[Mpls] Why we should abort the City DFL Caucus.

[Neal Krasnoff]

Earl Netwal, Associate Chair 62nd District DFL, wrote:

 >I have personally long been in support of reducing
 >the number of delegates per precinct to encourage
 >actual decision making at the local precinct level.

If that was the case, I don't think I would have been "allowed" to 
become a delegate to the Senate District Convention, especially after 
presenting my minority resolution about the public funding of 
abortions. One participant questioned why I was there in the first 
place - and the Secretary, in no uncertain terms - let it be known that 
she was out of line. Then <I> let her have it. I'm a trade-unionist, I 
explained, and I don't think the Republicans would welcome me. The 
resolution was voted down, of course. But I was able to present it and 
have it discussed. The Enlightened Ones voted it down, but I did get 4 
Yeas.

It would depend on when the selection process delegates occurred. I 
definitely have a minority view on public funding of abortions, the 
death penalty, and American worker displacement by H1B immigrants. If 
my "qualifications" were voted on, I'd be voted down, and only the left 
wing of the DFL would be represented.

 >We are in a rebuilding phase, and have by virtue of a very large
 >turnout infused our party with a lot of new and returned voices that I 
am
 >confident will help us steer a more positive and centrist party, still
 >committed as always to social justice and a future of hope for all
 >Americans.  Our party has the same machinery it did the day before
 >yesterday, but it is a new party that I would like to trust for a full 
two
 >years before we renew it again in 2006.

And that's a good thing. I haven't been this involved in Democratic 
politics, ever. I'm glad I became a District Delegate. While there was 
no evidence of compromise from the left at my precinct caucus, I hope 
there <will> be compromise at the District level, or higher in the City 
and State Conventions.

For the record, my Resolution was as follows:

Whereas, the Minnesota Bill of Rights in Article I, Section 16 of the 
State Constitution enumerates: that no control or interference with the 
rights of conscience shall be permitted; and

Whereas, the Supreme Court of this State failed to recognize this 
provision in their decision of Doe v. Gomez in 1995, providing that 
public funds shall be used to pay for abortions in the State of 
Minnesota; and

Whereas, a subject class of citizens is now forcibly compelled by the 
State, against their religious and moral beliefs, to pay for abortions 
by the use of their taxes, in direct violation of their enumerated 
rights.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Plank 51 of the DFL Platform be amended to read:

"[We support] [p]rivate and public funding for health care programs 
that include pregnancy care and family planning, except that no person 
shall be forced to pay for abortion, contrary to their religious or 
moral beliefs, or otherwise violating their rights of conscience".

After the vote I commented that I hope there weren't any members of 
Amnesty International present. :-(

Neal Krasnoff
Ward 7, Precinct 5
Loring Park