desh | (no subject)

Just over 24 hours before I vote, and I'm still undecided about who I'm going to cast my vote for in the election.

Clearly, I'm talking about the Senate race between Specter and Hoeffel in Pennsylvania.

Specter used to be my favorite Republican, for a long time. He never used to blindly vote with his party. He thought for himself on many issues, even highly politicized ones. For example, he voted "not proven" on the Clinton articles of impeachment. So not only was his vote recorded as "not guilty", thus setting him against his party, but he drew attention to himself while doing so. But in the past few years, he's gotten worse and worse at this, and is now almost a down-the-line Republican. So I'd be inclined to vote against him.

Thing is, though, he's still staunchly pro-choice. And if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, which is looking more and more likely, then he'll be the chair of the Judiciary Committee. In other words, he'll be the second most important person in the country when it comes to appointing judges. I like Hoeffel more than Specter in general, but my worst nightmare is Bush winning the White House, the Republicans keeping the Senate, and someone other than Specter running Senate Judiciary.

So what to do?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

soooo is hoeffel pro-choice? i thought he was but now i'm getting confused.

They both are. But if Hoeffel is elected and the Republicans still control the Senate, then the Senate Judiciary chair, who will not be from Pennsylvania, will likely be pro-life.

Damn. Then I think I shall vote Specter.

But it doesn't matter what Specter believes "deep down inside," if he lets the Republicans bully him in to voting with them.

And from recent history, it seems like Specter cares more about toeing the party line than voting his conscience. As another poster mentioned, he voted YES on the "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban. He also voted YES on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004 - which seems to have no practical purpose beyond setting the groundwork for anti-choice activists to further promote their belief that unborn fetuses are people (and therefore abortion is murder).

I'm voting Hoeffel.

(Not that he seems to have much of a chance.)

Mmm... I actually didn't just suddenly come to the conclusion to vote for Specter, I read through all of their position statements and issues on a non-partisan website. While yes, there is some silliness involving the abortion issue, but he's in the right place for a number of other issues that I care about, which Hoeffel isn't.

well, what are the differences between hoeffel and spector then? besides the fact that spector is a TOOL. he and santorum both supported the "partial birth abortion ban" [i forget what we pro-choicers call it] and i'm pretty sure they both got mad about the UN resolution/vote against the wall in palestine so that makes a real big difference to me.

"intact dialation and extraction"?

Grr. Just read that law. Scary piece of work.

The law is terrible, yes. But the procedure it tries to ban? Tests the limits of my philosophy of "what works for me doesn't necessarily have to work for everyone". I would never allow that procedure to be done to anyone, in any case in which I have a right to make that decision. (Which might be never, but still.)

work in a clinic for a couple days and you'll find you're testing the limits of the strength of your stomach. it's an intense field, intense work to do, but it needs to get done and you know it's just, like

ladykat81 said, laying the groundwork for further chipping away at abortion rights and accesibility.

sorry to be so snippy but it truly irritates me when people talk about stuff they don't know about. desh, or anyone else, if you want to watch a procedure and see what it's really like, i can hook you up. but that procedure is described in the words of anti-choice anti-abortion activists, who of course frame it to sound as sick, cruel, painful and murderous as possible.

I have to watch an abortion before I'm allowed to express my opinion? That's news to me. and if you drag me to the clinic, I might leave there pro-life.

no, you don't have to watch a procedure before you can have and express an opinion. but i don't have to sit here and pretend not to be irritated by my friends' lack of understanding about my line of work.. especially since it would be really easy to ask anything you didn't understand or about which you wanted to know more or have a more informed opinion.

this probably sounds patronizing but put yourself in my shoes. if i was expressing strong opinions about things with which i didn't have a whole lot of experience, and which didn't affect my life very much, but which affects your life in huge ways [your occupation, the possibility of yourself being in the situation - needing an abortion, in this case] - well, you'd probably wish i'd asked you about your experiences.

i will of course never drag you to the clinic.

[it's interesting to read comments by you in lj because i picture you saying the things you're saying while having the expression on your face that's in your photo. so when you're mad at me or disagreeing with me or whatever, you're still smiling and having a good time.]

I know something about the dialation and extraction procedure. I know enough to know that I really don't like it. Really, really don't.

I still vote for choice, though. What I like doesn't have anything to do with what the rights of people I don't know should be (though, as I said, this example tests the limits of that for me). I'm not threatening your livelihood, don't worry.

I am, in fact, always smiling.

that's a good point. you are always smiling.

psyche. [sike.] [whatever.]