Big-tent politics on abortion

August 16, 2005

The AP had an interesting item yesterday on a House Dem who wants to move the party away from its solidly-pro-choice background. I wonder, though, if he realizes that he’s already won.

Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat who opposes legalized abortion, is helping the party’s effort to broaden its base by reaching out to other abortion opponents.

“I just feel that the party needs to be neutral on the subject, or at least welcoming of those who have a different view,” Oberstar said.

I suspect neutrality on abortion rights is highly unlikely, but haven’t the Dems already gone to great lengths to be a big-tent party in this regard?

* Dems didn’t hesitate to back Harry Reid as the party’s Senate leader last year. He’s the first Senate Dem to lead the caucus while also opposing abortion rights in the post-Roe era.

* During last year’s presidential election, leading abortion-rights groups asked John Kerry to pledge a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. He refused.

* In recruiting candidates for the 2006 cycle, Dems reached out to high-profile, top-tier candidates who oppose abortion rights in Pennsylvania (Casey) and Rhode Island (Langevin).

* Nearly half the Senate Dem caucus has rallied behind the Prevention First Act, which seeks to reduce unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, lower the abortion rate.

* Several Senate and House, with support of party leaders in both chambers, are working to establish an official relationship with Democrats for Life, an anti-abortion-rights group.

* DNC Chairman Howard Dean, despite strong pro-choice views, has said in no uncertain terms, “We need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party.”

Jim Oberstar is imploring the party to be “at least welcoming of those who have a different view.” I’m wondering, what more can the Dems do?

I would hope that regardless of how big the tent gets that the Democratic Party make it perfectly clear that under no circumstances will making abortion illegal ever be part of the party platform.

  • Almost by definition, the Democrats are welcoming of those who may oppose abortion. It’s called CHOICE. The point being that all of us should be able to make the “choice” of whether or not abortion is right for us as individuals. It becomes a problem when people – most of those in the anti-abortion crowd – try to force THEIR choice on others. Then it’s no longer “choice”. It’s force.

    One of these days, the right will get it. Or maybe not. It’s really a very simple concept that traditional conservatives should embrace. Unfortunately, their hypocrisy continues to get in the way of sound judgment.

  • I think Drew’s right. To add to what he said, I also think it’s important to remember Republicans appealing to pro-choicers is nonexistent, while Dems keep bending over backwards for pro-lifers.

    There are more of us than there are of them. Shouldn’t the roles be reversed?

  • The problem is not one of “choice” and “rights” versus “force.” Liberty itself is based on the restriction of choice and rights as it affects others negatively; that is one of the things that separates liberty from anarchy, feudalism, etc. It is not hard to understand how someone who sees the fetus as a spiritual, feeling human could see the “rights” approach as cold and heartless. The fact that abortion is generally a terrible ordeal form women doesn’t get addressed by the pro-choice crowd, reinforcing the “disconnected” feeling towards the abortion rights movement.

    In fact, it’s young women themselves who find the “rights” argument unconvincing—shown by how they both support continuing the feminism legacy but find abortion legality a much less pressing issue. The Center for Gender Equality’s amazing 2003 survey (Part One and Part Two) captures this perfectly. This survey should be the bible for politicians trying to hear what women want, rather than what women’s groups say they want. In the CAW’s intro letter (now taken down), the president spoke about this as “alarming news,” rather than as evidence that feminism was ignoring women’s real concerns.

    Moreover, the Dems have NOT been “big tent” regarding abortion. Weak-kneed Kerry refusing to agree to pro-choice (Democrats!) strong-arm tactics means the party is open minded? Get serious. That just shows how far a candidate has to go from the party “base” to try and get elected.

    Feminism firmly took over the party around 1980, when Dems decided to require equal gender representation in their delegates (quotas) and refused to financially support candidates who did not agree to this system; this was a party reversal of past experience. At the time, the only women politically active as delegates were largely feminists of the (now) old school “rights” variety. That was great, then; now Dems need to connect with what really moves women, not what feminism claims moves women.

    The fact is, the Democrats largely abandoned their more conservative southern counterparts and have largely passed over them for leadership positions. Hillary Clinton changed her stance recently because she’s waking up to the reality of the situation: that approaching this as a pure “choice” is missing what matters to people. The example (and they are few and far between!) above only highlight examples of races where Dems had no other options. Tim Rohmer is a great example—here’s a guy who could actually win the presidency, and he couldn’t even be considered for party chairman because—oh no!—he is pro-life. He openly admitted this and focused on the fact that he would not try to influence the party platform either way. He understands the party is pro-choice, but he also understands that it won’t matter what the party stands for if it can’t win on a national level.

    Are Dems, women, liberals, or any of our rights better served by supporting “rights” at all costs, if that means the only party getting elected are Republicans of the neo-con school?

