Sorry Pelosi, Democrats Can Be Anti-Choice If They Want... But Democratic Candidates Can't Be

Coddling anti-Choice asshole Bart Stupak, made the Affordable Care Act less defensible

You know how much I hate when people use Identity Politics for candidate selection, right? EMILY's List is the progenitor of that poison but it's spread and spread and spread since then. Yesterday I was railing a little about how the newest Identity Politics bullshit is around scientists (and fake scientists). But you name it, it's there. I'm a Korea, elect me. I'm an Indian, elect me. I'm gay, elect me. Blah, blah, blah... If the candidate isn't talking about issues, run in the other direction. But you know what's not Identity Politics? Support for abortion. That's a crucial policy that Pelosi-- much to her detriment-- is trying to undermine within the Democratic Party right now. She's wrong and she;'s not fit to lead any longer.

Shaunna Thomas is one of the co-founders of UltraViolet Action. Here's how she responded to Pelosi's deranged crap this week:

Nancy Pelosi is dead wrong if she believes that the Democratic Party should open its arms to candidates who will legislate away women’s access to safe, legal abortion. People are entitled to their own personal view, but the Democratic Party cannot and should not support and endorse candidates who seek to legislate their personal beliefs on others. Courting social conservatives by selling out women is not a winning campaign strategy, but a morally bankrupt attempt to win votes without concern for the women who desperately need Democrats in their corner to fight against Republican attempts to restrict abortion. And it’s a flawed strategy: The vast majority of people in this country support a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Make no mistake: As the Democratic leader in the House, Pelosi’s unsettling statements have the power to set the agenda for the party, and Democrats must commit themselves fully to protecting the rights of women as a non-negotiable party stance without exception. If the Democrats will not stand by women unconditionally and support their right to reproductive health care, then who will?

Ilyse Hogue is a progressive who runs NARAL. She seems to be more in touch with grassroots Democrtats than elitists like Pelosi are. This went up on her personal Facebook page yesterday:

This absolutely has to stop. Democratic leadership is sending bad messages that will lead to poor outcomes both in policy and politics. There's no excuse. Do much, much better Leader Pelosi. The only thing less excusable than winning elections on the backs of women--poor women and women of color disproportionately--is NOT winning elections and still selling them out. That's what this strategy amounts to.

Here's my full statement:

"The conversation about whether the Democratic Party has room for people who personally identify as pro-life is the wrong conversation and only plays into the hands of our political opponents. Of course the Democratic Party has room for those who identify as personally opposed to abortion. It always has and always will. However, the real question, and where we draw the line, is when candidates and elected leaders force their own ideology and religious values on their constituents and the women of this country. Legislating your own personal beliefs on women runs counter to the core democratic values of diversity, respect, dignity, and equality. Period.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates leads to bad policy outcomes that violate women's rights and endanger our economic security. It also endangers the economic security of our families, who are dependent on us as wage earners and oftentimes as primary breadwinners. It is fundamentally impossible to lift women and families out of poverty without centralizing reproductive rights and family planning.

Encouraging and supporting anti-choice candidates is also bad politics in a county where 7 in 10 Americans believe in legal access to abortion, where the majority of self-identified Republicans believe in legal access to abortion, and where a plurality of self-identified, personally 'pro-life' people believe in legal access to abortion. The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.

If anyone, at any level, believes that this election was won by Donald Trump based on his position on abortion and LGBTQ rights, we couldn't disagree more. A small minority of voters vote strictly on an anti-choice platform, and they are unlikely to join the Democratic Party anytime soon because they disagree with Democrats on most everything.

In 1984, Mario Cuomo-- who personally identified as pro-life-- gave a speech at the University of Notre Dame in which he promoted his proudly pro-choice voting record as not just vital for women, but vital for democracy. Separation of church and state is the fundamental principle that allows for our government to serve all of its people and to allow diversity to flourish. The only thing that has changed since then is that women's rights are even more under attack and now more than ever, we need party leaders to stand up for those of us most vulnerable under Donald Trump. Now more than ever, we need party leaders to stand up for those of us under attack.

Last year, both delegates for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton came together to produce the most progressive Democratic Party platform ever. That platform went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access-- it sought to expand it.

If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles.

For me, economic issues largely determine who we endorse at Blue America-- so far this year, these men and women. But before we even discuss economic issues with candidates, we want to make sure they're of sound character, solid intelligence and will never sell out communities that have been systematically and systemically disadvantaged by the Establishment, and that includes women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, gays and lesbians, the physically handicapped, etc. Once we're sure of that, it's time too move on to questions about expanding Social Security, increasing the minimum wage and revamping trade policies so that they serve the interests of American workers, not just the 1%.