With The Passing Of RBG, Will The Issue Of Choice Help Or Hurt Democrats Running For Congress?

 

Right after it was announced that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away, Trumpist crackpot Angela Stanton-King sent out the above Tweet. Her opponent, Democratic state Senator Nikema Williams has been a fearless advocate for women for her entire adult life and worked as a vice president for public Policy at Planned Parenthood for a decade. Protecting women's choice isn't an issue she's going to run away from.

Early Monday morning, Omaha Democrat Kara Eastman-- the progressive candidate running for the congressional seat held by Trump sycophant Donald Bacon-- told me that "With the tragic passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I've heard from many voters in Nebraska about their fears that a more conservative Supreme Court will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. While I support Roe and I believe that women constitutionally deserve to be able to make healthcare decisions affecting their bodies in consultation with their doctors without government interference, I know as well that Rep. Don Bacon would rather have us back in the pre-Roe dark ages of back-alley abortions and second-class status for women. The fact is that if you are really 'pro-life' you would support universal pre-natal health care, you would favor Medicare for All (which isn't much different than the socialised medicine that Don Bacon has enjoyed his entire career), and you would push for massive economic investments in jobs and infrastructure that will lead to a safe recovery from Covid."

On Sunday, the NY Times noted that Abortion Was Back-Burnered In The Presidential Race. Not Anymore. "For months, abortion has been relegated to a back burner in the presidential campaign, eclipsed by a worldwide pandemic, an economic crisis and protests over racial justice. But the death of Justice Ginsburg and the looming confirmation battle to replace her could force the candidates to discuss a volatile issue six weeks before Election Day that carries significant political risks for both sides, even as it energizes portions of their bases. Mainstream views on abortion are more moderate than those of the activists on either wing, with most Americans saying that abortions should be legal with some restrictions. An all-out fight over abortion could further alienate the more moderate suburban voters both sides are competing for. Democrats especially must navigate their own divisions over how far to push an issue that Mr. Biden has long found personally uncomfortable."

I'll leave Biden's response to the centrist spin doctors he has running his campaign. Instead, I am interested in knowing how the GOP rush to ramrod through a far-right anti-Choice Supreme Court justice who wants to end women's Choice is going to play out in congressional races around the country. Kara Eastman is running in a 50-50 purple district and her forthright position on Choice shows conviction... and courage. Same for California progressive Audrey Denney, who's running for a red California seat held by anti-Choice fanatic Dog LaMalfa. Many in the district are anti-Choice but that isn't keeping Denney from speaking out loudly and clearly. "Choice has always been a top issue for me," she told me yesterday. "I’ve been endorsed by EMILY’s List, Planned Parenthood, and Vote Pro Choice. Our polling shows it, along with access to medical care, a top issues with some of our important voter groups." She issued this statement to voters in CA-01:  

This is a terrifying moment in U.S. history, when 46 years of precedent for recognizing women’s right to privacy and sovereignty over their own bodies is being systematically dismantled. The policymakers who have put forward these archaic bans on safe and legal abortion claim to be doing so because they value human life.

I deeply respect the sanctity of life. I believe that life is created by God, and I believe that every woman has the right to choose whether or not she will participate in bringing life into being. No one has the right to tell her that she must. Making the decision to end a pregnancy is a difficult and tragic one-- but having the right to make that decision is foundational to protecting women’s health, privacy, and well-being.

If the people who wrote these laws truly cared for the sanctity of life, they would be working tirelessly to reduce our country’s maternal mortality rate (currently the worst among industrialized nations), but instead they are limiting or eliminating care, and more mothers are dying during childbirth. They would be investing in initiatives to improve infant and child health and access to early education and child care. They would be fighting for paid family leave, so that parents have adequate time to regain their own health and support their new child. They would be losing sleep over the 12 million children in this country who will go to bed hungry because their parents are trapped in poverty, unable to earn a living wage.

I imagine a world where fewer women face the difficult decisions surrounding ending a pregnancy. Statistics have proven since Roe v. Wade, the path to that kind of world is not through restrictive legislation around abortion. That path is achieved through policies that support women and families, and make it easier for families to thrive in our country.

The legislators who support abortion bans have failed us. They have failed their constituents. They have failed our nation. Their time is up.

Kathy Ellis, is the progressive Democrat running to replace Trump enabler Jason Smith in the reddest district in Missouri, the eighth congressional district in the southeast corner of the state, where Missouri comes together with Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and southern Illinois. The PVI is R+24 and Trump beat Hillary there 75.4% to 21.0%. Perhaps counterintuitively, polling shows that most voters in the district are pro-Choice. Jason Smith certainly isn't. Kathy's campaign has been advertising her endorsement by Planned Parenthood extensively and she certainly isn't backing away from her pledge to protect Choice. "I've always been a proud pro-choice candidate," she told me, "and protecting the right to choose is not a foreign fight for Missourians who have been up against staunchly anti-choice bills for over a decade. But now, with the passing of Justice Ginsburg, this fight has certainly gained importance. In a rural district such as mine, we've actually seen most folks fall into the pro-choice category, and when the Missouri legislature attempted to pass a full abortion ban, with no exceptions, we saw a huge increase in pro-choice organizing in the District. When I first announced my campaign, I was advised to avoid this issue, but for me, protecting a person's reproductive freedom is at the heart of why I'm running for office. I've always been proudly pro-choice, and I'll always be honest about who I am."

Republican Chris Jacobs is another garden variety Trump sycophant and anti-Choice ass. Typical e-mail to his supporters (last week):

The progressive Democrat running for his western New York congressional seat is our old friend Nate McMurray. Earlier, McMurray told me that "The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court became a political fight to the death in 2018 just before the midterm elections. Now the unthinkable has happened, and Justice Ginsburg's death has launched us into another situation where she hasn't even been laid to rest and Mitch McConnell is salivating over another chance to put his hypocrisy on full display-- just 43 days away from the election. Just as COVID-19 magnified the issues with our healthcare system, RBG's death reminds us all that even institutions like the Supreme Court are not safe from the corrosion of toxic political forces. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Affordable Care Act on November 10th. Should the Republican party have its way, millions of Americans will be thrown off their health insurance before the second wave of the pandemic hits. Reproductive rights, labor rights, civil rights, and so much more are on the line. The GOP has sunk so low-- it's not a time for us to 'go high;' we've got to fight like hell for the future of this country."

There's no question about where Mondaire Jones was coming down on this issue. One of the best hopes for progressive leadership in the next session of Congress, he's running to hold an open, narrowly blue district. ""Unfortunately, the Trump Administration and the Republican Party have systematically undermined women’s reproductive freedom," he said this morning. "The federal government must step in to protect civil rights-- and it cannot leave those rights up to the extreme conservative majority on the Supreme Court. As a member of Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade by statute, repeal the Hyde Amendment, and ensure that any Medicare for All legislation includes coverage for the full range of reproductive services. That’s why I’m proud to be endorsed by leading pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America. My opponent, meanwhile, is anti-choice and intends to be a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom, which could not be more out of step with the values of our district."