  • Drew,

    the rub comes in when you consider federal funding of abortions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-choice and pro federal funding for the poor to recieve reproductive counseling, up to *and* including abortions.
    Where the anti-choice people come from is that they think its a morally wrong choice for an individual *and* that especially egregious to their taxes pay for it. It doesn’t matter to them that pacifists also have their tax dollars funding the military, or any of a whole host of similar issues.

    Again, I’m pro-choice. period. full-stop. (don’t shoot the messenger). Accordingly, I’ll never support a candidate whose position in essence is: abortion is morally wrong, but the rich and middle classes can have it as its not my tax dollars funding it.

  • This is where we out-think ourselves, particularly on an issue as emotionally charged as abortion. Any Democratic move to embrace “pro-lifers” will be interpreted in the same way that we view Mehlman’s apology to Blacks: a cynical ploy to buy sucker’s votes. Bill Clinton’s perfect common ground line that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare brought him exactly zero anti-abortion voters. Reaching out to the right of Bill’s position will lose my support. Why should I vote for the Democrats if they won’t fight for hard-won rights? As Eadie said, abortion is a terrible ordeal for most women; Democrats need to make sure the Government doesn’t make it worse.
    Rather than us moving to the anti-abortion position, we should insist that we are the party of small government, and they should join us in keeping Big Brother out of women’s private lives.

  • This country is so insanely neurotic about sex. It’s the 2 ton gorilla in the big abortion discussion tent. The endless dog chasing tail conversation about abortion will continue on all sides because the subject is what to do about the failure of an unwanted pregnancy rather than how to REALLY teach family planning and provide effective, understandable, and readily available birth control.

    The 22 Democrats in the Senate supporting the Prevention First Act are admirable but one of the main planks is this from the AP article CB cites:

    “Anti-abortion Democrats are drafting a bill in Congress aimed at reducing the number of abortions in the country by 95 percent over 10 years, primarily by stressing adoption. It’s known as the “95-10 Initiative.””

    That’s not Prevention First and it’s not realistic. It’s still trying to figure out what to do with children that for whatever reason, aren’t going home with their birth parents. That’s sad. I hope they all get adopted. But it’s NOT Prevention First and that’s why I don’t feel like the real issues behind the abortion issue are being addressed.

    When Pro-Lifer’s who say they want to reduce the number of unwanted children start choking out the words contraception and sex education on a regular basis then the real discussion can begin. And the same thing goes for the Pro-Choicer’s. I don’t hear much from that side on real Prevention First either.

    Available, safe and as infrequent as possible. That’s the line and I’m still not hearing substance on the infrequent as possible part.

  • Edo…I certainly understand the tax dollars issue, but I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that 90% or more of the “pro-lifers” don’t give a flip about tax dollars RELATIVE to their desire to see the abortion procedure banned entirely. For them, it’s really not an issue of federal tax dollars, it’s an issue of what they believe to be right vs. wrong. And they certainly are entitled to their belief. What they are not entitled to, in my estimation, is to dictate what OTHERS should believe or what others should do when it comes to their own personal situations.

    I also agree with burro that, if anti-abortion advocates really want to minimize the number of abortions, then they should encourage all forms of education and contraception. But we know that won’t happen because most of them are against contraception, too. Many, in fact, view contraception as almost as morally wrong as abortion, and we’re not just talking about strict Catholics, either. Ask the Rick Santorums of the world and they will say that contraception is not an acceptable option. Sad, but true.

  • What more can the Democrats do?

    To too much of the public, Democrats aren’t the pro-choice party. They are the pro-abortion party. BIG difference.

    I do think the Democrats shouldn’t have knee-jerk reactions to anti-choicers, which can create the not-such-a-big-tent perception. The bigger issue is how pro-choice groups and Democratic politicians frame abortion as a choice/privacy/medical issue and how well they get across quantitative evidence that there are fewer abortions when sensible pro-choice policies are put in place (comparisons between states with lower abortion rates and higher ones; how much the abortion rate fell under Pres. Clinton’s watch). A better message and educating the public have to happen.

  • DRew,

    What they are not entitled to, in my estimation, is to dictate what OTHERS should believe or what others should do when it comes to their own personal situations.

    But the federal financing of abortion is exactly how anti-choice people respond to this valid argument. “You (pro-choicers) are forcing ME to pay for abortion. You are dictating my own personal situation.”

    If you don’t believe me, next time the abortion topic comes up on political animal (Kevin Drum’s blog on http://www.washingtonmonthly.com), watch for the inevitable debate between cmdicely and DonP. Both are solidly liberal and back Dem candidates. cmdicely is anti-choice personally and resents the federal funding of abortions.

    For me, its simple: abortion is a medical decision that should be decided by the woman with consultation from whomever she chooses (doctor, partner, biological father, parent, priest, etc.) and she should be able to get the procedure done regardless of her financial position or the state she lives in. To say that its okay for one state to have it be legal, but that poor people can’t have it is abominable (like comparing it to breast ehancement or purchasing an SUV), IMHO.

    • Comments are closed.