Nothing to apologize for and I was not insulted in the least. I’m just saying that the anti-abortion crowd will never vote D in a million years, why should Democrats even give their concerns the time of day?
How are you guys missing that this bill is clearly popular with exactly the voters we need to target? You understand that there are people who will never vote D in a million years, people who will never vote R in a million years, but also people who “swing” back and forth? That’s why Dems win some national elections and lose others. It’s not just turnout and “getting out the base”.
I find it hard to imagine the anti-abortion voter who doesn’t feel strongly enough about it to completely reject the idea of voting for Democrats, but does feel strongly enough to remember this vote 21 months from now.
It’s not about “remembering this vote” as much as cementing an idea of Democrats as radical on abortion. Right now we are getting the votes of a lot of people who aren’t comfortable with the NARAL position on abortion. To keep getting those votes and attract more from the middle, we need to be a lot “squishier” on this issue.
ETA: I have yet to hear anyone state what harm would come in voting for this. If it’s redundant with legislation that’s already in force, why oppose it? Would you want Democrats to also vote against a prohibition of kidnapping if it were up for a vote? Why give Republicans ammunition to charge their opponents with being pro-kidnapping?
So your brilliant political plan is for the Dems to be lead around by the nose whenever the Republicans come up with a clever bill title. Don’t quit your day job, whatever that is.
This is a warning for personal insults. Please be mindful of which forum you are in. Given you are the OP, and you identified that this thread was in Elections in the body of your post, I can’t see giving a pass for this even with a self report.
[/moderating]
I read an article that claimed that under this bill, if it had passed, doctors would be forced to attempt to resuscitate infants born from pregnancies that are induced to save the mother, even if the infant is too young or sick to be viable. Currently, many parents in that situation request that doctors provide comfort care for the infant’s last moments, rather than put it through a futile and painful resuscitation. So there’s some harm that could come from this bill – a lot more pain, suffering, and stress for mother, infant, and family.
This isn’t the first time I’ve found you in a thread professing that ignorance is strength. There are clearly reasons why you find that viewpoint alluring, but I won’t speculate on them, nor will I waste time arguing with such silliness.
Kimstu, that’s just bad politics, to think that some super detailed, wonky insider’s view will help you judge the political optics of a vote. Or even worse, that no one who does not have that detailed a knowledge of the bill has any standing to comment. :rolleyes:
If you (and all those Senate Democrats) think this is such a serious ramification of the bill (though, again: why does it not already get covered by the 2002 law?), then make that case, and try to move the Overton Window, I guess (I don’t see it as that important). But in any event, don’t pretend that Overton Window is already where you need it to be! It is not.
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You want the democrats to pass a law that does nothing (because what it would forbid is already illegal) just for the good publicity? Should we pass a quick law reaffirming that rape and theft and murder are all crimes, too?
I wish we actually lived in some kind of Athenian (but not problematic) democracy where everyone is well versed in civics.
Dems nailed in the ‘90s with “safe, legal and rare”. What is our messaging now? Even if you are certain all those Democratic senators voted the way their conscience should compel them to, can you really point to the effective political messaging? Chuck Schumer complains that “this is the worst kind of Washington politics” or whatever it was. That just sounds like whining “waah, I thought we were playing beanbag, but they put us in an uncomfortable spot. No fair!”
According to your OP, the correct response would have been to allow Republicans to own the messaging – to vote for a law that is at best redundant and at worst harmful just because Republicans gave given them the opportunity. So don’t whine, just give in. How that will improve matters is lost in me.
May I ask a favor, not only of you, but of Dopers generally?
I don’t know where your ‘here’ is, since you don’t mention it either in your post or your profile. But it would seem to be relevant.
There are parts of the country that would get worked up about a bill such as this, but they’re going to think Dems are baby-killers no matter what. There are other parts of the country where such coverage would be a surprise. And I have no idea which you’re in.
So my request to all: if you’re talking about something local, and what locality or region you’re in would add to our understanding, please either mention it in your post, or have it in your profile.
Or both. Nothing’s wrong with both.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that abortions are still very difficult to obtain in much of the country. If we should pass any laws regarding abortion, they should be laws that guarantee “safe, legal, and rare” abortions are available to everyone, even women in the South.