Of course it isn't just in congressional and federal races where the "new" issue is being injected into the election. I spoke with Heidi Campbell yesterday. The mayor of Oak Hill and a state Senate candidate in Tennessee, she is on the verge of ousting anti-Choice Republican Steve Dickerson and flipping a red seat blue. You can help her do that here. I asked her how the Supreme Court being threatened with another anti-Choice extremist is playing out in her suburban Nashville district.

"Devastatingly, she told me, "the October surprise came early this year-- not to say that there won’t be several more, in this accelerating-ly chaotic wreck of a year. Each time something like this happens though, we have to reassess the dynamics of our race. I am running for state Senate in Tennessee’s District 20 which is gerrymandered to carve out the conservative pockets of Nashville’s metropolitan area. This district has been trending blue and went for Clinton in the last election. In fact, two separate polls show us narrowly ahead of the incumbent. Democrats have not flipped a state Senate seat in Tennessee in over fifteen years, and we have a great shot at flipping this one. The SCOTUS appointment to fill RBG’s seat cuts both ways of course-- both sides are energized by it, and it should strengthen the position of candidates like myself who are running in districts that are gaining Democratic voters. But this also means that Republicans are going to spend as much as they can to hang on to their seats, and in our race they have purchased several hundred thousand dollars worth of television ad time to run attack ads against our campaign over the next five weeks. Our team is fighting with every fiber of our beings to flip this seat, in a state where anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant (and many other) bills are intentionally seeded to wend their way up to the Supreme Court. We simply do not have as much money as the Republicans, and since we’re not going to have election finance reform in the next six weeks, we have GOT to raise as much as we can to win."

 

Choice Survives Trump's Supreme Court To Fight Another Day-- John Roberts Disappoints Team Red Again

As usual, there was a lot of news yesterday-- head-spinning. But one thing that no-one should overlook is the importance of the Supreme Court striking down a Louisiana abortion law that was meant to prevent abortions in the state. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the 4 liberals on the Court to override the far right contingent working to overturn Roe v Wade. Roberts said "respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority," an indication that he would probably vote to uphold Roe v Wade as well.

Last week Roberts also sided with the liberals to preserve workplace equality for the LGBTQ community and to uphold the DACA program. I checked over at Breitbart to see what the lunatic fringe was taking the news.

I also checked in on some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates who are running against anti-choice candidates, starting with Audrey Denney, who is running against a California GOP dinosaur, Doug LaMalfa (CA-01). "This is a terrifying moment in U.S. history, when 46 years of precedent for recognizing women’s right to privacy and sovereignty over their own bodies is being systematically dismantled," she wrote. "The policymakers who have put forward these archaic bans on safe and legal abortion claim to be doing so because they value human life... Making the decision to end a pregnancy is a difficult and tragic one-- but having the right to make that decision is foundational to protecting women’s health, privacy, and well-being. If the people who wrote these laws truly cared for the sanctity of life, they would be working tirelessly to reduce our country’s maternal mortality rate (currently the worst among industrialized nations), but instead they are limiting or eliminating care, and more mothers are dying during childbirth. They would be investing in initiatives to improve infant and child health and access to early education and child care. They would be fighting for paid family leave, so that parents have adequate time to regain their own health and support their new child. They would be losing sleep over the 12 million children in this country who will go to bed hungry because their parents are trapped in poverty, unable to earn a living wage... The legislators who support abortion bans have failed us. They have failed their constituents. They have failed our nation. Their time is up."

Jon Hoadley know exactly what she's talking about. He's running for Congress, while still a member of the Michigan state legislature, where he often has to debate with the kinds of failed legislators Denney was writing about. "Reproductive healthcare is healthcare," he told me today. "Frankly, I was surprised but also encouraged to see the Supreme Court affirming the right to access to healthcare for folks in Louisiana, and across the country. For Michiganders, Fred Upton has been a steadfast vote to scale back or otherwise diminish reproductive healthcare. While this decision from the Supreme Court is encouraging, it's critical that we elect leaders up and down the ballot who will continue to protect healthcare going forward." And that reminds me-- this Blue America 2020 congressional thermometer on the right will allow you to contribute to pro-Choice candidates all on one page. Just click on it.

Julie Oliver is running for a seat in Central Texas, taking on an entrenched anti-Choice incumbent, Roger Williams. "Every woman should have the choice of when she wants to have children, when she doesn’t, and every woman should have the freedom to raise those children in a safe, healthy environment," said Julie today. "But in Texas, ideological attacks on womens' reproductive healthcare have led to a tragic, alarming maternal mortality crisis that disproportionately harms Black women and their babies. We need to enshrine Roe v. Wade and repeal the Hyde Amendment."

Chris Armitage is a man in eastern Washington running for a seat held by a woman-- but she's anti-Choice and he's pro-Choice. "Cathy McMorris," he told me, "wants to criminalize abortion; she doesn't believe in a person's jurisdiction over their own body. She wants to see Roe vs Wade overturned. She is an extremist who is trying to create an America where victims of rape have no choice, and their voice over what happens to their body is once again taken away, as the government forces them to have a child without their consent. Then in Cathy's America they also cut SNAP benefits so that the mother and child subsequently starve. We can do better, we need to stop Cathy, and I will be the candidate to unseat her."

Kathy Ellis lives in southeast Missouri, a hot house of right-wing ideology and anti-choice fanaticism. Her opponent, in fact, is a right-wing fanatic who vehemently opposes women's choice. She told me that "As a candidate in a state like Missouri-- with some of the strictest abortion laws in the country-- I’m relieved to hear of SCOTUS’s decision today. It’s one many hope-inspiring decisions we’ve seen recently, and it reminds us that organizing and advocacy works. Now, about my opponent Jason Smith who is staunchly anti-choice and parades around his Right to Life endorsement at every chance he gets-- it’s time for him to go. He’s clearly on the wrong side of history and his stance on this topic is one held by only a few Americans. Even in a district like mine that’s rural and recently red, we’ve seen large actions and progress surrounding abortion rights. It’s time for a leader who agrees with the majority of Americans on this topic. Further, if Smith was truly 'pro-life,' he’d fight for healthcare for all, access to healthy food, and strong education systems. Instead, he regularly votes against all of these things. It’s a facade, and the American people see that clearly."


  

The Nature Of Conservatism-- Profiting From Societal Adversity

McConnell is a master of one thing and one thing only-- obstruction

I'm not going to argue about conservative, greed-obsessed businessmen rushing headlong into markets to profit from societal disruption. It's not illegal and anyone who ever thought a conservative had an predisposition towards ethical or Christian fundamental values was just kidding themselves anyway. My beef, though, is with conservative greed-obsessed elected officials. What I expect from private citizens of a conservative bent is not what I expect from conservative public officials. Nor should you. In two separate polls, a majority of North Carolina voters say Senator Richard Burr, who said in 2016 that he wouldn't run again, should resign for selling $1.6 million in hotel and other stocks based on inside information he obtained as chair of the Senate Intel Committee. He was only one of nearly a dozen conservatives in Congress who were doing the same thing-- selling stocks before the deluge-- although one, right-wing congressman Rob Wittman (R-VA) ran out as soon as he had some inside info and bought thousands of dollars of stock in AbbVie, Inc, which makes antiviral drugs. (His greed and lack of ethics, though, did him no good; he lost money too.) Robert Reich yesterday: Senators Loeffler and Burr-- and any other senator if found to have benefited from insider information about the pandemic, including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)-- must resign immediately."

