That’s easy. Wait for them to lose the primary against a pro-choice Democrat. No more incumbent Democrat, and a crapshoot for the general election!
Nice anecdote about how a single rural district flipped D for a couple cycles and then flipped back R. It will be given all due weight in further discussion.
If voting for this bill (despite having a lengthy record of other pro-choice votes) makes one no longer a “pro-choice Democrat”, that is your problem with extremism right there. And I **hate **primary challenges from the left in swing states or districts. (In a safe blue seat, go for it.)
But what you’re missing is that this isn’t a bill that would be harmless and sound good – it would cause real harm to real people. If the republicans proposed what they called an anti-theft bill, which in actuality allowed police officers to stop and frisk anyone walking through a wealthy residential neighborhood after 5 PM if they “looked suspicious”, would you be in favor of the democrats rolling over and letting our civil rights get trampled? Just because the republicans came up with a snazy name?
Maybe you and the others arguing with me in this thread can sort out whether this law would be completely redundant (and thus, obviously, harmless) or “cause real harm”, and get back to me. :rolleyes:
Yeah, why should the guy who started the thread have a clue what’s going on? :dubious:
Maybe you could figure that shit out yourself, and start a thread when you’ve educated yourself on the subject?
AGAIN: This is a political thread. NOT a policy thread, which would properly go in GD. How about YOU start THAT thread if you like? (I won’t join it, but have at it.)
Which is why you’re asking folks to explain the policy implications of the bill. Got it.
If you had done even the most cursory research on this bill yourself, you would have easily found out that it’s both: namely, any protections conferred by this bill are completely redundant because they already exist in other laws, while the harms caused by it could be quite damaging (in the rare cases that this bill would actually cover).
Here’s an explanation of the harmful aspects:
I think it’s kind of disgusting that you’re trying to treat this issue as a mere game of “political optics”, and are criticizing the Democrats who voted against this callous and malicious bill for not cynically going along with it to burden families and doctors with pointless suffering. ISTM it would be absolutely heartbreaking for the grieving mother of a non-viable fetus to know that her doctor is being forced to painfully resuscitate it after delivery only to let it painfully die, because otherwise the doctor could go to jail.
That’s the sort of real-life consequences you’re cavalierly ignoring when you whine that Democrats aren’t being sufficiently “politically savvy” in voting against this bill.
(Where’s the “spits contemptuously” smiley when we need one?)
I guess you better get ready to be even more contemptuous, because I am not moved by the scenario you lay out. In my view, it’s not up to the parents at that point. Moreover, I am virtually certain that most voters would agree with me. So just be contemptuous of the voters you want on your side, and see how that works out. :rolleyes:
ETA: Even if I did believe the consequences would be unfortunate for a small number of families, they can get over it; whereas in many cases the people who are harmed when Republicans repeatedly win presidential elections and control Congress might not be able to get over it.
Cool. Cool cool cool. Parents who have a child who’s on the verge of death don’t get to make decisions for how that infant spends its final hours, because their doing so is politically inconvenient for you. Democrats should shit in the wounds of those grieving parents, for the greater good.
Your version of politics isn’t one I super care for, nor do I think your belief in its superior viability is warranted.
You don’t think it should be up to the parent(s), along with their doctor, to decide whether a nonviable aborted fetus that briefly survives delivery should have to go through painful and useless resuscitation procedures? Who do you believe is better placed to make that decision?
Then how about you get out there and help educate voters on the realities of late-term abortion procedures and the importance of ensuring that women and their doctors can make these very tough decisions on a case-by-case basis, instead of just pissing and moaning on a messageboard that taking a principled stand against cruel and callous “pro-life” legislation might hurt Democrats politically because the voters are too ignorant?
And by the way, if we’re talking political messaging here, the main message that today’s Republican Party is voluntarily handing on a plate to its Democratic opponents is “Republicans are liars”.
They lie that climate change isn’t a serious environmental problem, they lie that Trump’s inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama’s, they lie that Trump isn’t a cheat and a conman, they lie that their tax cuts aren’t primarily for the benefit of the rich, they lie about Democrats planning to confiscate all guns, they lie that abstinence-only sex education is effective and sufficient, they lie that the basic facts of evolution are scientifically questionable, they lie about undocumented immigrants costing more in social services than they contribute in taxes, they lie about anything that they think their base will swallow a lie about.
And, not surprisingly, they also lie about the necessity for legislation requiring doctors to perform useless resuscitation procedures on nonviable aborted fetuses in order to “protect babies”. As though the medical miracle of a late-term crisis pregnancy termination producing an aborted fetus that could actually survive and successfully develop on its own would somehow simply not be noticed by the attending physician(s) unless they were legally forced, under pain of criminal proceedings, to resuscitate it. [spitting contemptuously again, while rolling eyes]
You’re unmoved that a piece of legislation would override the doctor and parents’ personal and medical decisions. You think the US Senate should make a blanket decision on proper medical procedure.
Kimstu, I cosign your statement about all those GOP lies. Not a single one of them is true, and they are despicable calumnies. Unfortunately, this vote helps make one of their most effective attacks not a lie: “Democrats are callous, even ghoulish, extremists when it comes to unborn babies.” :smack:
This is exactly why the grassroots hates party “flacks” like the whip who encouraged Rebecca McClanahan to cast the safe vote in the Missouri House, counsel that she ignored. But you all should be down on your knees thanking these cynical, triangulating party insiders, because without them no progress would ever be achieved. So envision a contemptuous spit emoji from me in the other direction, along with a desperate hope that the cynical hacks will reassert power before it’s too late.
Huh? Of course it’s a lie. There is nothing in the least callous or extreme, much less ghoulish, about refusing to go along with intrusive legislation to inflict unnecessary suffering on non-viable aborted fetuses, families and physicians.
On the contrary, what’s ghoulish and callous is the Republicans’ attempt to gratuitously impose these cruel requirements merely as a PR ploy to try to paint Democrats as “baby-killers”.
Ignorant people frequently think it makes them look smart to treat serious issues merely as exercises in political maneuvering, with no regard to the factual substance of the issues. That way they can assume an air of sagacity without actually knowing the import of what’s being maneuvered about.
This is how we got, for example, millions of people smugly patting themselves on the back for their astuteness in dismissing climate change as a “fake” crisis. They didn’t understand anything about climate science or fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas production, but they (thought they) understood that a massive environmental crisis would be somehow politically advantageous for scientists, so they gleefully wrote the whole thing off as a political maneuver on behalf of “One World Government” or some such bullshit.
And this is also how we’re getting ignorant self-styled “cynical” people with only the most superficial understanding of the issues trying to second-guess policy positions on legislation concerning late-term abortions. What we need to do, instead of indulging their conceited fantasies of being canny political operatives, is to increase public awareness of the actual facts of the issues, and keep pointing out when Republicans are blatantly lying about them.
The kind of the consequences are more than just “unfortunate”. “Get over it”? Look up some of the horrifying birth defects that lead to these scenarios, the come back and tell me they’ll just “get over it”.
(For example, alobar holoprosencephaly, often accompanied by cyclopia. Normally I’d caution AGAINST googling this sort of thing, but for someone like you, SlackerInc, I think you might need a reality check.)
It is all just typical “gotcha” politics. Note the republicans were in control of the entire government for two years yet didn’t put this bill forward then (did they push for any anti abortion bills while they had the best chance in 50 years to do so?).
I liked this analysis, in an anti-Trump magazine with a long and storied history, written by a former member of the Obama Administration:
Bolding mine.