Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    re:  -1

    I, too, have based a decision on a political candidate on "ONE"
    issue.  Depending on the issue, it can be a wise way of selecting
    out a candidate.  

    For years I supported a particular candiadte for any office he ran 
    for from Town Selectman to State Office until a fatal choice of
    adendums to a particularly sensitive human rights issue was added
    by him recently.  I went right out to my automobile and ripped 
    off the bumper sticker that I proudly had had on my rear bumper
    and threw it in the dumpster.  No more checks, no more votes,
    no more support in any way even though he was liberal in his 
    support of women's  right to their own body ( a liberal Republican
    too!).

    A bad choice in sensitive areas CAN be an indication that some
    political candidate does not truly represent what YOU value highly
    and is reason enough to write them out of your voting booth!

    I support and applaud Catherine's actions.  Rights for the human
    being are tooo hard won to be lost!

    justme....jacqui

    
    I,too will be voting for Evelyn Murphy also because of her stand
    on that one issue. I will volunteer some of my time although I may
    not be able to do much because of prior committments. But, i feel
    that I should do SOMETHING, however little.
    
    Desryn.
    
    

    I have, since the original Roe v. Wade decision, based my ballot
    choices on a range of issues.  The opponents of Roe v. Wade have
    not.  As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, a candidate's stand 
    on this issue has just jumped to #1 in my list of issues to be
    considered.  I regret the necessity, but if what the polls show
    as the majority opinion is to be translated into effective legislation,
    the majority will have to speak *very clearly*.
    
    Alison
    

	I stated yesterday and then again today to two different
	friends that believe it or not over the next year and a
	half I am going to become politically active (as in more)
	both friends had blank looks on their faces  after my 
	first few words and then I clarifed what I meant - I am
	going to work for the election of Lt. Gov. E. Murphy (I
	am terrible with names) to the Govenorship of the state
	of Massachusettts.  This is the first time I have ever
	been willing to work for one canidate for one position
	and the reason is that she supports the one issue I now
	see as the most important for women.  Our right our
	bodies.

	_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				Did I hear someone say Political
				Action????    
    

    	Agreed!!  Since the announcement of the Supreme Court ruling, I
    	am a "one issue" voter now, too!
    
    	Before every election, I plan to call the campaign offices of
    	every candidate on the ballot to make a point of asking what
    	the candidate's stand is on choice.
    
    	Randall Terry (M.H.R.I.H.) from Operation Rescue says that the
    	anti-choice activists are "serious."  Our political candidates
    	need to know that pro-choicers are just as serious (and that 
    	there are more of *us* to worry about.)
    
    	If we lose the freedom to decide what happens to our own bodies,
    	we will lose more personal freedom and dignity than they will ever 
    	be able to take away from us any other way.
    	
    	This is the time to fight, and this is the issue.  It's war.

    
    Does anyone have any background info on Randall Terry (Operation
    Rescue) ? I understand he is single. Is this true?
    
    Desryn
    

    re: -1       
    
    Fortunately candidates who are enlightened enough to care about
    the environment and about society's welfare, are generally enlightened
    enough to be pro-choice, so I think it should be easy enough to
    find candidates with whom you can agree on a number of issues.
    
    Roberta

    Sounds great!!!
    
    As long as we can have abortions all will be right with the world.....
    
    I believe that anyone who would base their vote on one issue is
    selling themselves short. The country is in a financial crisis,
    an educational crisis, and a moral issues crisis. 
    
    I don't think that Evelyn Murphy or anyone else should be elected
    to office because they are or are not pro-choice. The best person
    for the job is the person that can do the best and the most for
    everyone, not just pro-choice advocates. That's like electing the
    person who votes pro-rich.
    
    Ken 

    Re: -.1
    
    An fair amount of people vote Republican because that particular party
    tends to be "pro-rich, low taxes, and to hell with everyone else."  At
    least in the stereotypical example... (please, no ratholes on this; I
    know that there are a million and one exceptions to the stereotype). 
    