Last night the Washington Post reported that "Trump’s private business has shut down six of its top seven revenue-producing clubs and hotels because of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, potentially depriving Trump’s company of millions of dollars in revenue. Those closures come as Trump is considering easing restrictions on movement sooner than federal public health experts recommend, in the name of reducing the virus’s economic damage." Trump had two reactions. First was to tell Mnuchin that a bailout for [his] hotels and golf courses had to be included in any stimulus package and second was that he's opening the economy again, no matter what it does to the efforts to flatten the curve and save lives.

And now Mitch McConnell is leading Senate Republicans to pass a stimulus package that serves their own partisan interests and the desires of the donor class while screwing over working families, the same way they did in 2008. Georgia Senate candidate TeresaTomlinson saw it the same way I did. Yesterday she sent her supporters a note that included this: "Now, amidst a global pandemic, Republican senators are committing insider trading while they try to score a $500 billion slush fund for a corporate bailout that would help their donors. The world’s challenges are too important to continue with failed Republican leadership. We have to defeat the Republicans this November to fix the Affordable Care Act, guarantee universal healthcare, and protect people-- not corporations-- from the coronavirus pandemic."

But wait! Won't Trump fix everything now that we're going from "It's a hoax" to resurrection Sunday in April?

Also Yesterday, Tom Neuburger pointed out the crossroads the country has come to: a collision between two competing imperatives-- "does the nation serve the pathological wants of the few who control it or the immediate and existential needs of the many who live in it?"

The few-- the bankers and profiteers; investors and CEOs of all kinds and stripes; their well-paid enablers in the media and professional classes-- think the coronavirus emergency will pass and "business" (our modern, rapacious way of doing it) will eventually return to normal.

Thus for them, the current crisis represents once-in-a-generation opportunity for theft on the grandest of scales, the plundering of public goods and control in the time of greatest emergency. They think this theft, like the many similar others that went before it, will occur with no consequence for them and only long-term consequences for others-- thefts like the 2000 election, which cost them nothing while adding to their power and credibility, but left a great many others broken or dead; or the theft of family fortunes and futures during the 2008 global meltdown, losses that even today only they have recovered from.

...[T]he massive loss of wealth by the working class after 2008-- wealth they have still not regained-- happened slowly, and in a nation filled with "back to normal" TV propaganda (you don't see the struggling depicted on spry network dramas and comedies) their constant pain has by now been normalized and accepted as just the way things are "for some people." (Those "some people," it must be noted, put Donald Trump in the White House.)

...On whose side will government throw its weight? On the side of the pathological few or the side of the suffering many?

The answer to that question will determine the future of the nation. Will we more resemble the country of FDR and his widely loved government for the people, or that of Louis XVI and his overthrown government of the people. A crossroads indeed. Will the national needs of the many be honored and met? Or will the pathological few light a flame that burns us all?

Now listen carefully to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), a progressive, not a conservative. Ignore the imbecile talking head asking him questions, but listen to what he is prioritizing.





Crackpot Republicans in Ohio and Texas are breaking the law by using the pandemic as cover to prohibit all abortions. That's what conservatives have always done and will always do-- look for ways to push their toxic, anti-family agenda whenever they can take advantage of an opportunity, no matter how dire.

Today, Bernie, reacting to the decision by the Trump Regime's FDA to grant Gilead Sciences a seven-year monopoly for antiviral medication remdesivir for potential treatment of the coronavirus, said "It is truly outrageous that after taxpayers put tens of millions of dollars into developing remdesivir, Trump’s FDA is exploiting a law reserved for rare diseases to privatize a drug to treat a pandemic virus. The Trump Administration must rescind this corporate giveaway to Gilead and make any treatment and vaccine free for everybody. Now is not the time for profiteering in the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time to bring our scientists together to develop and produce the best treatment for the coronavirus as quickly as possible. When Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine 65 years ago, he understood the tremendous value it would have for all of humanity, and he refused to patent it. Right now, we must put human life above corporate profit. We cannot give pharmaceutical corporations a monopoly on treatments that could save millions of people during this crisis."

Foolishly, McConnell Ramps Up The Republican Party's War On Women Again

Why would McConnell get the GOP war against women rolling again, juts as the election season is moving into high gear? Who gained and who lost yesterday when he forced the Senate into a no-win situation with two abortion votes. McConnell's no fool and he knew there was no possibility the already-rejected bills would pass. So why move away from his strategy of no votes on policy, just on Trumpist confirmations of judges and other characters sent over by the Regime?

Do the culture war bills to sharply restrict access to late-term abortions and threaten doctors who perform them with criminal penalties signal a decision by the GOP to make Freedom of Choice a campaign issue this year? Apparently so. They'll certainly energize the anti-Choice warriors in the Republican coalition.

Most polling shows just over a third of voters think abortions should be illegal-- in a recent ABC-Washington Post poll 22% said illegal in most cases and 14% said illegal in all cases. As always, a majority of Americans agree that abortions should be legal on all or most cases and that the decision should be up to the pregnant woman.

A few years ago, Pew took a look at how opinions on abortions differed by state. The backward, reactionary states that always vote Republican and where people lose their teeth early in life because they don't understand dental care, are totally anti-choice of course. These are the states where the fewest people back a woman's right to choice:

• West Virginia- 35%
• Kentucky- 36%
• Mississippi- 36%
• Alabama- 37%
• Arkansas- 38%
• Louisiana- 39%
• Tennessee- 40%
• South Carolina- 42%

And these are the states-- almost all blue-- they overwhelmingly favor leave the decision up to the woman and those she chooses to consult:

• Massachusetts- 74%
• Vermont- 70%
• Connecticut- 67%
• Hawaii- 66%
• New Hampshire- 66%
• New York- 64%
• Maine- 64%
• Maryland- 64%
• Oregon- 63%
• Rhode Island- 63%
• Alaska- 63%
• Nevada- 62%
• New Jersey- 61%
• Washington- 60%
• Colorado- 59%
• California- 57%
• Illinois- 56%
• Florida- 56%
• Montana- 56%
• Delaware- 55%

Neither bill got through the Democratic technical filibuster. The first got 53 votes out of the 60 needed, with Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Bob Casey (D-PA) voting with all the Republicans except Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The second vote got 56 votes, coming closer to being able to shut downtime filibuster. Collins and Murkowski both voted with the Republicans on that one, as did Alabama Democrat Doug Jones.

