The Dems’ approach to the abortion issue is, for better or for worse, in flux. The party is recruiting candidates, some of whom oppose abortion rights, to run in major statewide campaigns. DNC Chairman Howard Dean is making unequivocal statements about the need to reach out to “pro-life” voters. Party language now emphasizes progressive solutions to reduce abortions over the need to keep the practice legal.
Indeed, for the first time in the post-Roe era, the Dems’ Senate leader is not pro-choice. Harry Reid and 22 Dem senators have even put their collective weight behind the Prevention First Act (S. 20), which aims to reduce the number of abortions by focusing on a reduction in unwanted pregnancies.
Whether one approves of some or all of these moves is dependent on how seriously one takes the reproductive rights issue. Dems will remain a pro-choice party for the foreseeable future, but the party nevertheless appears committed to expanding its voter base to include those who support restrictions on abortion rights, if not an outright ban.
The question then becomes how best to deal with the “95-10” initiative.
The proposal gets its name from a straightforward policy goal: reduce abortions by 95% over the next 10 years. The idea has not yet been introduced in Congress, but supporters, including Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), plan to unveil a bill as early as next week. I have a hunch it’s going to kick off a spirited debate in Dem policy circles.
This is not just a sequel to the Prevention First Act. Reid’s bill, which enjoys broad support in the reproductive rights community, seeks to reduce abortions by expanding access to contraceptives, boosting support for family-planning programs, and emphasizing comprehensive education on sexual health. There will be fewer abortions, supporters argue, if there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.
The “95-10” initiative comes at this from a far different angle — and includes far different provisions. That’s not necessarily a good thing.
For pro-choice Dems who like the Prevention First Act (a group that includes me), there are plenty of things to like about the “95-10” plan. It expands women’s health care programs, emphasizes contraception equity with health care plans, and makes adoption tax credits permanent. Better yet, it would demand full funding for the federal WIC program. That’s the good news that most Dems would embrace.
Then there’s the other stuff. The “95-10” initiative also bans late-term abortions and requires parental-notification laws. A little more problematic? You could say that.
The plan, which has the enthusiastic support of a group called Democrats for Life, seeks to straddle the line a bit — health care provisions for liberals, abortion restrictions for conservatives. What makes this interesting, however, is the amount of support it’s received so far.
Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) joined Congressmen Tim Ryan, Bart Stupak, Lincoln Davis and other pro-life Democrats at a national press conference at the Democratic National Committee [on April 21] to unveil an innovative abortion-reduction proposal.
Who’s on board? In addition to the three House members at last week’s event, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has embraced the initiative, has as Reps. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.). Former congressman and 9-11 Commission member Tim Roemer has not only endorsed the policy, but is going to help lobby for it.
So, how does the party respond when the bill is unveiled next week? Just as importantly, when would Dems do if Republicans embrace the anti-abortion Dems’ plan? And how flexible would supporters of “95-10” be about “life and health of the mother” exceptions?
Keep an eye on this one. It might get interesting.