Democrats, abortion rights, and a ‘shift’ in the party platform

August 13, 2008

Following up on an item from June, there has been a quiet discussion going on among Democratic Party leaders and select interests about the language on reproductive rights in the party’s platform. A new draft is making the rounds, and, predictably, it’s drawing a series of competing reactions.

The last Democratic Party platform, written four years ago, explained, “We strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”

The new draft platform reiterates the party’s support for “a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion,” but adds a new provision: “The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”

The provision is obviously about adding language to highlight the party’s support for prevention. And some religious leaders who pushed for the new provision are delighted.

“The Democratic Platform Committee really reached out to moderate religious leaders from evangelical and Catholic religious communities. The resulting language on abortion is a real step forward that provides some sorely needed common ground around reducing the need for abortion,” the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a liberal religious group, said Tuesday.

“The new language around this is a significant shift for the Democratic Party,” Mr. Wallis’ group said.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Orlando and former president of the Christian Coalition, said he is “very encouraged,” adding, “Pro-life voters of either party can now support Senator Obama on the basis that more lives will be saved than if they had just taken a moral stand hoping to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

I’m glad these folks are pleased

koupit-pilulky.com

, and if this additional platform language helps improve Democratic performance with pro-life voters, every little bit helps.

But I’m not sure how “significant” a shift this really is.

BeliefNet’s Steve Waldman noted:

The key linguistic debate has been whether to “reduce the number of abortions” or “reduce the need for abortions.” Pro-life folks favored the former. Pro-choice folks favored the latter. The pro-choice folks won. In fact, the 2004 platform said abortion “should be safe, legal and rare” – language that’s casts abortion reduction as morally preferable, something this platform does not.

I think that’s right. The new language touts the importance of offering women additional support. I’m glad; I think would-be mothers should get additional support.

But it’s not necessarily a policy change to argue that the party “strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs.” Wallis calls this a “shift”; I call this the same policy Dems have supported for years.

Some of this may be procedural in nature. Waldman noted, “Pro-life religious liberals were included in the process like they haven’t been before. They’re thrilled with their participation and feel that the platform moved in the right direction as a result.”

I’m glad they’re encouraged; it’s a sign of respect to have a seat at the table. But the platform itself, at least in this draft form, seems pretty similar, if not identical, to the party’s position on the issue for years.

“safe legal and rare” was short & punchy. People like short & punchy…unless they don’t like what’s being said short & punchy-able.

The new language takes a few dozen words to say what “safe legal and rare” said, but without being so quotable, one can argue that it makes “rare” comes first.

  • It isn’t a substantive change, but I like the new language.

    The new language emphasizes the “pro-life” crowd’s aversion to family planning, and their total lack of compassion for women with unwanted pregnancies.

  • Another added bonus – it subtly reinforces the notion that the Republicans (and Pro-Life zealots) don’t seem to care much about the child after it’s born. I’d imagine it would allay ALOT of the concerns that Catholics have with the platform and by extension the Democratic Party.

    Remind me again, who’s the fastest growing demographic? And what religion do they overwhelmingly profess?

    seems like a smart move.

  • i like the new formula for two reasons. while it is not a policy change, it is a reminder that pro-choice is not pro-abortion: it aims to facilitate either choice a pregnant woman may make – to abort or to have the baby (and the subsequent two choices, to raise it or put it up for adoption).

    the second aspect to this is that it lets us get another hit in on health care.

    the bottom line, which this language reinforces, is that Democrats are actually better than Republicans regardless of which choice the pregnant woman makes. If she wants to choose an abortion, the Democrats are obviously much stronger at protecting her right to do so. But it is just as important to note that if the woman chooses to carry to term, whether or not that decision is rooted in a “pro-life” political belief, the Dems are still better for her because we are much stronger on affordable, accessible health care and in particular pre- and neo-natal health care as well as early childhood programs.

    Now if we could just work in a link to our better position on access to birth control to avoid the “carry, adopt out, or abort” decision in the first place, we’d really have it covered.

  • We’re the only so-called civilized nation to still be debating abortion.

    There was a time when we led the world and now, thanks to decades of having Republicans in control, we’re the also-rans.

