The Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne Jr., who’s nearly always excellent, had an interesting column today about Thomas Suozzi, a county official on Long Island, a Democrat, a churchgoing Catholic, and someone trying to find “an authentic middle ground on the abortion issue.”
[Suozzi] believes that abortion should remain legal. He is also a Democrat who thinks that government should take concrete steps to make it easier for women to choose against abortion. He’s proposing that his suburban jurisdiction on Long Island spend some serious money to make that happen.
A politician who takes both these positions risks putting himself in the political crossfire, which is exactly what Suozzi did last week in a remarkable speech at Adelphi University. By gambling on offending everyone, this New Yorker just might move the national abortion debate to more constructive ground.
“As a Democrat, I do not often find it easy to talk with other Democrats about our need to affirm our commitment to the respect for life and how we need to emphasize our party’s firm belief in the worth of every human being,” he said. “As a Catholic, I do not often find it easy to talk with other Catholics about my feeling that abortion should and will remain safe and legal, and that we should instead focus our efforts on creating a better world where there are fewer unplanned pregnancies and where women who face unplanned pregnancies receive greater support and where men take more responsibility for their actions.”
If I’m understanding the column properly, Suozzi wants to make sure abortion remains legal, while also working to reduce the number of abortions that occur. He supports investment in support of homes for single mothers, adoption, and family planning programs, including contraception.
I guess the reason I’m confused is why Suozzi’s position is being singled out as unusual. Dionne calls him “one brave politician” who “risks putting himself in the political crossfire.” I don’t quite see it this way; Suozzi’s tack seems to be entirely in line with the Dem mainstream.
Dionne seems to believe the left will reject arguments such as Suozzi’s because it tacitly admits that abortions are “bad” things that should be reduced. I see the point, but I’m afraid that train left the station some time ago — even the most ardently pro-choice Dems tend to embrace the “safe, legal, rare” line crafted by Clinton over a decade ago.
Indeed, consider, again, one of my favorite pieces of legislation: the Prevention First Act (S. 20), which aims to reduce the number of abortions by focusing on reducing unwanted pregnancies, and is sponsored by Harry Reid, who opposes abortion rights. If Dionne is right, and the left is inclined to reject efforts that suggest abortions are “bad,” liberals would want nothing to do with Reid’s bill.
Except the opposite has happened. NARAL, which isn’t exactly moderate on the issue, quickly and enthusiastically embraced the Prevention First Act. In the Senate, pro-choice Dems raced to become co-sponsors, including big names like Kerry, Clinton, Boxer, Kennedy, Schumer, Harkin, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Obama.
Suozzi’s line is entirely consistent with the Dem mainstream at this point. The problem, naturally, is on the right.
Dionne noted that Long Island’s Roman Catholic bishop, William Murphy, called Suozzi’s speech “important and, on the whole, very helpful.” That’s encouraging, but it’s not the GOP line. Any initiative that allows abortion to remain legal and provides contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies is a non-starter in most Republican circles. (Notice, for example, that there are zero GOP co-sponsors of Reid’s Prevention First Act.)
Suozzi’s approach seems like a fair middle ground — until one realizes that with today’s Republican Party, there is no middle on abortion. We can reduce unwanted pregnancies, they say, so long as it doesn’t include contraceptives, family-planning programs, or comprehensive education on sexual health, and so long as abortion is illegal from the moment of conception.
Dionne is worried that Suozzi might get caught in political crossfire. Sounds to me like all the shots will be fired from one side.