Will their votes against Choice today hurt Susan Collins (with hardcore Republicans in Maine), Dan Sullivan (AK), Cory Gardner (CO), Steve Daines (MT)? And what about in states with Senate races that are more closely divided? North Carolina, for example has 49% favoring Choice and 45% opposed. How is that going to impact Thom Tillis in November? Did Joni Ernst make a mistake today by voting against Choice? Iowa has a 52% pro-Choice majority and just 46% against it. Arizona senator Martha McSally voted for the restrictions but a plurality of her constituents-- 49-46%-- favor choice... and that plurality has been growing since the poll was taken half a dozen years ago.

People think of Alaska as a red state. Obama lost both times he ran and Trump beat Hillary 52.8% tp 37.6%. But look at those numbers on Choice. Alaskans are strongly on the pro-Choice side. Yesterday, savvy Republican Lisa Murkowski voted against the Republican position on the first bill, while Dan Sullivan, a bit of a bunk-head  and who's up for reelection, voted against Choice. His opponent, a political independent and a medical doctor, pounced. Al Gross told me that "Dan is nothing but a zealot for the far right wing's harmful partisan agenda, and this vote epitomizes that. For all his talk about small government, he and his DC pals believe it's the government's job to interfere with a woman's right to choose. Well I believe differently. As a Doctor, an Alaskan, and a father, I call this behavior out. Dan Sullivan-- maybe you haven't learned yet, but this is not representative of Alaskan values. Study quick, November is right around the corner and we're going to beat you."

As for the presidential campaign, this is an issue Republicans also lose on in key swing states in the Midwest (besides Florida and New Hampshire):

• Wisconsin- 53-45%
• Pennsylvania- 51-44%
• Ohio- 48-47%
• Michigan- 54-42%

The votes today may have been helpful to McConnell himself, but it looks like most vulnerable Republican senators will be hurt by it. Cory Gardner, another example, has always been an anti-Choice fanatic-- something he proved again yesterday. I asked his progressive opponent, former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff how that vote will play in Gardner's struggling reelection campaign. "For Mitch McConnell, Cory Gardner, and their right-wing allies," said Romanoff, "criminalizing abortion is more important than feeding the 11 million children who will go hungry tonight in the richest nation on earth. Shameful."

David Perdue-- The Cowardice Of His Convictions

Last July, Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive candidate among the Democrats seeking the nomination to run against Georgia incumbent Trumpist David Perdue, write a guest post for us about political courage, Crippling Political Fear. It was more about Democrats than Republicans. “It’s fear,” she wrote, “that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles. One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.”

I suggest you read her entire essay at the link above but she conclude “The key to winning is that you don’t aim to win, you aim to lead. If you lead, the winning takes care of itself-- or at least you move the needle so profoundly you set up the next winner, as did Stacey Abrams in Georgia with her heroic non-loss in Georgia. She was who she was and voters responded to that. That’s not fear, that’s winning.”

The video above, though, is not about a fearful Democratic politician afraid of his own position. It’s about a fearful Republican politician, Senator David Perdue, afraid of his own position. When 39 Senate Republicans signed onto an anti-Roe v Wade amicus brief to the Supreme Court last week, Perdue, though an anti-Choice fanatic, was one of the only Republicans who wouldn’t.

Odd finding Perdue’s name on a short list of mainstream conservatives like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski instead of with the neo-fascists like James Inhofe, Tom Cotton, John Cornyn and Moscow Mitch. But, like electorally vulnerable Cory Gardner (CO), Martha McSally (AZ) and Dan Sullivan (AZ), Perdue was too chickenshit to vote his convictions.

“David Perdue is not fooling anybody,” Tomlinson told us on Friday. “Georgians are not so easily fooled by his decision not to sign onto the Republican amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Senator Perdue has stated time and again that he is ‘unwavering’ in his belief that women can’t be trusted to make the most intimate medical decisions affecting their lives and their reproductive health. He has confirmed dozens and dozens of federal judges who are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Though he purports to be a ‘small government’ conservative, he firmly believes that the government can invade a woman’s private, personal decisions related to abortion, and he believes that women have fewer rights to their own bodily autonomy than a man.”

Let’s help Teresa get rid of this political coward. She’s, by far, the best-suited of the Democrats competing to do that. And the Congress Needs More Progressive Women thermometer on the right is how you can contribute to her grassroots campaign. “Mr. Perdue,” she said, “we see your political duplicity, your election year cynicism. You have shown us the cowardice of your convictions. The people are tired of leaders who won’t level with them. That’s not leadership. You don’t trust women, and we don’t trust you in the U.S. Senate.” You can read more about Teresa’s record on her campaign website here and find out where she stands on a wide range of issues. The contrast between Teresa and Perdue on women’s reproductive freedom couldn’t be starker. Teresa:

• I believe that women’s reproductive rights are basic human rights.
• I believe that bodily autonomy is an essential component of the freedom and equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
• I believe that politicians should stay out of the private and highly individualized medical considerations of a woman’s reproductive health.
• I reject the notion that a pregnancy creates an independent “person” under the law. Indeed, a woman is the sole fiduciary of her body and any pregnancy she carries.
• I support the fundamental right to abortion enshrined by Roe v. Wade and will only vote for the confirmation of federal judges who commit to adhere to the bedrock judicial principle of stare decisis.
• I support the repeal of policies, including the Hyde Amendment, which prohibit abortion coverage for women who get their reproductive care through government-administered healthcare programs.

Technically, The Move To End Women's Choice Is Bipartisan-- Thanks To Two DCCC Blue Dogs

Dan Lipinksi (IL) and Collin Peterson (MN), two of the scumbag Blue Dogs whose reelection protection Cheri Bustos has made her life’s work, joined over two hundred women-hating Republican fanatics-- 166 in the House and 39 senators-- in signing the amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to outlaw women’s Choice by overturning Roe v Wade. And you laughed when we pointed out that Lipinski could well be the next Blue Dog to join his pal Jeff Van Drew in leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP? Peterson has already announced he’s too old to switch parties in the twilight of his career, but Lipinski is evasive about his plans, especially if-- as many people think-- he’s beaten in the March primary by progressive activist Marie Newman.

On Thursday morning, Newman told Chicagoland voters that “Lipinski’s decision to sign this amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade is further proof of his willingness to pursue a distorted personal agenda and extreme views at the expense of his constituents’ health and best interests. My opponent does not trust women and he is not fit to represent us. Congressman Lipinski refuses to stand up for the values of our community and it is time that our district has real leadership.”

Lipinski, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, has co-sponsored 54 bills attacking the right to choose, including bills sponsored by Mike Pence, Steve King, and Todd Akin. He co-sponsored legislation to require invasive ultrasounds before women receive an abortion and he voted against a measure to create an exemption to an abortion ban for when the life of the mother was at risk. Trump personally thanked him for his work supporting the movement to take away a woman’s right to choose at an anti-abortion dinner in 2018. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case March 4, just 2 weeks before the Illinois primary.

