of the time than a Republican who votes with the Republicans 100% of the time.

Third, why do you consider this vote to be a betrayal of the Democratic Party? Do you REALLY think that opposing a ban on partial birth abortion is anywhere near the top of the average Democrat's list of concerns?

I've seen enough of your posts to recognize where you stand. But if we were to apply your litmus test, pretty soon there wouldn't be any Democrats left.

And why should we in California have FEDERAL laws being shoved down our throats that repel us here and done so with the help of the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Dashle?

If he feels he needs to be conservative, as your post suggests, because he represents South Dakota, fine, so be it. But for you to excuse his federalizing a very, very intrusive and ugly law against women because he is a "politician" is shameful.

Why?

That's a fact. Yet you choose to ignore this fact and declare that Arnold is more progressive.

Why are you so comfortable with using right wing terminology?

Why are you so comfortable with using right wing terminology likd "partial birth abortion"?

I would have thought this would be self-evident. And I fail to see why Tom Daschle, who was elected by the voters of South Dakota to the U.S. Senate, should pay more attention to the opinions of California residents on this issue. And I also fail to see why Tom Daschle should risk his seat in the Senate in order to vote against a bill that more than 60 other senators are going to vote for. What exactly would he achieve by voting against this bill? So the bill passes with 63 votes instead of 64. It still passes.

Your very words:

"I would have thought this would be self-evident. And I fail to see why Tom Daschle, who was elected by the voters of South Dakota to the U.S. Senate, should pay more attention to the opinions of California residents on this issue. And I also fail to see why Tom Daschle should risk his seat in the Senate in order to vote against a bill that more than 60 other senators are going to vote for. What exactly would he achieve by voting against this bill? So the bill passes with 63 votes instead of 64. It still passes."

Let him vote for the bill as a cowardly politician if need be, but he should step aside as "Senate Minority Leader".

Tom Daschle was chosen by his Democratic collegues in the Senate to be their leader in the Senate. If you want a voice in that decision, I'm afraid you're going to have to get yourself elected to the Senate, or move the South Dakota and vote for Daschle's Republican challenger in the next election.

He's staked out a few liberal positions on social issues, but he worships at the altar of conservative economist Milton Friedman. And the fact of the matter is that his views on liberal issues have never been put to the test, whereas Tom Daschle has compiled a liberal voting record over his two decades in Congress.

And Patrick Leahy (VT)-prominent and well-respected Dem-voted YES.

:wtf:

Judd Gregg and Sununu voted FOR. So, not entirely correct... unless you don't consider NH part of the NE? :shrug:

of being from NH sometimes.

sorry Maxannee!

Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee voted NO

Actually, it's worse than just shameful. It's misogynist. And DU is full of them.

Eloriel

We are together on this and being betrayed at a most fundamental level by our "leadership" once again.

I truly resent the fact that Daschle is the leader of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate where there are Republicans more progressive than he is.

As a Californian, it is not acceptable that Tom Daschle abuse his position as Senate Minority Leader to serve up this federalizing of the laws against California women, their health, and their reproductive rights.

This is the question I posed to you above which you unartfully dodged in your "news flashes" to me which by the way are not relevant as I did not state that Arnold was for/against what you call "partial birth abortion", did I? I simply stated that he is more progressive than Tom Dashle which is true. And why are you using the Republican Right Wing's politically charged term "partial birth abortion"?

Here's the question I posed to you above and I'll be waiting to see if you will attempt to answer it:

"And why should we in California have FEDERAL laws being shoved down our throats that repel us here and done so with the help of the Democratic Minority Leader, Tom Dashle?"

And I don't care WHERE his constituents stand. If they're against this extraordinarily rare procedure which is ONLY done for the life or health of the mother when a fetus is -- utterly beyond help, really -- then he needs to get the fuck out there and EDUCATE his constituents.

Barring that, he tells them what Dr. Dean tells people: Congress shouldn't be practicing medicine.

And one more final thing: hell, if our people in Congress can't do any better than just voting what their constituents want -- IOW, if they can't LEAD -- then we could save a bundle of money and have legislation-by-popular-vote and focus groups. There's a time and a place for doing what your constituents want and need, but that time and place is NOT selling women and our bodies down the river, literally putting women's lives in danger because of it.

This was probably the most cowardly, pitiful, unforgiveable vote he's made. After all this time in the Senate, he's GOT to know better. If he did it because of his constituents and upcoming re-election, he doesn't deserve re-election. Period. And if that means the Repug gets in, that that's what that means. I'm sick to death of sellouts purportedly on "our side."

And how wonderful of YOU to be satisfied with Daschle's pandering over the bodies of women.

Fuck that.

Eloriel

This post is laughable.