    I strongly dislike voting along the lines of a single-issue.  There are
    issues which do, however, have a very vocal minority which vote based
    on that single issue and who strongly advocate that other people do the
    same.  Sound familiar?

    well, it seems to me that some people plan to work/vote for evelyn
    murphy because of her pro-choice stance and possibly for other reasons.
    others are harumphing that _they_ feel voting based on one cause
    is "wrong". 
    
    fine. my take is that those who wish to vote for evelyn should do so
    for whatever reason. those who wish to make their voting decisions for
    other reasons should do so. 
    
    but implying that someone else's voting strategy is short-sighted,
    irresponsible, etc, both belittles others (or was that the idea?) and
    leads us down unnecessary ratholes. perhaps folks could take more care
    to describe how _they_ plan to vote (even in a different note), NOT how
    other people should vote or make decisions. 
    
    liz

    Let me put it this way.  An unwanted pregnancy can (not does) have 
    a devastating effect on a woman's life; such that she does not care 
    about the economy, international affairs, etc..  That's how I feel 
    about it anyway, and one or two other issues that I am a single issue 
    voter on, such as civil rights.  If one is not a participant, then
    why bother?  It is more important to become a full participant first.
    	Linda

    Hi! I am new to this Noting but let me give it a shot.  Like many of
    you, I too have been moved to political action by the recent Supreme
    Court decision.  Frankly, it terrifies me.  I am committing my 
    organizational skills to MASS CHOICE - the group that organized the
    rally on Beacon Hill this weekend.  I believe that there are many ways
    for us to become involved and have our voices be heard.  The silent
    majority can afford to be silent no longer.
    
    				Sharon
    

    I wasn't planning on voting for Evelyn Murphy because of her ties
    to Dukakis.  I've now changed my mind and I am voting for her and
    also working for her campaign if possible.
    
    I am also pro-gun but I'll never vote for another republican again.
    Next presidential race, I'm voting Libertarian.
    
    Mary

    
    re:.14
    
    Welcome, Sharon! Mass. Choice, I believe, is a coalition of local
    pro-choice groups such as NOW, Planned Parenthood of Mass, Catholics
    for a Free Choice, NARAL and others.
    
    am
    

    Regarding the discussion of voting for a candidate based on a single
    issue...wouldn't it be nice if some people started voting for
    candidates based on an issue? Remember the last presidential
    elections?  If my memory is correct, the pollsters showed that many
    people didn't even know what the issues were!
    
    I've been following pro-choice candidates for years and have found that
    if they are pro-choice, generally they take stands on lots of other
    issues I agree with. Must be just a state of mind.
    
    G

        re: one issue

        If  we  don't  have  our  freedom, we are nothing; second-class
        citizens.

        I believe that women should vote on the  abortion  issue  as  a
        demand for freedom. 

        I  also  believe  that  gays  and  lesbians should do the same.
        Without Civil Rights, what difference does all the  other  junk
        going on in the world make.

        Anyone  who tells us that it's wrong to vote on abortion or
        civil rights as the most predominate issue hasn't  felt  the 
        pain  that  we've experienced as a result of these issues. 

        							Roger M

    Perhaps this does come down to one issue voting: 
    
    If the candidate is short sighted enough (kind understatement we
    hope) to be anti-abortion, i cannot vote for them.  My vote is mutually
    exclusive of this candidate's views. 
    
    Unfortunately, we don't always have strength in our vote [to win]
    when the vote is against a candidate (for their short sighted views, for
    example) instead of FOR someone.
    ---------
                                                           
    I also have observed that pro-choice candidates also share other
    values and positions I agree with more often than not.,
             
    my 2�
    
    Irene (who is mangling the system tonight waiting on installations!)

    One Issue ???
    
    Does MASS (I presume thats the state Evelyn Murphy is in)
    have any of these problems/concerns :
    
        - Unemployment
        - Drugs/Crime
        - Law Enforcement
        - Homelessness
        - Affordable Housing
        - Waste Disposal
        - Pollution
        - Wild life and Land preservation
        - Educational improvements
        - Roadway improvements
        - Tourism
        - Maintaining state owned properties
        - Jail/prison funding
        - State employee's; salaries,training and pensions
        - Alternative sources of energy
    
    If a Person is elected for an "approved" stand on one issue
    is there no concern for how other issues get handled ???
    Then also how will they fund these issues ... either with $$$
    from the National Goverment or most likely by raising your
    taxes...is that not a concern either ???                     
    
