by Mike Dorning
As the 2008 general election approaches, Democrats are attempting to decide how much emphasis to place on rallying their base on the core issue of abortion rights.
While there is no serious discussion among Democrats of moving away from the party's long-standing support of abortion rights, some moderates have pressed the party to more aggressively press a message that Democrats would work to reduce the number of abortions.
Yet the party's pro-abortion-rights constituency is wary of too strong an identification of abortion as a social ill, fearing that would provide political momentum for legal restrictions.
"Where is the Democratic Party on abortion?" asks Rachel Laser, an abortion-policy expert for Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. "I think they are still heavily in a phase of rethinking it."
For more, see the story in today's Tribune:
Democrats' abortion quandary
As '08 election nears,
party weighs a more nuanced
line on issue that divides U.S.
By Mike Dorning
Washington Bureau
July 22, 2007
WASHINGTON - In sometimes subtle ways, Democratic Party leaders and political professionals are grappling with how to address abortion, an internal debate that turns on questions of emphasis, political positioning and how far to go in accepting as a public-policy goal the view that abortion is a moral tragedy to be avoided.
While there is no serious discussion among Democrats of moving away from the party's long-standing support of abortion rights, some moderates have pressed the party to more aggressively press a message that Democrats would work to reduce the number of abortions. But the party's pro-abortion-rights constituency is wary of too strong an identification of abortion as a social ill, fearing that would provide political momentum for legal restrictions.
"Where is the Democratic Party on abortion?" asked Rachel Laser, an abortion-policy expert for Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. "I think they are still heavily in a phase of rethinking it."
As the 2008 general election approaches, Democrats also will have to decide how much emphasis to place on rallying their base on the core issue of abortion rights. After the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Justice Samuel Alito, the abortion-rights majority on the Supreme Court appears to have narrowed to a one-vote margin, with two of those votes supplied by 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens and 74-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That offers the opportunity to raise an alarm over the survival of a constitutional guarantee of abortion rights, though pressing that point too hard risks intensifying public identification of Democrats as the party of abortion.
While paying homage to the party's strong pro-abortion-rights constituency, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have been at pains to put the abortion issue in a broader context, including an effort to strengthen families, prevent unwanted pregnancies and improve family planning.
None of the major Democratic presidential hopefuls is wavering in his or her allegiance to the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision guaranteeing the right to an abortion.
Nor, despite many Americans' opposition to a late-term procedure called by opponents "partial-birth abortion," have any of the leading candidates embraced the federal ban on the procedure.
But the front-runners in particular have been hurrying to move the conversation to safer ground.
Americans deeply conflicted
This was in evidence during a forum last week before Planned Parenthood, a group that strongly supports abortion rights. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) stressed contraception and sex education, delivering a blistering attack on the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for policies she said limited access to both.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) offered a vision of equal opportunity for women through an "updated social contract" that tied together better access to contraception and sex education with initiatives that could help two-income families, such as paid maternity leave and longer school days.
"If the argument is narrow, then oftentimes we lose," he said. "If you ask the most conservative person, do they want their daughters to have the same chances as men, most will answer in the affirmative. ... We can win that argument."
The Democrats' public positioning on abortion has been evolving for many years beyond a pure rights-based philosophy to a more nuanced view that takes greater account of many Americans' deeply conflicted feelings while still solidly supporting the principle that women should have the choice of aborting a pregnancy. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with promises he would seek to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."
The party has recently gone further. In the last election, Democrats embraced anti-abortion candidates, at least on the state and local level. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), an abortion opponent, was one of the Democrats' marquee candidates in 2006. And aggressive recruiting of anti-abortion candidates for rural conservative districts was a key component of party leaders' strategy to retake the House.
Former President Jimmy Carter spoke out publicly in 2005 to condemn his party's orthodoxy in favor of abortion rights, arguing it has distanced Democrats from religious voters and social moderates and conservatives.
The softer approach that many Democrats are advocating on abortion reflects some of the same political calculations behind party leaders' strategy to tread carefully during last year's congressional elections on such gut social issues as gun control and gay rights. Those cultural causes in many cases raise tensions with the party's working-class base.
Since 1998, the country has been fairly evenly divided on abortion, with a Gallup Poll this May finding 49 percent of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" and 45 percent "pro-life." Given the choice, most Americans gravitate toward the middle, saying abortion should be legal in some but not all circumstances, though there is significant disagreement on how broadly the procedure should be permitted.