    (fwiw, I think this is more about controlling women & their bodies than any falsely sanctimonious braying about the rights of the unborn.)

  • It should go without saying that if you are pro choice, you support either choice. But that’s never been how the rabid right has framed us or the debate. To the degree this clarifies things, it’s good. But do platforms really matter anymore?

  • I don’t think it’s a significant shift, either, but if this thread is anything like the last one, it’s a Bat signal to hard-core folks advocating that there’s no moral dimension whatsoever to abortion and claiming that this has always been the Democratic position and to say anything different is to cave to Republican framing. I think that’s a complete and total crock, but now the gauntlet has been thrown and I invite those folks in!

    Are Spain and Ireland not civilized nations, btw?

  • A good move. There are a lot of people out there who are still uneasy with abortion policy as defined by european standards. A lot of them. We of the left need to remember that we too live in a bubble of sorts, where “pro life” (anti-choice) views are 100% rejected, and thus we are sometimes puzzled by the people who hold them. What’s clear to me is that a lot of people on that side of the issue are very unhappy with Bush, and that they are ripe for the picking if we can assure them that their views are going to be heard. (Not obeyed, of course, but honestly heard) I think Obama can do that. And he is going to need to peel off some of the conservatives, and shore up the black conservatives, to make up for the “Bradley effect” which we will not know how to measure until it’s too late.

    I’ll take it.

  • Perhaps not so much a shift in policy (as many have already pointed out), rather than reframing the debate on our terms, which is long overdue. The far right evangelical crowd has basically had the floor all gto themselves on this one, casting anyone who doesn’t support an outright legislative ban on all abortions as “pro-abortion.” Of course most people would like to see fewer abortions performed as a method of birth control — it’s about time we make this part of the equation, and make the other side out to be the extremists and not “in the mainstream”…

  • zeitgeist #4:

    Now if we could just work in a link to our better position on access to birth control to avoid the “carry, adopt out, or abort” decision in the first place, we’d really have it covered.

    Therein lies the rub. Thrown in sensible sex education á la Dutch and we’re home and dry.

  • jibeaux wrote: it’s a Bat signal to hard-core folks advocating that there’s no moral dimension whatsoever to abortion and claiming that this has always been the Democratic position and to say anything different is to cave to Republican framing. I think that’s a complete and total crock, but now the gauntlet has been thrown and I invite those folks in!

    Okay. Let’s start with your citing someone who claims that “there’s no moral dimension whatsoever to abortion.”

    After that, you can demonstrate for us please that increased access to health care fory mothers to be has not, in fact, been the Democratic position.

    Given that, as Steve pointed out, the language of the platform conciously excludes language indicating that refraining from abortion is a superior moral choice, you may think it’s a crock that saying so is buying into Republican framing — although you were spectacularly unpersuasive last time — but more importantly, the writers of the Democratic platofrm obviously disagree. Good for them.

    (As an aside, I don’t know how the platform addresses birth control, but I’d also welcome the contrast to the implicit — and sometimes explicit — Republican opposition to birth control.)

    If you’re going to throw a gauntlet, you might want to begin with a more honest assessment of the case. But by all means — amuse us. Show us you have some basis for your straw men here.

  • It’s a good change. One of the things about the Catholic pro-life stance has always been that it wasn’t limited to abortion. The Catholic Church is, officially, against the death penalty, war and abortion. That’s created something of a difficult row for politically moderate, religiously strict Catholics to hoe. If this change helps to point out that the church’s social justice views are best adhered to by the democrats, then it’s good for the party.

  • Zhak (#5) has got it exactly right, I think. While I like the new wording, we should remember that the so-called pro-lifers really are more about controlling/punishing women than they are about preventing abortion. Here’s a chart that shows anti-abortion policies are more consistent with wanting the mother to suffer:

    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/

    Remember, the abortion rate dropped under Clinton and has gone up under Bush.

  • Given that, as Steve pointed out, the language of the platform conciously excludes language indicating that refraining from abortion is a superior moral choice

    The issue, for me, is whether or not advocating that abortions be “rare” indicates that not having one is a superior moral choice. I do not think it does. It doesn’t matter a whit to me what language goes into the platform, it’s symbolic, and if people prefer that it be phrased as a positive rather than a negative, well, awesome. Everyone wins. To me, the meaning is almost entirely identical and only Democrats could go 100 rounds debating that level of semantics.