The case will be the first anti-Choice attempt to overthrow Roe v Wade since Trump appointed two anti-Choice fanatics, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh-- to the Supreme Court. Charles Pierce, writing for Esquire Thursday, noted that this is a problem America has with Republicans, not just with Trump. “In case you were wondering,” wrote Pierce, “if simply replacing the president will be enough to wring the extremism out of the Republican Party, think again… This is going for broke. This is about tossing the privacy rights of 51 percent of the American people overboard. They want abortions made illegal, every one of them. Critical to their argument is the notion that the protocol set down in Roe is ‘unworkable.’ Of course, after doctors get shot, clinics get bombed, judicial vandalism, and SLAPP suits fall like iron rain, almost any system will be rendered ‘unworkable.’”

The Fifth Circuit labored to do the best it could with the vague and opaque “undue burden” standard on which the Court has relied since Casey. Amici respectfully suggest that the court’s struggle-- similar to dozens of other courts’ herculean struggles in this area-- illustrates the unworkability of the “right to abortion” found in Roe and the need for the Court to take up the issue of whether Roe and Casey should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled.

“That’s been the whole point all along,” noted Pierce.

Protecting Women's Choice From The Trumpists

Trump doesn't give a whit about women's Choice one way or the other and the only thought he ever put into it before being persuaded it can be used as a potent political weapon against his enemies, was when he was relieved legal abortion could be used to get rid of fetuses in women he had knocked up. But as a political weapon... now you're talking his language! Yesterday NPR reported his regime was defeated in court over the "Conscience Rule," another bogus attempt by the far right to infringe on Choice.

In a blow to the Trump administration, a federal court in Manhattan has knocked down a rule that would make it easier for doctors and other health care workers to refuse care for religious reasons.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled Wednesday that the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued the regulation earlier this year, exceeded its authority and "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in promoting it.

The department's violations of federal law, according to the judge's opinion, were "numerous, fundamental, and far-reaching"-- and he vacated the rule entirely, just over two weeks before it was set to take effect Nov. 22.

...The rule's critics... saw it as a means of allowing health care workers to circumvent rules against discrimination. And they quickly took the Trump administration to court-- with more than two dozen states, cities and organizations such as Planned Parenthood filing lawsuits against Severino and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. Those suits were later consolidated into one case, which Engelmayer oversaw.

There's also another lawsuit against this rule, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in that consolidated case include the state of California, Santa Clara County, and organizations such as Lambda Legal. It wasn't immediately clear what Wednesday's ruling means for the case in California.

As NPR has reported, this rule was part of a big push from the Office for Civil Rights to bolster "religious freedom" in health care. Severino, who is Catholic and formerly of the conservative Heritage Foundation, has argued that previous administrations did not fully enforce existing law that protected what supporters call health care workers' "conscience rights."

To remedy that, Severino created a Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom in January 2018, and in May of this year, his office issued this rule.

The rule was designed to bolster the rights of providers to opt-out of care, even without prior notice of their objections to their employer. It also expanded the type of workers who are able to file complaints about rights violations to include billing staff and receptionists and anyone else who in any way "assist[s] in the performance" of a procedure.

Complaints of such violations are relatively rare-- for a decade, the office would receive an average of one complaint like this each year. Severino frequently pointed to a jump in those complaints to 343 last year as proving the need for this rule. He attributed that increase to a strong message from his office that they were "open for business" when it came to issues of religious freedom.

However, that increase in the number of complaints is "demonstrably false," according to Englemayer's ruling. Nearly 80% of all the complaints given to the court were about vaccinations-- unrelated to health care workers and their religious beliefs in providing care.

The judge writes that only 21-- or 6%-- of the complaints the government provided the court are even potentially related to providers' moral or religious objections. During oral arguments, the government's attorney conceded that the real number of complaints were "in that ballpark."

"This conceded fact is fatal to HHS's stated justification for the Rule," Englemayer writes. "Even assuming that all 20 or 21 complaints implicated the Conscience Provisions, those 20 or 21 are a far cry from the 343 that the Rule declared represented a 'significant increase' in complaints."

In a statement to NPR, the government said, "HHS, together with DOJ, is reviewing the court's opinion and so will not comment on the pending litigation at this time."

Eva Putzova is running for Congress in an Arizona congressional district occupied by a conservative Blue Dog and former Republican legislator, Tom O'Halleran. He's as anti-Choice fanatic, just like his GOP colleagues. "I believe," Eva told us this morning, "in the absolute right to a safe, legal abortion. I support the court's ruling against the DHS rule allowing providers to violate reproductive rights under the guise of so-called "religious freedom." There is no "religious freedom" to deny constitutional rights to individuals or protected groups such as those seeking abortions. Too often, Democrats allow reactionary anti-choice groups to set the terms of debate when it comes to women and others seeking to control their own bodies. Each year, the Congress votes to pass the Hyde amendment which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion and way too many Democrats roll over with barely a peep of public opposition. This is personal for me. My own grandmother died from a botched abortion in 1946 leaving my 2-year old mother to grow up without her mother. When I am in Congress I will fight for full reproductive freedom and I will not stay quiet until we achieve it."

Jon Hoadley, the progressive Michigan state Rep. running for the southwestern Michigan House seat held by anti-Choice Trump enablers Fred Upton told me yesterday that "Today's court ruling is a step in the right direction to protect a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies and their family planning-- without interference from their bosses or the government."

Kathy Ellis' opponent, Jason Smith, is an anti-Choice fanatic and in their rural southeast Missouri district women's Choice is constantly under threat. "Everyone-- regardless of zip code, age, sex, or income-- should have access to basic healthcare, including abortion access." Using 'religious liberty' as an excuse for denying folks' access to healthcare is wrong and quite honestly, shameful."

Jason Butler is a progressive Wade County, North Carolina pastor vying for a House seat with anti-Choice extremist and Trump enabler George Holding. In an informal discussion, he told me that "one thing that evangelicals have been arguing for years is that they should not have to serve the public if that service violates their faith convictions. On its own, this sounds ok-- but the problem becomes that different people believe vastly different things about other people. While a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is one thing (which no one should do-- but honestly, they probably have the right to do)-- this can reach into life-threatening situations. Should an EMS deny life-saving CPR to a transgender woman if they disagree with their 'sexuality'? Should a doctor refuse to care for an undocumented minor because their faith teaches them to 'obey the law'… this is the danger of 'religious freedom.' It knows no end. We have a variety of faiths, and some pretty crazy belief systems within faiths-- anyone can get away with whatever they want to do and just call it their 'religious right.' While the constitution guarantees that we may practice our religion without persecution or interference from the state-- those protections should not be extended to the responsibilities of one's professional duties within my public job. If a part of one's job violates the principles of their faith, then they have every right to resign and find another job-- but not to refuse the service that is central to that job."

Lauren Ashcraft is a progressive congressional candidate for a New York City district occupied by garden variety Democrat and Wall Street ally Carolyn Maloney. This morning, Lauren told us that "It’s difficult to follow the logic in using 'religious liberty' to force your personal religious beliefs (or the positions you are being lobbied to have) on an entire country. I say this as a proud member of a Christian congregation in my district. I look forward to the very real possibility that the ERA will soon be ratified and everyone will be equal according to federal law, regardless of gender. I support the right to bodily autonomy and hope to get past when reproductive rights are always on the chopping block as political sport."