Focus on preventing abortions
In Congress, Democrats have sought to shift the political dialogue on abortion to a focus on a "prevention" agenda that includes assistance for contraceptive services and sex education with contraception information, along with support for pregnant women and assistance for new mothers.
House Democrats introduced a "Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative" just before the 2006 election and incorporated parts of it this year in the annual appropriations bill funding health and social services. But the House package did not include restrictions on women's abilities to get abortions.
Democrats also have chosen conflicts with Republicans that sharpen distinctions with social conservatives on those issues.
One of the major battles that congressional Democrats waged with the Bush administration was over delayed Food and Drug Administration approval of over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill, which supporters call emergency contraception.
Sen. Clinton was a leader in that fight, blocking confirmation of an FDA commissioner until the agency ruled on the drug application. More recently, she has introduced legislation to guarantee access to the drug to women in the military.
Clinton pressed the theme of access to contraception at the Planned Parenthood forum, presenting it as a partisan distinction.
"They don't just want to wage a war on choice," Clinton said. "They want to wage a war on contraception. They are against family planning. In the 21st Century, they want to prevent women from having access to the tools they should have to determine their own reproductive futures."
Still, some Democrats see no need for nuance. Presidential contender John Edwards, who is appealing to the left wing of the party, unabashedly espouses the views of the abortion-rights movement. At the Planned Parenthood gathering, his wife, Elizabeth, lauded her husband's health-care initiative to include abortion coverage for all American women.
She described her husband as "pro-choice -- not pro-choice reluctantly, not pro-choice usually, he is simply pro-choice."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Extreme Right is no contraception. Extreme Left is late term (up to 9 months). No contraception is not the typical Right stance. I would think late term is not typical left. If a woman aborts in the 9th month I beleive she is guilty of murder. 3 months is MORE then enough time to make up your mind. The baby has rights too! There must be some compromise. There are a lot of Left and Right nuts out there trying to dictate our ways of life. So few politicians can change the laws of our country even the the majority of people are against it. What a shame.
Posted by: Robert Hindes | July 22, 2007 9:30 AM
What quandary? The Democrats have been pro-abortion fanatics in the recent past. The Democrats are pro-abortion fanatics in the present. The Democrats will be pro-abortion fanatics in the future.
The only question is how they'll try to hide this from the voters.
Posted by: Bruce | July 22, 2007 9:56 AM
Dear Mr Hindes:
I hope you come back and read other people's responses so you can read mine. Third trimester abortions are not the choice of the woman who has carried a child to near-term. Doctors will only perform a third trimester abortion if the child is already dead, or will be so seriously deformed it would not survive outside the womb. A third trimester abortion is not a choice. It's a tragedy.
Posted by: Cheryl | July 22, 2007 10:33 AM
RNC Bruce,
"Fanatics." Yeah right Bruce. Kill all the babies!
Let't try a different tangent:
If you are all for the children, how about government sponsored pre-natal health care and health care up to age 21 for uninsured children?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 22, 2007 10:41 AM
Where does Rudy stand on this issue? The leading candidate at the moment and whats his stand?
Pleaseeeeeee....
Posted by: bill r. | July 22, 2007 10:46 AM
The democrats sell taking an unborns life as "family planning"
How will they sell their democratic fundraising(dog killing)guru Michael Vick as?
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | July 22, 2007 11:06 AM
Rudy doesn't have a chance Bill
and he is not the leading candidate....Read up!
Posted by: Vince | July 22, 2007 11:18 AM
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992); Stenberg v. Carhart (2000); Stenberg v. Carhart (2006). All of these Supreme Court decisions uphold the central holding of Roe and all allow an abortion to take place up to the 'viability point' in a pregnancy. Most agree, this point is twenty four weeks. At twenty four weeks the baby has a defined body with a brain, internal organs, and basic bone structure. In fact, the 2006 case still allows a physician to dismember the fetus in utero and then deliver.
Yet to fully deny the woman a right to an abortion seems to strike at the 'heart of liberty' implicit in the Constitution (see 14th Amendment). I have a hard time grappeling with this, yet I have a hard time denying it outright. Who gives a woman the right to control, without caveat, our genome? Who are mere men and women of Congress to tell the woman what she can/can't do with her body.
I agree with Mr Hindes: Moderate and Compromise.
Posted by: Kevin Abbott | July 22, 2007 11:28 AM
Under old Doug way of thinking, if the gov't isn't providing the program, healthcare in this case, it just isn't going to get done.
The real issue in thsi story is that the democrats want to hide their abortion rights stance from the American public. Abortion on demand is not a winner.
