found online by Raymond
From Blue in the Bluegrass:
Jim Newell on Conor Lamb in Slate, via Digby:
He holds the Tim Kaine position on abortion: He doesn’t personally support abortion but believes it should be legally available—a position known as being “pro-choice.”
And that’s exactly the problem. If you don’t “personally support” abortion, then you don’t “personally support” a woman’s bodily autonomy. You don’t “personally support” a woman’s human rights. You don’t “personally support” the reproductive freedom that is the sole foundation of of women’s civil rights.
Not “personally supporting” abortion on demand is buying into the misogynistic position that abortion is something bad that people should not “personally support.”
All this is true, as far as it goes. The question is what, in practical terms, to do about it. At the end of his post, Yellow Dog says:
Any candidate who does not full-throatedly support free, no-restrictions, on-demand abortion clinics on every fucking corner in the land is anti-woman, no Democrat and undeserving of my vote.
Again, no problem here except for the last four words. Conor Lamb is, in fact, pro-choice — he doesn’t support laws against abortion even though he personally disapproves of it. Almost all Republicans do support such laws. So Lamb is still worth voting for on this issue in a general election. In practical terms what matters is what legislation a candidate would support. What goes on inside his head doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t lead him to vote differently in office.
In a primary, yes, vote against the bad Democrat in support of a better one. But in the general election, if that bad Democrat has been nominated, he’ll still almost always be better than the Republican. And it’s never OK to let the Republican win, with all the harm to real people that that will bring, just because the Democrat wasn’t good enough.
… This is quibbling over semantics.
He’s not personally for abortions but supports a woman’s right to choose. He, and others who phrase it this way, are saying that if exercising their right to choose than they would not choose an abortion. They, however, support others’ rights to make that same choice. The subject and content of this article is detrimental. And Anti-Choice. The Slate article referenced by Yellow Dog even says Lamb wouldn’t call himself Pro-Life and he would have voted against the 20 week abortion ban. FU Connor Lamb for making a choice between two options that you support others making as well? All ’cause he chose differently that the author of the article would want? Jeez. Way to give structure and support to the image of the Conservative Straw-Liberal. Or is it Straw-Leftist these days?