    Please explain how these issues do not concern woman 
    and how a candidates position on these issues wouldn't be a concern
    
    --Christopher

    <--(.20)
    
    Of course Massachusetts has those problems...EVERY state (and country!)
    has those problems.
    
    I too find that quite often a candidate who agrees with me on one very
    important issue usually agrees with me on others as well.  But even
    when they don't, if the top issue is important enough then so be it,
    I'll vote based on that issue.  I'll give you a trivial example:  if
    every presidential candidate but one declared the intention to begin a
    nuclear war, I would vote for the lone dissenter quite regardless of
    her/his position on any other issue.  I hope you would, too!
    
    						=maggie

    
    RE: .21
    
        Nuclear war ?
        Thanks for clearing that up for me
    
    --Christopher
    

    	Just now, I saw part of a debate between a pro-life advocate
    	and a pro-choice advocate, and the pro-lifer made a statement
    	indicating that she felt that there were MORE pro-lifers willing
    	to vote as "one issue voters" for this issue than there were
    	pro-choicers willing to do the same (and this would provide enough
    	of a margin for the pro-life side to win elections.)
    
    	The only hope we have for women's right to choice in this country
    	is to convince elected officials that many pro-choicers WILL INDEED
    	CAST OUR VOTES BASED ON THIS ONE ISSUE!!!
    
    	Obviously, we're going to hear a tremendous number of reasons
    	why we shouldn't do this (and we will be the objects of ridicule
    	and abuse for it,) but I don't think we will allow ourselves to be 
    	"talked out of" taking a stand to fight for our rights.
    
    	As many, many others have mentioned, pro-choice candidates tend
    	to be ones with whom I, too, agree on most other issues, so there 
    	isn't any great dilemna for me involving other issues.
    
    	Abortion rights *is* at the top of my list of concerns right now,
    	and I want those who receive (or who DON'T receive) MY VOTE to
    	know it.

    
    I find this one issue business fascinating. I am essentially a
    political animal, and when election times roll around I am in my
    element. I get (and read) the manifestos of all the parties with
    candidates in my constituency. I write to the candidates if I have
    any questions for them. I talk to their political agents about local
    issues and so on.
    
    If a candidate has a stance on any issue that makes them grossly
    unacceptable to me I write to them telling them that I will not
    be voting for them because of <mumble>. Soemtimes they even pay
    me a visit to talk about it...
    
    By and large I would describe myself as falling into the socialist
    camp when it comes to domestic affairs (taxation, welfare etc),
    and an arch conservative when it comes to international affairs.
    
    And there-in lies the rub: Since I clearly have points in which
    I side with each candidate, and no candidate with a platform matching
    my own views, I have to choose which issue is most important to
    me at that time. Doesn't everybody get into this position?
                                  
    Sometimes I have eliminated every candidate (Labour wants to cut
    defense, and increase taxation, Conservative wants to cut the health
    service and education, Democrat hasn't decided what they want to
    do, Green wants to return us to the 16th Century...) sometimes,
    very rarely, I have a choice left.
    
    How would I vote if I were in America and allowed to vote?
                          
    Ah, now that would be telling... but I chose to live in New Hampshire
    because of the political climate in Massachusetts (vis a vis 2nd
    Amendment rights for non-citizens).
                                      
    /. Ian .\

    This whole abortion issue may have one very positive effect - it just
    may get many more women in politics where they belong! Maybe we need
    this issue to get us mobilized and to get the ERA passed!
    
    Gale

    An article in the Boston Sunday Globe showed Evelyn Murphy surging
    above her potential opponents because of this one issue.  She had been
    losing ground in popularity because of the financial state of MA -
    but since the Supreme court decision she has regained lost ground plus
    some.
    
    An overwhelming number of voters polled said they would not vote for
    a govener that was not pro-choice.
    
    Suzanne

    	RE:  .26  Suzanne Poirier
    
    	Thanks for mentioning that (for us folk who don't see the papers
    	out your way.)
    
    	That is encouraging news indeed!!!!
    

Some have questioned the idea of voting on a single issue.
One issue can tell much about a candidate, but it is better
to examine the candidates' consistency from one issue to the
next. 

What I look for is a consistent stand in favor of individual
rights and liberty. A candidate who favors abortion rights
but opposes the right of free speech is inconsistent. So is
one who favors freedom of religion but supports censorship.
This inconsistency will ultimately lead that candidate to
betray some of his stands.