You write:

"If he did it because of his constituents and upcoming re-election, he doesn't deserve re-election. Period."

So I guess that he should put far left wing activists ahead of the people who elected him.

Gee that makes a lot of sense. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Senators have to answer to ALL of their constituents, not just the hard core far left wing activists?

Maybe Daschle is going to listen to the people in his state, not someone from Georgia.

You aren't one of his constituents. You could want leftist everything but the fact remains that SD is a conservative state.

Would you rather have a Senate with 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats? Maybe you would, to teach the Democrats a lesson... :puke:

Because even though they would be ineffective and unable to do anything they would all be "idelogically pure".

There is a group of hard core left activists who will never be happy. Even if Daschle voted like Barabara Lee they would find something wrong with him.

They honestly expet every Democrat to just pay attention to them, to even put them ahead of their own constituents who elected them.

If anyone is Repug lite, it's Mr. Medicare-slasher.

I have to cite the fact that our governor, Jennifer Granholm (a Catholic by religion, a lawyer by training) vetoed a similar law. One of the things she cited was the fact that the ban DID NOT allow for the life or health of the mother, which would not pass court muster. And remember the SCOTUS threw out that Nebraska law a couple years ago by a 5-4 vote. I am wondering if the Bible belt Dems that voted yes know it would be challenged--all the while saving face with the Bible thumpers. I am not defending their actions, but I have got to believe it was in the back of their minds just the same.

I do think Daschle should be thrown out as Minority leader for not mustering all the troops. The liberal base of the party (such as yours truly) will demand it. I am comforted by the fact that my senators (Levin and Stabenow) voted big fat NO NO on this piece of crap.

I would bet ten thousand--go for it.

.

Let me ask any of you, why is a life more sacred if it is half grown in a woman's body than a full grown human's life?

Yet capital punishment is so great!

This is not about ending life - this is about controlling women.

Where is he coming from? Doesn't he GET IT! His Dem "grassroots are" at his neck and he DOES THIS!~ ARGHHHHHHHHHHH :grr:

who needs repukes.

This is a medical issue and should never be a matter before the US congress. This mis-named procedure is only used when medically necessary to save the life or health of the woman.

waiting to get into the pen. I agree, this is NOT an issue for old, good old boys, to decide--it is not the governments business. There is no crime involved here. It is simply an attempt to squelch the power of women to bear and to produce life--and keep them subservient and under the dictatorship of men who fear women's blood. They want to control their own spermatical claims to their relished progeny, which they believe is their right--the woman is inconsequential--merely a vase , a vessel, that will carry their own genes forward. This is what is behind the old geezer attempts to control women--they will not suceed--women will fool them every time--and they will believe it. we know how to do that and how to work that game.

http://www.congress.org

Daschle must go, and a firmly pro-choice Democrat must replace him.

late term abortions are performed annually? I know this is the internet but I just thought I would ask if someone had a link with that information available. Surely there can't be a lot of them.

When some DUers complain about our raising the issue of Catholic doctrine and policy, it's not to discuss their rituals but the POLITICAL impact that church has because it has a billion members world wide and one in every four U.S. voters!!!!
I challenge anybody who criticizes Daschel on this score to get themselves ELECTED and see what a luxury it is to be able to vote for what YOU believe rather than what your CONSTITUENTS believe. Daschel won't be there to vote for ANTHING that we want if he doesn't play his cards right; and if a Conservative Republican takes his seat, how the hell do you think HE is going to vote!?

I'm Catholic and I oppose the ban. But if Daschle felt he had to vote that way, he should step down as Democratic Senate leader, because he's served a HUGE BLOW to most Democratic women (and a lot of the men who support them.)

Most women voted for Gore over Bush because of the pro-choice position. Give me the line about how this bill wasn't banning choice and I'll no doubt be able to sell you some oceanfront property in Iowa at a hefty profit.

This bill is marked in big bold letters on Rove's whiteboard as "STEP 1 TO BAN ABORTION" - and there's a big red check next to it. Roe v. Wade was fine, and late term abortions were extremely rare. This is pure politics, and Daschle took the Republican side.

If Daschle felt he needed to do this to hold the seat (and I'm not saying that was the case) that's one thing. But if he is supposed to be representing the Democratic Party as leader in the highest legislative branch, that's another.

And his "leadership" was questionable before this.

Do you have some kind of poll or link to back that up? Thanks.

and left five kids under the age of seven in the care of her hapless husband had she not had access to this procedure.

I am very disappointed in the Dems that voted for the ban.

and maybe that's how his constitunets feel about this issue? Maybe his constituents and their feelings are more important to him than what a bunch of far left wing activists have to think? Maybe Daschle doesn't want to lose next year.