You clearly don’t remember the fallout when Democrats voted down the Protecting Frail Grandmothers from Grizzly Bear Rape (PUFFING-GOOBER) bill that would’ve made golf courses tax exempt.
Bricker, what are you talking about? I don’t understand, John Mace, why you think this is a good idea. What about you, Diogenes the Cynic?
:rolleyes: His not knowing who he’s talking to is a strength, not a weakness! Because reasons reasons it’s a GOOD thing to think you’re talking to someone else, and anyone who thinks accuracy or even the most cursory knowledge is important is hopelessly naive.
Since at least some posters apparently believe that I’m already participating in this discussion, here’s my take: I agree with Paranoid Randroid and others that improving the Democrats’ messaging on abortion issues is not the same thing as voting for useless or counterproductive Republican bills out of fear that the Republicans will spin principled opposition as “Democrats are baby-killers”.
It is evident that Republicans are launching a concerted strategy to misrepresent and demonize Democratic positions relating to abortion, especially in unusual and unfamiliar late-term abortion situations. The bill cited in the OP, which among other things, as Babale noted, would have criminalized doctors’ choosing to provide comfort care rather than painful resuscitation attempts during late-term pregnancy terminations for unviable infants, was a callous and malicious Republican ploy that I’m glad Democratic legislators did not fall for.
AFAICT a major message is “Stop the War on Women”. It seems to be having considerable effect:
To be fair, he never said he wanted to improve matters.
My sincere apologies to whomever I conflated with Kimstu, or to Kimstu hirself, depending on which of them is more insulted by the conflation. 
I think women are being rallied by the fact that Trump is president, more than around reproductive rights issues. He won’t always be there, and we may have a smoother and slippier GOP leader to contend with in the future.
I live in Minnesota. I am proud to say we are one of twelve states that voted for Hillary and has two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. We are the only state that hasn’t given our electoral votes to a Republican in over 45 years (in fact, no other state has a streak of even 35 years). OTOH, Hillary prevailed over Trump by fewer than 44,000 votes, so we don’t have much margin for error. And only 52% of Minnesotans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases” (Views about abortion by state - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center).
The numbers for a few other states, for comparison’s sake:
Massachusetts 74%
Maine, New York 64%
Pennsylvania 51%
Nebraska 50%
Kansas 49%
Ohio 48%
North Dakota, Utah 47%
We aren’t the ones who control what goes up for a floor vote (hopefully that will change in January 2021). If Republicans put rape/theft/murder laws up for a vote, you bet your ass Democrats should vote for them! Why not? Why give GOP challengers material for campaign ads against their “pro-murder” opponents?
Then you don’t understand what “own the messaging” means. Let’s say every member of the Senate voted “yea” on this bill. How does that give Republicans any ammunition? Remember, their goal is to try to unseat Democratic incumbents with GOP challengers in the next election. How do you attack a Democrat for voting for this bill? What kind of campaign ad can you write that uses this against them?
In 2006, I helped get a Democrat elected to the Missouri state legislature, narrowly flipping a rural seat from red to blue. I had no paid position on the campaign, but it was the hardest I ever worked for any campaign, and the candidate (state rep) called me her “super volunteer”. I helped her win reelection in 2008.
Then, IMO, she got cocky, or careless, or something. She described at a county Democratic meeting how the Democratic whip “released” her from voting the party line on an abortion bill, because she was from a district the leadership viewed as being tough to hold, one that couldn’t be held if she voted that way. She disregarded their advice and proudly proclaimed to us that she had “voted her conscience”. Everyone else in that room murmured their approval, but I quite vocally objected that this was a big mistake. (Take a guess as to how she did in the next election.)
The people in this thread are like the Democratic activists in that room: you love to prize idealistic principle over pragmatic politics. The Democratic whip in the state legislature clearly had an attitude much more like mine. Why the disconnect, do you suppose? Are you and the county grassroots Dems the ones that really understand politics, and the state leadership is simply stupid and corrupt? Or could it be that they are more clear-eyed, hard-headed, and savvy about politics than you are? :dubious:
I’m absolutely in favor of the law you propose. When we get a Democratic majority leader again, I’d be all for trying to pass something along these lines. For now, your point is moot.