How Long Before The Missouri GOP Cult Passes A Law Forbidding Women To Drive? Or Wear Shoes?

Last May, when Missouri's unelected governor, Mike Parson, signed a law banning abortion after the eighth week of pregnancy with no exceptions for cases of rape and incest-- just one of a whole slew of anti-Choice laws passed by state's with GOP governors and Republican-controled legislatures that passed since Trump appointed two anti-Choice Supreme Court judges. The states are competing to see which case overturns Roe v. Wade. In Missouri's case, though, a federal judge blocked Parson from enforcing the obviously unconstitutional law 2 months ago. The Republicans struck back by refusing to renew the license for Missouri’s last remaining abortion clinic, which could make Missouri the first state to win the "we have no abortion providers" sweepstakes. Earlier this week, Robert Langellier, reporting for Reuters, noted that the state of that clinic is in the hands of an arbiter. The hearing began Monday and are expected to continue for a few more days.

Missouri health officials earlier this year declined to renew the clinic’s license on the grounds that it failed to meet their standards, which included mandatory interviews with several physicians involved in what the health department said were multiple life-threatening abortions at the clinic.

Planned Parenthood officials have said they do not directly employ all the clinic’s staff and cannot force them to give interviews. The organization has said the state’s effort to close the clinic is politically motivated, which the state denies.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the United States, with opponents citing religious beliefs to declare it immoral, while abortion-rights activists say the procedure is legally protected and that bans rob women of control over their bodies and futures.

Missouri is one of 12 states to pass laws restricting abortion access this year, some aimed at provoking a U.S. Supreme Court review of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy.

Last week, Planned Parenthood opened an abortion clinic just 13 miles (21 km) from the St. Louis clinic in Fairview Heights, Illinois, capable of treating up to 11,000 patients per year.

“While we continue the fight to maintain access in Missouri, we are excited to expand our abortion services in Illinois,” Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood’s southwest regional chapter, said in a statement.

Blue America has just one candidate so far this cycle, Kathy Ellis and we asked her for a perspective from her rural southeast district which is already very far from the state's one clinic-- and very red. Below is her guest post. If you'd like to help her campaign, please consider contributing by clicking on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Missouri is a crumbling state. From the Republican supermajority state legislature’s refusal to expand Medicaid to the constant attacks on working people at the local, state, and federal levels, the only hope for our state is new leadership.

Recently, one area of our state that has garnered national attention is its treatment of those seeking abortions. Let’s lay the groundwork: there is currently only one facility providing abortions in Missouri, and it’s in St. Louis. The state is constantly trying to close it by implementing absurd regulations and laws, such as hallway width laws and a requirement that providers have admitting privileges to local hospitals, most of which are religiously-run. Its most recent attack is even more sinister: earlier this year, the Missouri Department of Health claimed they found “deficient practices” at the only abortion clinic in the state, Reproductive Health Services of Missouri which is in a Planned Parenthood affiliate. These claims were never backed up with evidence, but as a result, the clinic is currently-- as we speak-- involved in a hearing that will determine the fate of the clinic’s license. As a part of this hearing, it came to light that the Director of the Health Department [Randall Williams] has been using a spreadsheet to track patients’ menstrual cycles. It’s all very disturbing, to say the least.





But let’s expand this conversation. As mentioned, there is one clinic who provides abortions in the entire state, and it’s located in St. Louis. I am running for Missouri’s 8th Congressional District, a 30-county district south of St. Louis. The District is massive. It takes 4.5 hours to get across it, and 3 hours to get to its southernmost point. While Missouri has an abortion clinic, it is almost completely inaccessible to the people in the 8th District. With the strict restrictions at the state level, including a 72-hour waiting period, in-person, medically inaccurate abortion “counseling,” and a same provider consent rule, it’s almost impossible for a person in the 8th District to receive an abortion in this state. Not to mention-- the 8th has one of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the country, and rural hospitals are rapidly closing. Not only is there not abortion access in the 8th, there is also not basic healthcare access.

The only hope for the 8th, and for our state, is new leadership at every level. We must expand Medicaid at the state level. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment at the federal level. When elected, I’ll do everything to protect Roe v. Wade and a person’s right to choose. I’m a proud, pro-choice candidate, and I’ve never shied away from that, despite the red, rural District that I’m running in. It’s time to change the narrative: everyone, regardless of zip code, gender, age, or income should have access to the healthcare they need, when they need it. This includes abortion access.

And, yes, this is very much related; just think about it for a minute:

If Evangelicals Are Supporting Trump Because They Can't Cope With Women's Bodies, Maybe They Should Skip The Election This Year And See A Psycho-Therapist Instead

Trump's support among white evangelicals hasn't sunk much despite the discomfort some of them feel about a few of his noticeably anti-Jesus policies and about the way he comports himself. 80% of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016 and, if the election were held today, 77% of them say they would do the same now. Writing for the Washington Post, Andrea Lucado cited a Maris poll for NPR and PBS from last month, in her piece that ran yesterday, How the female body became the scapegoat for white evangelicals. She pointed to the fact that 70% of white evangelicals reported hating Hillary Clinton, overwhelmingly because of her stand on women's Choice. "As a white, evangelical-raised Christian," wrote Lucado, "I am frustrated, angry and confused by the continued support of Trump even when his first term is coming to an end, but I can’t claim to be surprised." Not only do 65% of evangelicals oppose abortion-- a relatively new phenomenon; American evangelicals used to back Choice and deride Catholics for opposing it-- but "Americans who oppose the legality of abortion (27%) are significantly more likely than those who support the legality of abortion (18%) to say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on the issue."

I have grown suspicious of the way some evangelicals identify with their pro-life status so deeply that it affects every political decision they make.

French literary critic and philosopher René Girard studied how ancient civilizations relied on the tradition of the scapegoat. Girard claimed that scapegoating was necessary due to what he called “mimetic desire,” which, put simply, is the fact that we want what others have. This coveting ultimately leads to conflict only resolved through an act of violence, usually cast upon one victim chosen by the tribe: the scapegoat.





Girard found that this method of scapegoating changed when Jesus arrived in ancient Palestine. Jesus himself was described as a scapegoat, a “lamb led to slaughter” (Acts 8:32). But Girard argued that the circumstances around Christ’s crucifixion symbolized the end of the need of scapegoating. As he explained in his book “I See Satan Fall Like Lightening,” “Jesus is innocent, and those who crucify him are guilty.”





Girard theorized that because Jesus’ innocence was known by those in attendance at his crucifixion (See the accounts of Pontius Pilate in Matthew 27:23-24 and of the centurion in Matthew 27:54), the curtain was pulled back on the scapegoat method. It was finally clear that the truly guilty are those who scapegoat, not the scapegoat. The crucifixion symbolized the final sacrifice and negated the usefulness of the scapegoat tradition.

Even though Christianity was founded upon this very sacrifice, some have not gotten the message that scapegoating has ended.