  • Man, I suck at the HTML. Sorry.

    I am pleased to report, though, that since I support Obama, I remain a hot chick.

  • jibeaux wrote: Gregorio, strange that you don’t remember that thread since you were there and all.

    I remember it quite well, which is why I challenged your representation of it. Since sadly, but not surprisingly, you fail to support your claims, I suspect it’s you who have a faulty recollection. Let’s go to the videotape:

    See, e.g., comments a la –
    Because trying to “reduce abortions” reinforces the framework that abortion is morally abhorrent. And thus, those who opt for them are making a “bad” choice.

    So, yes, reinforcing the framework that abortion is morally abhorrent — and that reducing abortions ought to be an end in itself, as opposed to an added benefit of otherwise sensible Democratic policies — does in fact reinforce the Republican framing, which is why conceding the merit of the Republican position in advance would be a monumentally dumb thing for the Democrats to do. So far you haven’t done squat to rebut that position.

    But hold on — you argued upthread against — I’ll quote you here — “folks advocating that there’s no moral dimension whatsoever to abortion.” (my emphasis)

    The quote you provided doesn’t support that contention at all. Show me who says there’s “no moral dimension whatsoever to abortion,” or admit you’ve constructed a straw man.

    As eager as you seem to be to rehash this debate, you seem to be forgetting how spectacularly unpersuasive you were. Since your arguments don’t hold water, I’m not interested in giving you another opportunity to display your poor debating skills and superior concern trolling acumen — particularly until you meet my challenges upthread and defend your initial statement.

    Save us all the trouble. Are we dealing in your case with a lack of reading comprehension, a failure of critical thinking ability or simple dishonesty here?

  • Simplistic bliss; mayhap the Democrats can simply say “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one”.. When does Religulous come out again? I gave at the Contraception Tree!

  • jibeaux wrote: The issue, for me, is whether or not advocating that abortions be “rare” indicates that not having one is a superior moral choice. I do not think it does.

    But the language that abortions be rare is not at issue. You argued for language indicating that reducing abortions should be an explicit goal of the Democratic platform. Again, your memory of the earlier thread seems feeble, which is especially puzzling given that you obviously have access to it.

    It doesn’t matter a whit to me what language goes into the platform

    Which would make your extended aguing in favor of a change in language rather puzzling.

    it’s symbolic

    Which may be, but the question is whether such symolism reinforces Republican frames. I contend that to do so concedes too much. (In short: If reducing abortions is the goal, the obvious Republican response is, fine — outlaw them. By conceding the goal in advance, Democrats are in a feeble position to rebut that point.)

    and if people prefer that it be phrased as a positive rather than a negative, well, awesome. Everyone wins.

    The Republicans certainly win when Democrats concede their framing in advance.

    To me, the meaning is almost entirely identical

    That you continue to hold this position depsite it being explained to you patiently and at length does not do much to bolster your credibility.

    and only Democrats could go 100 rounds debating that level of semantics.

    Again, semantics are important, especially when they run the risk of validating Republican framing.

    If you have a problem with the lengthy nature of the debate, the fault is only your own for your evident failure to comprehend the argument — a failure reinforced by your apparent misrepresentation of the earlier debate in this thread.

    I am pleased to report, though, that since I support Obama, I remain a hot chick.

    I am pleased that you have other means to impress, since intellectual acumen obviously isn’t working out for you.

  • This is nothing new. This is the classic and most logical form of pro-choice that most democrats have always believed in. Conservatives, however, have managed to paint this distorted pictures of Democrats(charges of infanticide) suggesting that rather than being pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. NOBODY IS PRO ABORTION. We would all love to live in a world where mother’s who were not prepared/didn’t want a child did not accidently get pregnant and be forced into an abortion. This is why the Democrats have for years pushed for better sex education and promoting condom/birth control use.

