Jackson Free Press

November 2006 is being described as a potential huge, watershed moment in American politics. But I won't be participating.

I won't be participating because earlier this year, shortly after the Mississippi State House of Representatives passed an abortion ban, I took NARAL's pledge to vote only for pro-choice candidates in 2006.

And there aren't any.

Let's look at the U.S. Senate. My only options are:

Trent Lott (R-i), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest.
Erik Fleming (D), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest.
Harold M. Taylor (L), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest.
I had settled on voting for Rep. Fleming, and had even told a few friends about this decision, before remembering that I had signed NARAL's pledge.

But what about the U.S. House? Well, I'm in the 3rd Congressional District. Let's look at my options:

Chip Pickering (R-i), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest.
Jim Giles (I), who also wants to ban abortion--and happens to be a white separatist to boot.

And that's it, because there's no Democratic challenger in the 3rd District. Of course, the last one who ran--Ronnie Shows (D)--also wanted to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest.

There are a lot of things to like about Rep. Fleming: His support for immigrants, his opposition to the death penalty, his commitment to social welfare policies. But I signed NARAL's pledge, and I intend to honor it.

Previous Comments

ID

106511

Comment

Here, here! I will only support candidates who are actively pro-choice. No-choice, No vote!

Author

Jackson Area NOW

Date

2006-06-14T07:14:41-06:00

ID

106512

Comment

Thank God, that's one less ultra-liberal vote to worry about. Hopefully your article will inspire the rest of your liberal companions to do the same.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-06-14T09:54:41-06:00

ID

106513

Comment

I still subscribe to the "No Vote, No Complain" school. :D You're free not to participate of course. However most of Mississippi professes to be in the anti-abortion camp and is more pragmatic than South Dakota in an outright ban (which we all know wouldn't last past the Fifth Circut Court of Appeals down in NO). It's the will of the people, or most of them at any rate. So I'm not surprised all canidates are in the anti-abortion camp. The proof is later, when it actually comes up and they find ways not to put their vote in either way to avoid choosing sides. Do you think a pro choice canidate would get close to winning?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-06-14T11:16:29-06:00

ID

106514

Comment

No politician in the rhelm of politics is going to have EVERYTHING you want in them, but I see nothing wrong with either of their stance. Rape and incest are diseases of one's mind. they shouldn't have the right to conceive in that manner. it's sick. the village has to step in and make a call. abort. In the Roman days you could be fed to the lions for raping and possibly keep the baby. would you like that instead as punishment for rapists, Tom?

Author

JSU

Date

2006-06-14T11:29:47-06:00

ID

106515

Comment

nothing, be sure to get all of your gloating out of the way early--I have a sneaking suspicion social conservatives will feel much the same way during the 2008 presidential election if Giuliani gets the nod... Ironghost writes: Do you think a pro choice canidate would get close to winning? Less than 60% of the Mississippi population supports banning abortion, and you have to assume that at least one-third (and I would say half) of that number is made up of folks who don't base their voting decisions on social issues alone. I think a pro-choice, and even pro-gay marriage, candidate could conceivably win the U.S. Senate seat if the candidate is sufficiently charismatic and running on an exciting platform that energizes voters. A candidate would not be able to win by saying "I'm pro-choice--vote for me!," but a candidate for whom that was only part of a larger platform? Yeah. I think it's definitely possible. At the House level, it depends on the District. The one pro-choicer we have in our congressional delegation is Bennie Thompson, who just won what was supposed to be a competitive District 2 primary with 65% of the vote. He's not just surviving as a pro-choicer and supporter of gay rights; he's thriving. Could someone in District 3 do the same? Maybe. Maybe not. It has never been tried with the current district layout. But I'm of the opinion that a sufficiently charismatic candidate, and a candidate who has sufficiently popular broad-based ideas, can win on almost any platform. In some ways that's hopeful and in some ways that's scary. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-14T12:02:28-06:00