Although the pro-life movement has made steps toward helping women through pregnancy, many of its tactics to prevent abortion are sometimes driven by shame. Each movie that portrays the horrors of the procedure, each image of a fetus, each hand-scribbled sign bobbing up and down outside a Planned Parenthood seems to be pointing a finger and asking, How could you? And the finger is always pointed at the woman. Her decision, her body, her fault.

What I have seen in the pro-life movement and elsewhere in evangelical culture is this ancient reliance upon the scapegoat mechanism, and the scapegoat is always the same-- the female body.

Purity culture-- an evangelical movement that reached its height in the late 1990s and early 2000s-- promoted a core message of abstinence before and outside of marriage. The way this sexual ethic was taught to me and many others badly warped my view of sex, the body and gender. Only in recent years have I been able to clumsily untangle the message from my faith, namely the weight, guilt and responsibility the movement put on females.

When learning about sex and purity, I was taught my virginity was my greatest commodity, therefore, I must protect it at all costs until I was married. Marriage and childbearing would be the pinnacle of my existence-- a belief many evangelicals still hold today. Just this week, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, suggested being a parent is what makes one human.

According to purity culture, the protection of my virginity was up to me. I remember many lectures about the importance of girls’ dressing modestly so as not to let our brothers stumble into the sin of lust. I once heard a youth leader say that a mere glimpse of a bra strap would cause a boy to have impure thoughts.

I was warned about how often boys thought about sex and the warning’s undertone was a warning for me: Don’t lead him into temptation. It was up to me to keep myself pure and to keep my brothers in Christ pure, as well. If I had sex before marriage, I would not only taint myself, but I would also own the guilt of causing the male I had sex with to have sex with me.

It made for a world nearly impossible for a girl to do right and for a boy to do wrong.

The shame and guilt that drove purity culture is the same shame I see driving the pro-life movement today. And like purity culture, the woman is the scapegoat. She is the one making the decision. She, and she alone, is at fault.

The fact that white evangelicals still as a whole support Trump for a 2020 reelection with abortion as the flag over their crusade points to an important truth: Evangelicals are still obsessed with female bodies, controlling them and blaming them.

Recalling Girard’s theory of mimetic desire, this leads me to wonder, what is the desire behind the scapegoat of the woman’s body? What do evangelicals want that others have? Is it power? Is it fame? Is it women themselves?

Or, do they fear what an end to their scapegoat mechanism would do? When the woman, or scapegoat, speaks, it causes unrest. It causes a dismantling. Look what it did to former Southern Baptist seminary president Paige Patterson, one of the most prominent religious leaders of the late 20th century. Is the pro-life movement just a convenient, moral excuse to keep the woman as scapegoat, and, therefore, maintain order?

Whatever it is, the pull to isolate a presidential vote to one issue is strong enough to blind many evangelicals to what Jesus would care about today: the poor (He was.), the immigrant (He was one.), the marginalized (He was.), the person of color (He was one.). It seems the primary rock some evangelicals are standing on is one in which the woman’s body is scapegoat, in which she is sacrificed.

President of the Evangelical States of America, Pig Man

And this isn't just about people in some backward part of Alabama or Oklahoma. How about Long Island? Nancy Goroff is running for a Suffolk County congressional seat held by anti-Choice fanatic Lee Zeldin. Yesterday, Goroff told her supporters that "Trump has instituted a 'gag rule' that prevents doctors from giving full medical advice to their patients. It has forced Planned Parenthood out of Title X, putting at risk wellness exams, STD and HIV screenings, birth control, and contraceptive education that millions of people count on. As a scientist, I believe medical decisions need to be made with the best information possible, and I don’t believe the government should stand between a patient and their doctor. Anti-choice politicians, like my opponent Lee Zeldin, are part of the problem and need to be replaced. Zeldin has voted to defund Planned Parenthood, to allow for 'personhood' legislation and to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- stripping health insurance from tens of millions of Americans. Overall, he’s voted against Planned Parenthood 30 times THIS YEAR-- and not once in favor of the women who need their help. When it comes to women's healthcare, Zeldin chooses policies that ignore the facts and data. As a scientist and a mom... I will work to debunk the lies about Planned Parenthood and fight to restore critical funding for it."

Has Steve King Resigned Yet?

J.D. Scholten came very close to beating racist incumbent Steve King in 2018. With no help from the DCCC, congenitally distrustful of progressives, Scholten a former baseball player and first-time candidate, outraised King better than three to one and, in a district with a PVI of R+11 where Obama lost both times and where Trump clobbered Hillary 60.9% to 33.5%, held King to just 50.3%.

Since then, King was kicked off his committee for his unhinged racism and has been shunned by his own party. Not only is Scholten running for the seat again, this time King has 3 Republican primary opponents-- state Senator Randy Feenstra, former Irwin Mayor Bret Richards and former state Rep. Jeremy Taylor-- with at least two others talking about jumping in. Yesterday GOP hard-ass Liz Cheney, a member of McCarthy's leadership team, publicly told him to resign.

The predictable latest storm was over a comment he made on the campaign trail. While raging against women's Choice, King started down a bizarre path-- even for an anti-Choice lunatic like him. Speaking at the Westside Conservative Club King asked his right-wing audience. "What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled out anyone who was a product of rape or incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that? Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages that happened throughout all these different nations, I know that I can’t say that I was not a part of a product of that." Yeah, especially generations of incest.

"Again, Steve King is disgracing Iowa and putting his selfish, hateful ideology before the needs of the people of Iowa's 4th district. This time, he's excusing violence. But countless times before, he has spewed racist statements and promoted white nationalism that ultimately led to him getting stripped of his committee assignments. Our campaign is different. We're proud to bring all people together, represent real Iowan values, and fight for positive change for Iowa."

If you'd like to help J.D. replace King in Congress... well, that's precisely what that 2020 Act Blue Blue America congressional thermometer above is for.

Will The Democrats Really Nominate An Anti-Choice Candidate For President? Biden's Been Wrong About EVERYTHING Since The 1970s

In 2008, just as Biden was about the launch another of his 5 or 6 aborted presidential runs, the Texas Monthly asked him-- on video tape (above)-- where he stands on abortion. First words out of his mouth: "It's going to be very difficult [for him as a slimy politician]. I do not view abortion as a choice and a right... I think we should be focussing on how to limit the number of abortions." That's always been his position and that is still his position. "I'm a bit of an odd man out in my party. I do not vote for funding for abortion. I voted against partial birth abortion."

He's such a fucking turd. If my vote was the deciding vote between him and Trump, the worst "president" in history, I'd let the decision remain a tie. Nothing would ever get me to vote for Biden, not in a primary, not in a general. I've hated his guts since the 1970s when I first realized what a racist pile of vomit he was. I was so disappointed Friday when I read that whoever picked which presidential contenders would speak on night one and which would speak on night two had decided to protect Biden from Elizabeth Warren. I guess she'll have too wait and shred him at a future debate.

In 2005, bankruptcy was on the rise and had been for years.

Lawmakers were pondering why, exactly, that was happening-- and what, if anything, they should do about it-- when two future presidential rivals squared off over a bankruptcy overhaul bill that would restrict who could write off their personal debts.

