...when the Democratic Party acts to outlaw choice, we'll talk. Meanwhile, let's just assume that the party as an entity is pro-choice, because nitpicking about individuals aside, it is. I'm reasonably well connected, and I've never even heard of this DFL group.

As to the 'world of hurt', if you're suggesting that 34 years of adocacy for choice mean nothing because some members of the leadership don't make choice their one, only, and defining issue, sorry, you're also missing the point.

And in a way, you're illustrating why some Dems are reluctant to make choice a top issue; some, a few, one might add. But that's because of the Bushian with-us-or-against-us view taken by some of the advocates. The burden of proof, as far as I'm concerned, is on the pro-choice community to prove that the immense investment made in it was worthwhile; because last I checked, NARAL (for example) had this irritating habit of endorsing republicans. The Democrats aren't the ones who need to prove their loyalty on that subject, not after the bleeding we've done to keep choice legal, and the backstabbing it's not managed to prevent. Let's talk about what the choice community owes Democrats.