Oh yeah, this is DU. Democrats in red states are expected to vote like Barabara Lee or otherwise they are DINOs.

I thought you had perhaps finally risen above this, but there you go again.

Your long established posting history of gratutitous ridiculing black congresswomen by name such as Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, S. Jackson Lee, and Cynthia McKinney preceeds this latest post of yours, Jiacinto, and I am publicly asking you to stop it.

If you don't have the decency to stop it, then I will continually point out your history to newbies.

Hello????.....

Dems and DUrs,....Are you gonna let this issue determine
who is president???

Because most Democratic primary candidates are pro-choice. Ultimately, this is about Civil Rights. Welcome to the 1950's. Are we having fun yet? Wonder how many women will die before legislators decide this probably wasn't a real good idea? What AM I thinking? Women of means will be able to cross the border so only poor women will be subject to death and we all know they're not imporant. (/sarcasm)

To Daschle and all the rest of the Democrats who voted for this ban: Karl Rove thanks you (as soon as he stops laughing his ass off).

This may not be the only issue, but it's one of our CORE issues. As in, pretty much non-negotiable, dammit!!!

Karl must be just crackin up right now!!!

:puke:

it's only women's lives at stake. We're happy to keep on being the sacrificial gender. :mad:

Lieberman voted NO.

Lieberman has been 100% pro-choice his entire career.

Kucinich was a radical anti-choicer for 20 years. Progressive my ass. He flip-flopped, simply put. Watch Dennis Dance: Dance, Dennis, Dance!!!

And please don't give me that crap about how he had a long discussion with himself and feminists, and decided to change. He changed for political reasons, like Gephardt and Gore. But I like them. You know why? Because they aren't pushing this holier than thou attitude that Kucinich is.

Thanks.

People have turned Lieberman into the focus of hatred and the target of their frustration. He's a reasonably liberal senator, and very much a Democrat.

for many years.

That's it. It's time for a MAJOR over haul. Throw the bums out.

He's a "bum" that needs to be thrown out, right? You're not giving him a pass on this, are you?

we need a woman president.

Would have opposed this bill or would even be pro-choice. In fact, given present day voting realities, it is probably most likely that if & when a woman is elected President she will be a centrist or conservative and quite possibly a Republican.

He's voted for it, what, 4 times now? You need to perfect your online acting skills.

Democratic Party on Abortion

Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. - Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000

I am damn proud to say!!

Julie

This is the biggest wedge issue for Dems and that's why R's are pushing it.

Face it, the Dem party defends a woman's right to choose. This legislation will probably be overturned in the courts because it doesn't protect the mother's life.

Its a very complex issue, one that the news media is not good at explaining to average voters. Rallying around it is suicide for Dems and Dem candidates.

Making it a big issue in this election is suicide for Dems. Get over it, talk about something else and let the courts handle it.

There are many other health care and women's issues that will truly put peoples lives at risk that need discussion.

He's running for reelection.

How would you counter the "baby killer" advocacy ads next year? It was going to pass anyway. That's what you call giving him a "pass".

I used to think he was one of us. NO MORE !

and people that defend such votes are nothing but degenerate misogynist pukes that belong in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.

And those that accuse the pro-choice people of being radical leftwingers simply for defending a woman's right to choose are the scum of the earth, deserving of our full wrath.

If the Democratic Party is going to turn its back on abortion rights, then we should turn our backs on it!

Despite the disgusting sniveling cowards that voted for this travesty, we can take comfort that our Democratic candidates for President currently in Congress (except for John Edwards who was AWOL) voted against this piece of shit:

John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gephardt.

URGENT: Abortion ban on President's desk

Just minutes ago, Congress sent the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban to the President's desk - Bush has vowed to sign it, which will make him the first president since Roe v. Wade to criminalize safe abortion procedures.

Bush's interference in private medical decisions is no surprise. It's just the latest step in his campaign to take away a woman's right to choose. But believe me, Bush and his anti-choice friends have more anti-choice laws waiting in the wings.

We can't afford four more years of Bush undermining our privacy and a woman's right to choose at every turn. If he is re-elected, it could mean the end of Roe as we know it. It comes down to this: our only recourse is to stop Bush from being re-elected. Please click here to help us right now with a gift to elect a pro-choice president.

We have one year. Only one year to get the message to the millions of Americans who can elect a pro-choice president. It will take the leadership, action, and generosity of every single one of us. Please, I urge you to start right now. Make a gift to help elect a pro-choice president. Contribute to save a woman's right to choose today. Click here.

Then, tell your friends why women can't afford four more years of Bush's anti-choice, anti-privacy policies. Click here to spread the word.

These are difficult times. The anti-choice threat is all too real. But I'm glad we stand together in our dedication to elect a president who will protect our basic rights.

