How do you fee about abortion rights as a litmus test?

For myself, I wouldn't support a candidate just because they are pro-choice, but I will never vote for any candidate that is anti-choice.

Is this common?

I have the same attitude as you. The trend may be different from state to state, but in Oregon, it would be suicidal for a candidate to be loudly anti-choice.

If I don't have the right to determine what goes on with my own body, I have no other rights. That right is basic to all others.

If I lived in Pa, I'd be voting Green. There is no way I could vote either party in the race to unseat Santorum.

That's where the line is, guys. Respect it or ignore it at your peril.

Being anti-slavery, I don't vote for people who advocate putting anyone in the kind of bondage that says that the state owns your body.

And abortion rights falls into that category.

Has the SCOTUS ever thrown out a whole issue, not just legislation, as being outside the purview of government?

Could they? If so, this is definitely one of those. IMO.

Keep the healthcare, life/death, and reproductive decisions out of the hands of Government. (Period emphasized)

No anti-choice candidate will get my support. Being pro-choice is not enough, but it is an absolute requirement.

. . . but then I have many litmus papers for different issues:

Pro-Choice
Anti-war
Pro-environmental protection
Global warming is critical and must be dealt with now
Anti-corporate takeover of the world
Safe and clean alternative energy is critical
Protection of organic standards

Anyone who is against any of these is not likely to get my vote, even if they are super-democrats.

I will never vote for a candidate who believes he can legislate citizen choices based on his personal religious beliefs.

I am a civil libertarian above all else. To me, any politician who preoccupies themselves with litigious crusades against the bodies and thoughts of consenting adults is both dangerous and incompetent.

I go back to Barry Goldwater, who rightly said many times that "you can't legislate morality", and to Benjamin Franklin, who decried laws and tests that are not only wrong, but hopelessly ineffective as they "not so much...secure Religion itself, as the Emoluments of it" (letter To Richard Price, 9 October 1780).

and their constituents, so how do we end up with Harry Reid as minority leader?

rights as a woman in order to get elected by some imaginary "base". :hi:

we have a few pro life Dems running for office here in CO and it is very controversial. Why can't we just say it and be proud? It's not like we are pro-abortion. NOBODY is "pro-abortion" for heaven's sake. We are Democrats and we value CHOICE, damn it! We don't like the government forcing birth on us for some religious farce. This country is not ONLY CAtholics, we have to have choice for everyone else!

FWIW I am pro-abortion in many cases, but since I don't have a uterus, my opinion is only that and as such doesn't/shouldn't count outside of my personal life.

choice is for everybody, not just women, and it follows a theme in the American Narrative instead of being bogged down in moral semantics.

Sorry, but I no longer discuss this issue in terms of "right to an abortion".

Clinton had said he was pro-life personally but pro-choice ethically. He gave his personal view, which is his right but he knew that his view was not the view that governs this country. He stood by the Constitution and freedom for women.

The only anti-choice politician for whom I would vote would be a progressive anarchist/libertarian, who believed that, for whatever reason, that all life was "sacred." That person would have to be mostly ideologically pure -- vegan, would refuse new medical advancements that are tested on animals, and be anti-war.

That is just about the ONLY case, in which I would vote for an anti-choice candidate. Would I vote for an anti-choice Democrat? No. And I would never vote for a Republican.

As a litmus -- abortion is not the most important issue to me. Authoritarianism is, however. That said, anyone who was not pro-choice, at least legally if not personally, would be an authoritarian. The only type of individual that could pull off being anti-choice and a non-authoritarian would have to be someone with a hell of a logical argument, ideological purity, and that would be the ONE exception.

my position too. I'm pretty sure there is no possibility that such a person could ever get far in politics.

...that's my line in the sand. I will NEVER vote for someone who is anti-choice.

Cheers

I prefer a pro-choice candidate, but I will not vote for a candidate that puts the interests of the wealthy over those of working people - that's my litmus test.

I could see myself holding my nose and voting for a progressive who was against abortion (think pre-2004 Dennis Kucinich) over a right-leaning pro-choice candidate like a Bill Clinton.

I care more that the kids already here are fed than I do about access to abortion, which is mostly used as bait by the right to con fundies into voting for them. Sorry, but those are my priorities.

viewpoints, and I'm happy to say I've already heard from two of you that make me look again.
Like many others here I view it as an issue of personal liberty, after all, if we allow our government to establish a woman's uterus as property of the state, there is no freedom left. I really can't imagine anything more anti-American.

And the idea of kids living in squalor and hunger bothers me more than the idea of a woman getting a back-alley abortion (as bad as that is, she is at least an adult and better able to fend for herself than a child).

I also don't believe that the GOP really wants to ban abortion, but rather want to pretend to try and ban it for their idiot base - thus they try to pass little restrictions, or laws that they know will be struck down, etc.

It's an obvious con game to me, but their fundie followers continue to lap it up, decade after decade...

damn straight it is a litmus test with me!

Because being pro-choice is about much more than whether or not I can terminate a pregnancy -- it's fundamental indicator of how the State views me and addresses my civil rights. If the State (or a candidate) determines I am not much more than a walking baby oven and that they should have control over me against my wishes, my health, and my religious beliefs -- they are in effect telling me I am not a full citizen of this country.

And to those who would dare say that, I say "FUCK YOU".

With that said, I have voted for one anti-choice candidate in my life, Dennis Kucinich, and only because he promised that he would take no action to overturn Roe v. Wade. I felt he was an honorable man who I could trust to keep his promise, and he was 100% with me on every other issue that is important to me. It was a first for me in 20+ years of voting.

That's what outlawing abortion brings. More burglaries, assaults, and batteries.

over an anti-choice democrat? Or would you not vote for that office? Or perhaps you would vote 3rd party? There are a few pro-choice repubs out there, is why I ask.

Also, I'm reading "Crashing the Gate" & the authors discuss how one-issue voting can hurt the overall progressive cause. I've been a two-issue voter for sometime now (choice being one of the issues), but after reading this am re-thinking if I should be so rigid.

Curious what you & others think.

everything (or nearly everything) else is equal, yes I would vote for the re:puke: over the Democrat. I believe in people, American ideals, and liberty over party. (Check the Eisenhower quote in the sig)
Now if the re:puke: is a typical advocate of the ruling class over the citizens, then I'm voting for a third party.
This is the one issue that I will not accept any compromise on. If a candidate could advocate the threat or use of violence to impose a religious view on others, what wouldn't they be capable of?

I also won't vote for a candidate who is anti-free speech, anti-due process, anti-right to keep and bear arms, etc.

All individual liberties are important to me.

that I consider at the moment. I have in the past; I don't now because there are other issues that take precedence in my world view.

In a race between Arlen Spectre and Bob Casey, which would you vote for?

That's why we have 3rd parties and write-in candidates.