Posted by: Terry | July 22, 2007 11:40 AM
Rudy doesn't have a chance Bill
and he is not the leading candidate....Read up!
Posted by: Vince | July 22, 2007 11:18 AM
This would be what I have read. This from Rassmussen july 20th:
Thompson remains five percentage points ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani who remains in second at 21%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is in third place with 13% support while Arizona Senator John McCain is fourth at 10%.
Now it would seem to me that if your candidate hasn't declared he is running, then he ain't winning. I guess we'll have to wait to see if he can decide to run. His indecision sends a real message I would think.
Posted by: bill r. | July 22, 2007 11:42 AM
I think the Democrat's most important task for 2008 regarding abortion is to keep the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade in the category of extreme political maneuvers in the minds of the all-important middle. People are tired of overbearing evangelicalism, and as long as people see the overturning of the law as too extreme a step, the Dems will be safe.
Because as long as they continue romantically rubbing the feet of the rightwing evangelical lobby, the mission of the GOP will be to overturn Roe v Wade. And that would be disastrous.
Then we will take it to the streets.
Posted by: Jeff Robinson | July 22, 2007 12:04 PM
Doug Zook --
Exactly on point. By all means, lets take care of the child, not just the fetus. Too many of Bruce's drones get a little too bored with the dedication required to make sure children born in unfortunate situations have an equal chance in life. How about instead of pro-life, pro-decent life?
Posted by: kb | July 22, 2007 12:10 PM
What quandary? The Democrats have been pro-abortion fanatics in the recent past. The Democrats are pro-abortion fanatics in the present. The Democrats will be pro-abortion fanatics in the future.
The only question is how they'll try to hide this from the voters.
Posted by: Bruce | July 22, 2007 9:56 AM
Bruce bringing the crazy today. I often vote democrat and don't favor abortion. I do favor a limited right to choose. I think the democratic party would do well to stay away from this trap. So much about politics gets weighed down by guns and abortion. Bruce are you not in fact a paid RNC stooge???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | July 22, 2007 12:13 PM
Oh, and Doug forgot about subsidized day care, so that poor single mothers don't have to choose between work or taking care of their child. So much Bruce for you to work on for the children...
Posted by: kb | July 22, 2007 12:21 PM
Now, these Democrats rethinking abortion rights are the true dictionary-definition of
neocons: "Former liberals espousing conservative views."
Posted by: Fran Cisco | July 22, 2007 1:16 PM
Cheryl,
I honestly don't think we'll ever get through to this bunch of idiots. It was already illegal to perform a late term abortion, except in the cases you mentioned, without Bush "grandstanding" and the Republican controlled Congress wasting time on this. If you'll notice, the only people who are adamantly opposed to abortion are, so called, MEN like Robert Hindes and Kevin Abbott. "Men" whom Women consider irrlevant to whether we have a child or not. Cheryl, watch them defend this. Hey Robert and Kevin, if you masturbate and ejaculate, aren't you killing a potential life? A life whose welfare you so falsely claim to care about? If they could write masturbation into the Constitution as a protected right, they would. And the Gods know that if MEN could get pregnant, this would NEVER be an issue.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | July 22, 2007 3:52 PM
For most people (both left and right) partial birth abortion is an abhorrent and uncivilized practice. Many of those very same people want early term abortion to remain safe and legal because they see terminating a pregnancy when the fetus is still not viable outside the womb, or in the case of incest or rape, as a medical procedure that should be between a woman and her doctor. That the radicals on both far ends of the political spectrum have hi-jacked this issue to make it seem intractable is despicable and unhelpful. That the media pays more attention to the radicals at both ends of the spectrum than to the large and common-ground middle is shameful. There is much more hysteria, fear and miscommunication about this issue than there should be.
Posted by: elizabeth | July 22, 2007 6:34 PM
elizabeth...I agree with a good deal of what you say..however...There is a strong pressure from the rightious right who have turned this issue into some sort of jihad for themselves. There is no middle ground for these people. They are the my way or the highway crowd. I doubt they see themselves as the radicals at the end of the spectrum.
Posted by: bill r. | July 22, 2007 6:55 PM
Cheryl, perhaps you should some investigating before spouting. Please look up Dr. Tiller from Kansas, he has been killing babies in the seventh, eighth and ninth months pf pregnancy for years now and will do it for any reason whatsoever. Also if the unborn baby is already dead then it is not an abortion.
Posted by: John D | July 22, 2007 6:59 PM
And kb, "pro-decent life." So now we're going to base a decision on whether life is decent or not? So, does that mean any child with any handicap or deformity should be aborted because it won't have a "decent" life?
