I hear you too, and I agree. I hope your voice will reverberate; though I must admit that the Mensheviks didn't win.

Divide and conquer. Gee, one even wonders if this was the effect that some mastermind strategist in the Republican party had in mind when s/he plotted the plan that led to the Stupak-Pitts amendment. This, in itself, would be more valuable than any (real or imaginary) setback in abortion rights. Because ultimately it could get them closer to their greatest wet dream, the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

You're right, of course. In every single issue you mention.

I understand their outrage. Just as I understand the outrage of every single group who became disappointed in the Obama administration because of every one of the issues that you mention.

If only it were possible to get a more idealistic group, like the Green Party, elected. But this isn't going to happen, and I'm afraid that romantics like Ms Harding will end up (like romantics most often do) making life harder for themselves and their allies.

I hope I'm wrong. Who knows? Maybe their fight will yield some good results. There's enough of a romantic idealist in me to make me hope that the pragmatist in me is wrong. But when I look at the situation in America, I fear the worst.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter must be having simultaneous orgasms now, thinking of the potential collateral damage.

I hear you. I don't know if they can take money from non-citizens (I'm Brazilian). If they can, I'll donate. To every single one of them.

Ms Harding is trying to be a romantic. Many other feminists here are trying to be romantics. I wish them luck. But as Candide said, I'd rather they were helping tend the garden.

On an unrelated note, what is with the posters who keep saying that this will prevent women from spending their own money on abortions? Where do the posters infer that?

I think they're saying that the funds they have -- i.e. the money already paid to their insurance company -- will not be usable for abortions, so they'll need to pay for them out of their own pocket. But since this is mostly the situation already for most women, who either get the money from their own budgets or then try one of those abortion funds, I really don't see how that is going to be the case. (In case I'm wrong -- maybe I am -- could anyone please explain?)

Indeed, mdmanic, it did occur to me that the idea women couldn't engage on a rational discussion of the options and tactics; that it had to be an all-or-nothing, let's-go-to-the-barricades-or-back-to-the-kitchen choice; was in itself quite offensive to women.

I'm reminded of Rosa Luxemburg's and Karl Liebknecht's beautifully romantic, but ultimately unsuccessful fight to establish a Communist government in Germany, finally defeated with the help of the Freikorps that eventually became the Nazi SA. Sure, it was a romantic endeavor -- and it even had better odds of succeding at the time than the battle Ms Harding is pleading for has now in America. But what were the consequences? And frankly, in retrospect (which they couldn't have known, which I understand), it would have been better if Ms Luxemburg and Mr Liebknecht had used their time to weaken the Freikorps and increase the penetration and strength of the Communists -- to recruit more and more followers, rather than attempt an all-or-nothing battle against the right-wingers without the support of the other progressive parties like the SPD.

We've got to hang together, or we'll all hang separately.

We've got to all hang together, or then we'll all hang separately.