Thank you for joining me on the road to victory.

Sincerely,

Kate Michelman, President
NARAL Pro-Choice America

P.S. Please click here to ask your friends to sign-up for more news on how to help elect a pro-choice president and other updates about a woman's right to choose. And please, don't wait to give. Your support is so important in energizing Americans for the battle ahead. Thank you again for your dedication, leadership, and generosity. Click here to stop Bush.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 21, 2003

Senate Votes to Criminalize Safe Medical Procedures

Statement by NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman

Washington, DC – Today, women's right to privacy is being sacrificed to politics by the United States government. The Senate took its final step toward substituting politicians’ judgment for that of a woman, her family, and her doctor. President Bush has vowed to sign this deceptive legislation, which will make him the first President ever to outlaw safe medical procedures, and the first to sign an abortion ban since Roe v. Wade. No one should be fooled as to the real intentions of this bill’s sponsors: they want to take away entirely the right to personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose.
Please see attached quote sheet "Partial-Birth Abortions": Anti-Choice Leaders Reveal True Intentions.

http://www.naral.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/pr102103_pbasenate.cfm

You believe that Robert Byrd is a "degenerate misogynist puke() that belong(s) in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party."

I mean, he more than defended this bill. He voted for it.

This is like the 5th time you've answered someone's objection to Daschle's vote with an irrelevant comment about Byrd. Did the guy spill a coffee on you or something?

Last time I checked, Byrd wasn't Senate Minority Leader. As Minority Leader, Daschle is representing more than just the people of SD. Perhaps if the Minority Leader were from less conservative state, he or she would be able to more effectively campaign against bad legislation like this bill.

Sid

Even though I notice that NONE of the people I responded to responded to my query.

Hypocrisy bothers me. Byrd is DU's favorite bigot (just ahead of Pat Buchanan). He's a virulent homophobe, he's a religious bigot, he's anti-woman and he was looking for ways to help the Klan years after he publicly cut his ties with it. He's a vile old man who is deified by "progressives" who love the old bigot because he's tough on Bush. There is a ton of venom for Daschle on this thread and, if Lieberman had voted for this legislation, you would have heard the screams in Argentina. But Byrd, as usual, gets a pass from the supposed progressives.

Just like he gets a pass for his KKK membership, as an adult (in a high position), while others get vilified for the associations of their parents and grandparents.

Just like he gets a pass for not only voting for the Defense of Marriage Act but sponsoring it and giving one of the most hateful, bigoted speeches in a generation in support of it.

Just like he gets a pass for saying that atheists should get out of the country if they don't like the words "under God" in the pledge.

Like I said, I detest the hypocrisy and the silence from my fellow DUers on this occasion is telling ... and entirely expected.

I'm not even going to get into why I think this is SO wrong. But I will say that the only conclusion I can come to when Democrats cross the aisle to hand Bush victory after victory is that they must want him there for another four years.

we should admit that and not suffer this humiliation-there is nothing here to admire in the Democratic party--most are interested only in their own careers. I am convinced of that. It is time for a revolution. I cannot admire many of them--they are allowing the destruction of this country

He voted for it a few months ago when it first passed the senate, and he voted for it twice in the 1990's when Clinton vetoed it. I don't see how you can be against it if you represent South Dakota.

To his credit, when he was majority leader, Daschle never brought the bill to the senate floor.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

doctors will revolt! Very much of that and maybe those Dems at least will come to their senses. Repukes are too involved in their party line thinking.

I followed this thread with interest and I can't help but notice that quite a few people are looking at this issue from a very narrow perspective. Regardless of your particular opinion on this very personal issue, the fact remains that the division within the Democratic party that this creates is exactly what the Republicans want. From reading a few of the posts on here I really believe that some people would "cut off their nose to spite their face" as the old saying goes.

There is a group of posters who spends more time attacking Democrats than Republicans.

They usually don't donate and like to attack progressive Democrats.

and I understand why he voted the way he did. Had he not, he would not have had any chance of being re-elected. After all, he is representing the people of his state. I get upset with him and some of the choices he makes, but then I remember how crazy I felt the ten years I lived there. It was the norm to see run down, beat up old dirty homes and a giant Republican sign in front of it. I get upset with him (Daschle) but he really has a tough job. A democrat from South Dakota. It is amazing he keeps getting elected.

South Dakota is a funny place. I will not enter the state. I lived there 10 years and you will not under any circumstances get me to enter the state and that includes the beautiful and mystic black hills and badlands.

Daschle feels the need to placate, pamper, and coddle his repiglican colleagues in the Senate and felt that all Dems should run as "Republican Lite." Look where that got us-- we're now in the shit hole with no way out. . . I never liked him, and now I loathe him.