ID

106516

Comment

It's not so much gloating as it is pointing out the absurdity of your actions. I don't know if conservatives will win or not. It's not that big a deal to me. The problem I really have is that both the democratic and republican parties have swayed so far to the left and right that I don't think either are in touch with reality at all. If anything I'm a moderate, however I do tend to swing conservative. Mostly because I loathe the far left. Personally I blame them for the "I'm a victim movement" sweeping across the nation. It kills me to see the lack of personal responsibility. You guys spend so much time worrying about the right to suck babys out of your stomachs, when you could be fighting to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with. After seeing KFC get sued for frying chicken by a bunch of vegans pretending to be hurt by the trans fat in chicken I realized this country is further up shit creek than I thought. BTW, just because I'm a soldier doesn't make me a fucking tool. I think hands down that's the most ignorant remark I've ever seen you make.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-06-14T13:50:57-06:00

ID

106517

Comment

Tom sticking to your word means nothing to conservatives or people with conservative leanings. It all about winning any way you can. That's what's wrong with this country right now. And yes we are victims of this craziness. I'm a liberal on many things and I'm voting every time I can. Voting is nonviolent protest and I'm all for it.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-14T14:29:19-06:00

ID

106518

Comment

I don't think Bennie's pro-choice leanings are helping him keep his office, it's those pork projects he keeps sending home. I'm probably not too far off on that assessment. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-06-14T14:38:29-06:00

ID

106519

Comment

That's a pretty broad assumption there Ray. I'm not saying it's absurd to keep to your word, I'm just saying placing yourself in a position to not vote is. Abortion isn't the only issue, but to each his own.

Author

nothing

Date

2006-06-14T14:49:51-06:00

ID

106520

Comment

I know, Nothing. I hope you're doing well. I like soldiers. One of my childhood friends became a marine.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-14T14:52:26-06:00

ID

106521

Comment

Head said-- My only options are: Trent Lott (R-i), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest. Erik Fleming (D), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest. Harold M. Taylor (L), who wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape or incest. This REALLY bothers me. Once again you are either assuming facts not in evidence or you are willfully distorting facts and passing them on to others who obviously know no better than you. Your statement indicates that Fleming is the Democratic nominee. WRONG There's a run-off for the nomination, professor. Now, want to see what Bowlin says about the abortion issue and rewrite your ..."story"? And if you are that up on the election, I'm glad you won't be voting.

Author

Rex

Date

2006-06-14T15:25:01-06:00

ID

106522

Comment

Tom, why are you focusing on this one issue. Makes absolutely no sense to me. If you follow through with this, then I agree with Ironghost - no complaining for you.

Author

kate

Date

2006-06-14T15:34:00-06:00

ID

106523

Comment

Your statement indicates that Fleming is the Democratic nominee. WRONG There's a run-off for the nomination, professor *sigh* Like, Um, whomever would stand a chance?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-06-14T17:37:20-06:00

ID

106524

Comment

nothing writes: It kills me to see the lack of personal responsibility. You guys spend so much time worrying about the right to suck babys out of your stomachs, when you could be fighting to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with. We are, sunshine. How much time have you spent supporting comprehensive sex ed programs and condom distribution? That's what Planned Parenthood specializes in. And they teach abstinence, too--they just don't teach that if you're not abstinent you may as well give up on condoms and birth control, which is the message of the abstinence-only education movement. BTW, just because I'm a soldier doesn't make me a f****** tool. I think hands down that's the most ignorant remark I've ever seen you make. I didn't say that soldiers were "tools" in any derogatory sense. Someone asked if the U.S. military was a "tool" of the executive branch, and I pointed out that, according to the Oath of Enlistment, soldiers serve the executive branch directly and are therefore an instrument--and, I specified the quotes, technically a "tool"--of same. Do you disagree? Would you rather see the U.S. military serve Congress or the Judiciary instead? Or function completely autonomously? I wouldn't. I think this is the most significant function of the executive branch, and I think you would have to be to the left of even me to argue that the president is not first and foremost the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. Rex writes: This REALLY bothers me. Once again you are either assuming facts not in evidence or you are willfully distorting facts and passing them on to others who obviously know no better than you. Rex, I apologize for leaving out the fact that Rep. Fleming has not technically gotten the nomination yet, but I feel safe in assuming that he will. Yes, I suppose Bill Bowlin could win the nomination. Or the seat could go to a write-in candidate. Both strike me as prohibitively unlikely possibilities. The June 6th primaries are over; the Fleming-Bowlin runoff is a formality. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-14T18:07:54-06:00

