I'm ok with this!

But, you have to admit, this certainly sounds a lot like one of those evil Purity Tests that the Clintonites have been haranguing Bernie Bros about.

Exactly what kind of 'Democrats' does the DCCC hope to recruit and elect?

I'm having a hard time imagining a Democrat who would be anti-Choice but totally reliable on any other core Democratic priority.

If this is the path the DCCC is going to take, the party is doomed.

Yay! Let's create a wedge!

Whatevs, I'm bailing on the Dems anyways, for a zillion other reasons. This is one of those rearranging deck chairs in the Titanic type scenarios.

@2 I've known more than a few liberals who were staunchly anti-choice and I've known a few conservatives who were staunchly pro-choice. The former believed that the right to life began at various stages in development (heartbeat, quickening, etc), the latter did not believe the state had a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (incidentally, these were usually pro-legalization conservatives). It's a thorny wedge issue precisely because the sides don't fall neatly along the usual liberal or conservative lines.

We have to remember that politics makes strange bedfellows. Climate change is by far the most important issue facing us today, and Sen. Joe Manchin is terrible on topic. Nonetheless, without his vote last week, Obamacare would be in very serious trouble.

I'm fine with the DCCC making a tactical decision to back some candidates even if they aren't pure enough for everyone, as long as they vote right most of the time (unlike Tim Sheldom, for example).

There are Pro-Choice Republicans. Why can't there be Pro-Life Democrats?

There is much interest in developing an artificial womb:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots…

Once this is perfected, there will be no abortion, only the choice to have the baby, or a "transfer" to an artificial womb for eventual adoption. We have much bigger, complex, thornier issues to contend with.

This is not hypothetical. There are two pro-life Democrats in Congress right now, plus a few muddled ones.

Run a better candidate in the primary? Sure. But if that doesn't work, and (shocker!) the incumbent wins, are you saying the DCCC shouldn't help them? At all? You'd sit back and give up two seats? What if it costs you control of the House?

You do realize that with a Democratic Speaker, and committee chairs, no anti-choice bills can even make it to the floor, right? That's how this works. You win all the marbles. A couple pro lifer Dems won't ever have a pro life bill to vote on.

But lose those seats, and the Republicans will put those bills up and they'll pass.

Anybody who brags"I'll do whatever it takes to protect choice" needs to get it through their heads that you won't be protecting jack shit in the House if you lose. To protect choice, first you have to win.

Women's reproductive freedom is not negotiable.

Naive.

If you might recall abortion was never legalized by congress in the first place. It was legalized by the Supreme Court. The main thing that matters for keeping abortion legal is blocking the appointment of Trump's Supreme Court appointments. To do that, we need to retake the senate.

In other words, this guy needs to win to prevent Roe v Wade from being struck down.

Heck is recruitment chair for the DCCC, DelBene Finance Co-Chair. They will be recruiting and funding candiates that oppose reproductive rights, single-payer, action on the climate and a lot of other things in the state Dem platform. The state party can only contribute $5K to a federal race, so what they say is really pretty meaningless.