The Left: continues down a path that is sick, demented, dangerous and psychotic.
Posted by: John D | July 22, 2007 7:04 PM
JohnD,
Excellent Point!
I don't think the lefty,liberal democratic loonies ever read or heard about....Helen Keller?
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | July 23, 2007 1:04 AM
The Left: continues down a path that is sick, demented, dangerous and psychotic.
Posted by: John D |
I hope no woman has ever had to face the public shame of carrying your demonic seed.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | July 23, 2007 1:40 AM
Why is this even still an issue?! Leave the bible out of this. It has no place in politics. It's not right in a lot of cases (neither is the death penalty) but its the woman's choice. Just as it should be for me to decide if I want to legally "self-terminate". That's all there is to it. We have more important things to worry about. Like - why is work more important than taking care of ones family?! Fathers should get at LEAST 3 months paid time off to be with mother and the baby. Why are we spending 12 billion a month on war? Lets fix our broken country first before we worry about other country's problems people! Why is the government not funding stem cell research and why are we not putting viable technology that will eliminate fossil fuels into mass production immediately?!?! We seriously need to get our priorities straight before we are forced to. I think I just may move to Sweden if things don't change within the next 5-10 years.
Posted by: The Decider | July 23, 2007 11:48 AM
John D,
Get off your talking points and read what I wrote again, and what Doug Zook wrote. I was not talking about handicapped children. I am talkiing about kids who are born to parents who did not plan to be parents and more importantly are not fit to be good parents. Or children who are born to a single mothers who are uneducated, poor, and have no support system. These kids deserve some help after they are born,and that never is part of the Far Right message. Health care, day care, early education. Save the fetus, and also save the child. Help the kids who most need help to be successful in life, or at least live a DECENT one. Its actually about being DECENT to each other, as Americans, instead of being righteous and just ending it there.
Posted by: kb | July 23, 2007 12:29 PM
Again, kb, who decides who is a good parent and who is a bad parent? What is the criteria used? Financial ability? Intelligence ability?
Actually, kb, the
"Far Right" does more to help those in need than the Far Left. Studies show that when it comes to charitable giving, the Right does a heck of a lot more than the Left. The Right also speaks of programs that actually better lives rather than keep them in the status quo like the Left.
The Decider, anytimes you want to move to Sweden, please do! The quicker, the better. And when you go, please take John E with you.
Posted by: John D | July 23, 2007 2:42 PM
The Decider, anytimes you want to move to Sweden, please do! The quicker, the better. And when you go, please take John E with you.
Posted by: John D | July 23, 2007 2:42 PM
John D:
I like to look at things realistically, keeping the past, present, and future of the planet in mind continually. Anyone with a realistic outlook on life seems to chap your hide. I'm not a "raving loon" or a "nazi". I am somewhere in between: I love guns, a strong military, family values, abortion rights, hugging trees, decriminalization of all drugs, and the right to self terminate (among many other issues). Any time you and people of your "ilk" want to "self terminate" please do! I am for common sense and continually improving every aspect of our country (think self termination righties!). Our country is broken and needs fixing. If a country attacks us, I mean really attacks us, then I think we should turn it into a parking lot. No invasion, no hype, just a parking lot. None of this preemptive strike crap. We have no business meddling in other countries besides honest/transparent commerce/advancing the well being of the planet and its inhabitants. None of this special interest crap. I am for QUALIFIED people running our country. People who KNOW how to lead and run a business who have excelled at it (Lincoln, FDR, etc).
FYI - I will be living in Sweden part time and I will have dual citizenship. I'll get my legal semi auto assault rifle, my biodiesel 800 horsepower 65 impala, a year of paid paternity, and I'll be surrounded by gorgeous liberal Swedish women! So I will make sure to be here when its time to vote (in order to offset your vote) and help restore order and justice to the nation! I will also make sure to bring numerous blond hair/blue eyed centrist/realist 7 foot tall superhumans into the gene pool (my honor roll students will surely beat the crap out of yours Mr D.)!
Posted by: The Decider | July 23, 2007 5:28 PM
Ok, Decider, please tell us whom you think is a well qualified leader?
Posted by: John D | July 23, 2007 8:17 PM
I am! Because I am the decider! You can be my VP! I don't really know - All of the politicians currently running strike me as flakey or just downright delusional. Just more of the same. We need a change, but we need someone with both that change catalyst AND electability. And btw, I was just joking with the terminating, the assault rifle, and the child on child violence!
Posted by: The Decider | July 24, 2007 11:35 AM