i have nothing to prove that, but Gillibrand seems to me the kind of "blue dog" that will be more liberal, when not representing a conservative area anymore. I would expect her senate voting record to be more liberal than her house voting record and even if she had stayed in the house I would have expected her to move to the left after she won with 62 % in an R+3 seat
I haven't posted a lot on mydd, though I read mydd every day. I've always enjoyed reading mydd and found the arguments to be thoughtful and persuasive.
Reading the commens to this posting however I'm disappointed with the comments from the mydd readers.
Why can't somebody be a good progressive although she/he is pro life? Why are people so harsh on people that feel that abortion is something immoral.
I myself I'm both uncomfortable with the terms pro-life and pro choice.
Pro-Life suggests that I put the babies right above the mothers, pro choice suggestts it the other way round - but why can't American progressives accept that there are people that feel both ways:
On the one hand I morally believe that abortions should be rare and limited on the other hand I believe that the only way to limit abortions is to council women and to allow them.
What all the pro-lifers don't get is that forbidding abortion won't do any good. It won't lower the numbers, nor will it bring women to decide on adoptions. If you want abortions to be safe and rare, you must allow them but also council women on their decision to get an abortion or not.
Interestingly enough some of the most liberal European Countries (Netherlands, Belgium and Germany) have the lowest abortion rates.
While about 25 in a thousand fetuses get aborted in the US, it's only about seven in a thousand in Germany or Belgium.
Those countries try to explain the benefits and disadvantages of abortions without seeing them ideologically.