ID

106525

Comment

And I think it's worth reiterating Jackson Area NOW's comment about "actively pro-choice" candidates: Bowlin is not actively pro-choice. We don't know if Bowlin is pro-choice at all. We just know that he hasn't gone on record, in the scant information we've seen about him, as not being pro-choice. Truth is that we know very, very little about Bowlin as a candidate. He could be great. He could be terrible. I have no clue. I never heard of him before the primary election, his qualifications appear to be that he runs a car dealership and was once elected finance chair at First Baptist Church (which is admittedly no small feat), and he seems to have no clear platform or strategy for victory. He may very well be a nice guy, he may very well make a good senator, but he has no real chance of beating Fleming in the runoff. There wouldn't even be a runoff if Fleming had gotten 51% of the vote instead of 46%, and I think that technicality is due solely to the large field of candidates. So I'm assuming a Lott-Fleming-Taylor race in November, and I'm sorry if you find that offensive. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-14T19:50:40-06:00

ID

106526

Comment

I personally avoid the whole abortion debate. I think it is so polarized and in attracts too much attention in certain races. For example, do I really care what a mayor or city councilman thinks of abortion? No. Why? It has nothing to do with his job and duties. Would you REALLY want Melton as mayor if he was pro-choice? Look at the Conservatives who are angry at Bush who voted for him because he was pro-life and has proceeded to go against most of their positions. Except for President and Senator and maybe Governor, the abortion issue should not be the determining issue in most races. For Example, NARL not supporting Mary Landrieu because she didn't support partial birth abortion but did support abortion in general was just plain stupid. In my honest opinion, not supporting a candidate because he is pro life instead of pro choice even though you agree with him on all other issues is like what that clown Matt Friedeman would write in his column. He called Cochran a liberal because he had ONLY an 80% conservative rating from some obscure conservative group, never mind Reagan said anyone who votes with you 80 percent of the time is your friend. Friedeman gets so hung up on the issue that he will oppose someone he agrees with on everything over that one issue. To me, there are other issues equally as important. Iraq. Immigration. War on Terror. National Security. I don't expect whom I vote for to agree with me on everything. I vote Libertarian in general even though on a couple of issues I disagree with them but I still vote for them because I support their overall platform.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-06-14T21:10:11-06:00

ID

106527

Comment

Jimmy, I have voted for anti-abortion candidates in the past and may in the future. But I won't be doing that this year. Pro-choice Republicans have a hard time getting support from their base. I think it's high time we gave "pro-life" Democrats a similar problem with theirs. To Rep. Fleming and other conservative Democrats, I say: If you want to ban abortion and emergency contraception and mandate abstinence-only education, fine--but we're not going to give you any advantages over honest liberals. For too long, pandering to the right has been an easy way for Mississippi Democrats to have their cake and eat it too, and we liberals have been duly showing up to the polls and voting for Republican impersonators. Ronnie Shows is the most obscene example of this principle at work. And we are already witnessing--in Mississippi, South Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, and God only knows where else--the dangers of going along to get along. I'm tired of it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-14T23:14:14-06:00

ID

106528

Comment

Why isn't there a Democratic challenger in the 3rd district? Is Chip Pickering someone who has been deemed "unbeatable"? Disgusting...