A prime example is George Bush, who won office, in part,
because he had the support of the 'gun lobby', those who
support the right to keep and bear arms. This person
has since allowed restrictions on certain firearms in res-
ponse to public pressure. Now take a look at his stand on
free speech, specifically in the 'flag-burning' issue.
Mr. Bush is calling for a Constitutional Amendment, no
less, to prohibit a certain form of expression. 

What can we expect from him re. abortion rights ? Or freedom
of the press ? OR the right to freely assemble ?

Who knows ? His issue-to-issue inconsistency makes him
at best, wrong half the time, at worse, incapable of 
holding an ideal in the face of *all* the issues.

The worse thing about an inconsistent politician is exactly
this - "Who knows?" "Who knows what he'll do next?" 

My ideal candidate would be in favor of decriminalizing drugs,
opposed to seat belt and helmet laws, a strong supporter of
the first and second amendments, pro-choice on abortion, 
against fireworks restrictions that make criminals of millions
every Fourth of July, and generally against every form of
government intrusion into personal privacy. 
    
If I had to choose one issue, though, it would be firearms -
an armed populace can throw the nosy ba*tards out if it gets
too bad. A disarmed populace is a flock of sheep.
    
    Dana

    I have to agree with the reply that mentioned more women would
    start getting involved in politics.  I have never before been 
    interested in politics (other than just voting) but have been 
    seriously considering becoming involved since the Supreme court 
    decision.
    
    

    
    I'am trying to understand this "one-issue" position, honest.
    When I lived in CALIF I guess I wasn't aware that abortion
    was an issue, now living in MICH and in light of recent
    events...a Womans right to choice is the issue.
    
    I don't believe I still understand completely, but I did
    meet a local Woman who represents NARAL and she did take
    the time to talk with me and earnestly tried to help me
    understand.
    
    I apologize if my previous note (.20) gave the impression
    that I didn't care or wasn't trying to understand ...I'am
    trying VERY hard.
    
    After talking with her I have a lingering question...
    New Jersey is the first state where the "one-issue"
    will get put to the test (so to speak)...
    Well, in New Jersey both candidates have stated publicly
    that they are Pro-Choice ... one's Democratic, one's Republican
    is it still a one-issue election now ??
    
    --Christopher

    Most pro-choice voters are not usually one-issue voters.  For the past
    16 years we have had the Roe v Wade decision to protect us.  When *one*
    issue clearly stands above others in terms of risk or benefit, then
    that issue becomes the "litmus test."  The same thing may have occurred
    (I don't remember) in efforts to end the Vietnam war, for example.
    
    Now we see great risk around a real life-and-death-and-basic-freedoms 
    issue, so many of us are saying that we will *not* vote for an
    otherwise attractive candidate who is anti-choice and that we *will*
    vote -- and actively work -- for pro-choice candidates.  We happen to
    feel that pro-choice issues outweigh all other issues in the upcoming
    elections.
    
    If two equally-pro-choice candidates are competing, then we can once
    again evaluate the candidates based on other important issues. 
    
    As aside, it is my hope that this politicalization of people will carry
    over into other issues that people are currently complacent about!
    
    Nancy
    
    

    re .30:
    
    Well, I don't live in NJ, so maybe I shouldn't be attempting to
    discuss your issue, but ...
    as I understand it, the Republican fellow has just within the
    last couple of weeks *decided* he might be pro-choice to some
    extent, while the Democrat fellow has at least a 5 year record
    of voting pro-choice, and supporting such legislation.  So, I 
    still don't think there are 2 equally strong pro-choice candidates.
    
    As for the one issue voting...I venture to say many folks get a
    "bee in their bonnet" about some particular issue (gun control,
    abortion, drugs, whatever) and vote based on that.  Mind you, they
    might not realize it, might know all the other issues, but are
    swayed to vote for the one supporting their 'hot button'.
    
    and, as someone set earlier...better to vote on one issue than not
    to vote at all!
    Hopefully there WILL be multiple candidates so other issues can
    be considered...
    
    deb
    

    Re .30
    
    Remember Christopher, at the last Republican national convention,
    the GOP added an anti-abortion clause to their party platform.
    They officially put themselves on the side of the anti-abortionists.
    Therefore, when in doubt, we need only remember which side the
    Republican party is on officially.
    