In one corner, Joe Biden-- one of the staunchest Democratic advocates for the bill and a senator from Delaware, home to several large credit card companies. He was also a member of the Judiciary Committee, which was debating the bill.

In the other corner, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor who had fought against this type of bankruptcy overhaul for years and who was on a panel convened for a hearing over the bill.

Their conversation started off with a testy (but weedy) exchange about bankruptcy courts. And it escalated from there, with plenty of interruptions and the occasional barb-- Biden at one point cast Warren's arguments as "mildly demagogic." It ended with a tense dispute over what, exactly, the dispute ought to be.

WARREN: [Credit card companies] have squeezed enough out of these families in interest and fees and payments that never pay down principle.

BIDEN: Maybe should talk about usury rates. That maybe, that's what we should be talking about, not bankruptcy.

WARREN: Senator, I'll be the first. Invite me.

BIDEN: Now, I know you will, but let's call a spade a spade. Your problem with the credit-card companies is usury rates, from your position. It's not about the bankruptcy bill.

WARREN: But Senator, if you're not going to fix that problem, you can't take away the last shred of protection for these families.

BIDEN: OK, I get it. [pause] You're very good, Professor.

It was heated debate with a polite, even charming end-- complete with laughter throughout the hearing room, but the stakes are higher now, with both Warren and Biden potentially poised to share a debate stage.

And while debate over a 14-year-old bankruptcy bill might otherwise be largely forgotten by now, the 2020 presidential election has made the disagreements between Biden and Warren relevant again-- and shows how their exchange over that 2005 bill show up in their current presidential campaign strategies.

With Democrats in the minority in the Senate in 2005, Biden argues he was trying to make a Republican bill better. Warren thought, even then, that it was fundamentally flawed and bad for consumers.

A major question at the heart of the 2005 bankruptcy bill was why bankruptcies were on the rise.

One side-- including Warren and many Democrats-- said it was because people were financially strapped because of major obligations like medical debt, and that credit card companies were exacerbating the problem.

Others-- largely Republicans, but also some Democrats, like Biden-- said that it was a combination of irresponsible spending and a system that made it too easy to apply for bankruptcy, leading to abuse. That abuse, these lawmakers argued, leads to higher costs for other people seeking credit.

The 2005 bill restricted who could discharge their debts via Chapter 7 bankruptcy and also made the process more difficult. It included a means test, in the form of comparing a person's income with their state's median income. The goal, proponents argued, was to make sure that people who could still pay their debts weren't able to unfairly escape their debts, while also ensuring that people who couldn't pay were able to get relief.

The bill also said that a person had to go through credit counseling before obtaining bankruptcy.

Opponents, however, cast bankruptcy as an important financial protection that the legal system provides to people in difficult circumstances. They thought that the bill would make it unduly hard to file, enriching credit card companies in the process. And indeed, as they argued, credit card companies themselves had lobbied for it.

Warren and her fellow opponents also argued that bankruptcy was a women's issue, as single and divorced women were disproportionately represented among bankruptcy filers. Passing this type of reform would therefore disproportionately hurt women and children, they said (an argument that Warren pointedly made in a 2002 Harvard Women's Law Review essay that focuses heavily on Biden).

This was not new legislation. Similar bills had been proposed in Congress several times-- it even reached the Oval Office in the final days of Bill Clinton's presidency, but he declined to sign it.

Biden and Warren had been on opposite sides during that period, as well-- Biden voted for that 2000 bill, and Warren had counseled Hillary Clinton that it would be bad for consumers.

And that was the lay of the land when they met on Capitol Hill.

"This is one of those situations where the current story is not misleading. They were both very key players in this," said David Skeel, professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school and the author of a history of bankruptcy.

"Elizabeth Warren was the most important critic of the legislation, and she spent years fighting it. That's what really first got her into the into the public eye," he said. "And Joe Biden was critically important to passing the legislation because credit card companies are very important to Delaware. And that's where he was coming from."

In the end, the bill passed. And as for the effects, they're complicated. One outcome: The bill included a provision that made obligations like child support and alimony a top priority for debtors to pay off-- which addressed one concern of the bill's opponents.

And another, overarching result: Bankruptcies fell sharply afterward. And that's linked to one other effect of the bill, according to Skeel.

"The biggest effect is that it is now more expensive to file for bankruptcy than it used to be," Skeel said, "because of the the so-called means test that was put into the 2005 amendments that requires that debtors fill out forms to determine whether they would be capable of repaying some of what they owe."

But, crucially, it's not totally clear that that shows a reduction in bankruptcy abuse, he added.

Research on the bill also doesn't hand either side a total win. On the one hand, the reform was associated with lower interest rates on credit cards, as Vox's Matthew Yglesias pointed out in an article on the Warren-Biden debate.

But, Yglesias argued, studies also suggested that the law meant less access to credit and lower credit scores for some borrowers, not to mention a potentially slower bounce back from the Great Recession.

Potential 2020 voters have already had a preview of Warren's attacks on Biden. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attacked Hillary Clinton's vote for a similar 2001 bankruptcy bill-- a vote she took after Warren convinced her it was a bad bill. Sanders used Warren's criticisms as part of his attacks.

Warren talked about her disappointment in a 2004 interview with journalist Bill Moyers:

WARREN: She voted in favor of it.

MOYERS: Why?

WARREN: As Sen. Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know, a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry. It was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.

MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator.

WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.

For her part, Clinton argued that she was able to support the bill because it, at that point, included better protections for women seeking child support and alimony.

That whole dynamic surrounding the law is repeating itself in this election.

"If you talk to many independent voters, they worry that both parties are funded by the same corporate interests," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has endorsed Warren ahead of 2020. "Elizabeth Warren has been part of the solution trying to re-brand the Democratic Party as being of the people. The credit card fight was just one chapter of that ongoing struggle."

While Warren uses the fight as evidence of her willingness to fight corporations on behalf of everyday Americans, Biden and his supporters frame the bankruptcy bill as evidence of his practicality-- and they also emphasize protections in the bill like those prioritizing child support.

"Sen. Biden, knowing essentially that the bill was likely to make it through a Republican-led Congress to a Republican-controlled White House, really worked hard to make sure that bill protected middle-class families," said Terrell McSweeny, who worked as a Biden staffer just after the bill's passage.

And that plays into a larger narrative from the Biden campaign.

"Folks, I'm going to say something outrageous," he has said. "I know how to make government work. Not because I've talked or tweeted about it, but because I've done it. I've worked across the aisle to reach consensus, to help make government work in the past."

Democratic voters are concerned with far different topics than the bankruptcy bill, like climate change and a health care overhaul.

But then, if both candidates remain key contenders for the nomination-- and if they share a debate stage-- there's a good chance the topic will come up again, as a symbol of the differences between the two candidates.

And while bankruptcy expert Skeel acknowledges that he's not a political strategist, he does have one political prediction based on the Biden-Warren bankruptcy fight.

"It strikes me that one potential implication," he said, "is it's highly unlikely you will see a Democratic ticket with both of them on it."