Author

Rico

Date

2006-06-16T00:46:47-06:00

ID

106529

Comment

Agreed, Rico. I have no idea why the state party won't at least throw a Hail Mary pass in our general direction, just in case. If Pickering ended up in some unimaginably scandalous scenario a week before the election, we in the 3rd District would be represented by Rep. Jim Giles (I-MS). If the Republicans can field a candidate in District 2, then the Democrats should certainly be able to field somebody in District 3. I mean, no wonder the Republicans keep winning elections in this state--they're the ones actually fielding candidates! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-16T00:53:42-06:00

ID

106530

Comment

I used to write in candidates on a regular basis when there wasn't a choice or when neither candidate appealed to me. That might solve your dilemma- you could still vote without supporting someone who doesn't hold the same principles... Don't know if you can still do that with voting machines though.

Author

Rico

Date

2006-06-16T13:56:35-06:00

ID

106531

Comment

Rico: I've tried. Sadly, it doesn't work. So much for voter choice. Tom: What is Bennie Thompson's position on abortion? I haven't found out, and he's on my ballot.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-06-16T17:12:18-06:00

ID

106532

Comment

I haven't figured out how to write in candidates using the voting machines, but a fellow feminist activist suggested this when I brought up the NARAL pledge. Remarked that I had a history of voting in every election and it'd be a shame to break it up. But in some respects, I think sacrificing or boycotting an election is one way of showing how seriously I take this issue, and more importantly how seriously I take the fact that both major parties, and the most prominent minor party, all oppose abortion rights and are unwilling to even articulately support safer sex education and emergency contraception access. LH, Bennie is openly and unapologetically pro-choice. I envy y'all in District 2! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-16T18:38:12-06:00

ID

106533

Comment

Yeah, that's one of our differences here at Clan Havoc. The hubby sez he'll trade places with you next time he sees you. The perils of being married to a conservative, I suppose. :) Me? I like Bennie. Once you get someone in office who knows what the heck he's doing, it's hard to vote them out. He'll probably be District 2 rep until he dies. Plus, I believe having a Mississippian on the Homeland Security Committee is a good thing: especially since FEMA is under Homeland Security. He could be a big help to Mississippi if we get hit with another Katrina level hurricane.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-06-16T21:30:34-06:00

ID

106534

Comment

Threats to reproductive freedom and justice have never been so systematic and coordinated, and the lives and health of Mississippi women never faced such peril. The Jackson Area National Organization for Women (NOW), along with the Mississippi ACLU and the MS Reproductive Freedom Coalition are organizing an action around the upcoming hostile visit by Operation Oppress America (this is what they actually do), during the week of July 15-22, 2006. Year after year anti-choice bullies travel across the country terrorizing clinics, their staff and patients and each time, the pro-choice community continues to show support for women, feminist issues and safe legal access to reproductive health care, free of government and religious intrusion. As an organization with a strong pro-choice foundation, NOW stands firm on reproductive freedom. We are committed to preserving a woman's right to choose. July 15-22, 2006, Jackson, MS will be invaded by 'Operation Oppress America' and several other self-righteous, right-winged Christian fundamentalists, who use a nationwide network of churches to organize a series of actions against abortion providers and harass women visiting the clinics. They have chosen the Jackson's Women Health Clinic-the only provider in Mississippi. The battle for reproductive freedom is a human rights struggle that includes all matters of equality and social justice. Reproductive justice connects the similarities amid sexism, poverty, racism, xenophobia and homophobia in achieving undivided human rights. Pro-choice activists throughout the state have been organizing to combat this action. We have organized Reproductive Freedom Summer 2006: Providing a Peaceful Presence, a week long of scheduled pro-choice events to show support to the clinic, its staff and most importantly, the courageous patients. I respectfully ask for your support doing this challenging time. We need: • Activists to come to Jackson and aid in this fight • Volunteers • Financial contributions • Items for silent auction • Spread the word of our cause Please take the time to circulate my request to others who may be of assistance to our cause. Jackson Area NOW is dedicated to upholding a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to become a parent with reproductive health options that are safe, affordable and accessible. I hope you will join us this July in making history by participating in the largest pro-choice demonstration in Jackson, MS. I appreciate your time and look forward to standing side-by-side with you while we show the nation that the last clinic in Mississippi will not fall.

Author

Jackson Area NOW

Date

2006-06-23T18:52:08-06:00