    Mary
    
    p.s. Abortion is only the first of many issues to be addressed.
    They awoke a sleeping giant... the women of America and those right
    thinking men who support them. 

    OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION FOR MURPHY
    
    FUND RAISER BEING HELD JANUARY 18TH IN LEXINGTON
    
    Evelyn will be sharing her views on choice and other issues from 6-8
    p.m. at home of Milton and Shirley Kay, 3 Rogers Road, Lexington
    
     Greater Lowell, Acton and Lexington Chapters of NOW are sponsoring this
    event in support of Evelyn's run for MASS Governor.
    Tickets are $20.00 each
    
    If interested call Emily Kay at 508-250-8526
    

    
    
    Isn't this a solicitation for a political candidate?
    
    ed

    No, in "solicitation", form is everything.  A solicitation is a request
    that someone else act in some way.  This is merely information provided
    so that someone else who might wish to take action can do so.
    
    						=maggie
    

    Tomorrow (Jan. 9, 1990) is the day Evelyn announces her candidacy for 
    governor.  She'll be making the announcement at 12:00 at Fanueil Hall 
    (Boston).  
    
    I have a few tickets, but I suspect that anyone who wants to go, 
    will be let in.  For more information, contact the Evelyn Murphy Committee 
    at (617) 695-1990, or send me mail.

    Today I went to Evelyn's announcement of her candidacy for governor of
    Massachusetts.  It was one of the most exciting events of my political 
    life.  She got ovations for her stands and her record on the
    environment, education, and public health.  But nothing matched the 
    volume and the length of the cheering when she reminded us of her 
    unwavering commitment to a woman's right to choose.  

    She also talked about the need to be inclusive of everyone - regardless
    of race, religious belief, or lifestyle.  She pointed out that not only
    is this the right thing to do but our economic future depends on it.
    She even pointed to a huge oil painting of the country's founding
    fathers (the announcement was in Fanueil Hall, Boston) and pointed out
    to us that only white men were sitting around the table.  The women
    were looking on from the balcony, and people of color were nowhere to
    be seen.  I thought that this was a pretty gutsy thing to do.  
    
    I am one of the most cynical people I know.  I never trust
    politicians, and I can almost always hear "the real message" behind a 
    candidate's rhetoric, but today... I found myself actually moved by 
    Evelyn's words and by her enthusiasm.  I've never thought of her as a 
    great orator before, but today there was fire in her voice, and
    she beamed with pride as she announced that she wants to be the
    next governor of this state.  I found myself beaming with pride, too.

    Justine

I hope I am not out of place by entering my comments in this note...but here 
goes anyway:

First off...I am not in favor of abortion...that is my belief, my choice.
But I am also less in favor of denying someone..anyone the right to make
that choice for or against for themselves. So bottom line is I am for the
pro-choice process.

This is what I am having a problem with as far as the Murphy position on this
issue and the issue of capital punishment.

Can someone explain to me how someone (be that E. Murphy or anyone) can be in
favor of abortion.....and yet be against capital punishment. It seems to me
that in both instances it is the termination of an undesirable situation. The
first...and unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reasons that person has decided),
and second the end to a convicted murderer or rapist's career.

I hope that I explained this well enough...in any event I to am looking for a
candidate...one that will meet as many of my needs as possible.

Thank you,
Paul 

    Since we've resolved not to let other strings (such as this) get
    co-opted for discussion of abortion, let me just see if I can answer
    your question, Paul, and put the matter to rest.
    
    I find it hard to "get it" emotionally since I'm at least slightly in
    favor of capital punishment, but I can certainly understand it
    intellectually:  
    
    If you consider the foetus to be a foetus rather than a legal human
    being (as Evelyn, the law, and most of us do) then being pro-choice
    makes perfect sense.  
    
    If you keep in mind the number of people sentenced to die but later
    found innocent, it also makes perfect sense to be anti-capital-punish-
    ment.  (Though it seems much harder to justify keeping multi-murderers
    around, since as far as I know none of them have ever later been found
    innocent.  The argument there is that killing brutalises society, but
    that leaves me unmoved when I think about all the other, unchallenged
    things we cheerfully do that *also* brutalise society)
    
    Okay?
    
    						=maggie