    It’s out conservative friends in Congress and evangelical leaders that mandate abstinence only education and reject birth control. Until they deal with sex rather than prohibit it abortions won’t be rare. The Democrats realize that the best way to decrease the number of abortions while supporting women’s reproductive rights is not to prohibit abortions. Rather it is to change the conditions that make abortions necessary.

  • zhak said: “We’re the only so-called civilized nation to still be debating abortion. “

    Do we qualify as a ‘civilized nation’?

    I like the language. Watch for the Republican’ts to complain that we’ve flip-flopped on our [liberal] position.

    Like, how exactly do they have standing to complain?

  • I hope there will be a combining of the two — ideally with Goldilocks’ support for sane sex education as well, but that might be too much to hope for. I like — and agree with — the ‘safe, legal, and rare’ framing, and don’t see why it rules out the other.

  • Some of these people will go to any lengths to control a woman’s right to choose…even calling birth control – abortions. It was always to be used as safe, legal and rare. Like anything else there are those who would abuse the process but I recall when they weren’t legal, the hardships and deaths caused by those without the money to get it done. Being illegal never stopped it.

    Being unable to reason but only demand these fanatics could never accept “safe legal and rare” in substance but maybe changing the terminology will allow them to pretend it makes a difference.

  • I’m fine with the revised language in the platform and think it’s an improvement on “safe, legal and rare”, even though it’s less pithy. I’d like to see added support for birth control and sex ed, but I can live with this.

    (jibeaux and Gregory, leaving aside who-said-what-when, what do you think of the draft wording as it stands? Good? Better than it was? Worse than it was? Needs work?)

  • I’d like to see added support for birth control and sex ed, but I can live with this.

    …pretty well sums up my opinion (with the caveat that, as I said, I haven’t yet read the full platform, only the bit quoted here, so it may well include such language.

  • This was a pointless and completely unnecessary endeavor. It doesn’t represent anything different. To expend the time and energy to add wording to the party platform that states and/or reiterates something obvious and long-held is silly. The Democratic Party always seems to operate as though they’re playing an away game — like the country is inherently center right and they have to finesse and frame their arguments and positions with this in mind. For example, few national level Dem politicians unequivocally opposed the Iraq war on moral and ethical grounds; rather they quibble(d) about the number of troops we had, or the fact the we “took our eye off the ball”. Why can’t these guys come out and be unapologetic, unequivocal and unafraid of their views? It’s so nauseating to watch these guys squirm and grab their ankles to attract these groups of voters, most of whom probably aren’t going to vote Democratic anyway.

  • Really, rufus? Just because a more conservative and religious group like the new language doesn’t mean that it’s a loss. I think the language is actually better than the original platform, because “rare” always bugged me, as if there were an implicit quota for the number of Approved Abortions. I think the new wording doesn’t cede a damn inch against the opponents of abortion rights.

  • David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) News Senior Correspondent, says he’s surprised that the proposed language on abortion includes support for prenatal care, adoption, and parenting, AS IF pro-choice persons haven’t always actively supported these issues. I have a 30 year history in the sexual and reproductive rights movement, and I want to remind CBN that such organizations as Planned Parenthood, NFPRHA, and SIECUS (which I headed for 12 years) have always supported options based pregnancy counseling for women with unintended pregnancies, that include having and raising a baby, adoption, and abortion services.

    Mr. Brody applauds what he sees as a change in the pro-choice position and that it is likely to reassure evangelical and Catholic leaders. No change, Mr. Brody and CBN, but I’m glad you like it. It’s what the pro-choice movement has been about all along.

    Rev. Debra Haffner
    http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com

  • Gregory (#17 and others):

    Let me take a stab at this…mind you, I am more into discussion rather than outright debate. Abortion IS a moral issue, but one with more dimenstions than most of us tend to think about. Abortion is part of a larger context which includes sex, procreation, parenting/child support and health care, but these are not what the debate is REALLY about…not really. It is about control. Conservatives want to control the minutia of people’s lives and free up the larger mechanisms of society (market, taxes, less government oversight) and what better way than by controlling sex…who can have it (and with whom), where they have it, why they have it, how they have it, etc. Liberals want to do the opposite, free people from government intervention in the minutia of their daily lives and control the larger mechanisms of society (market, taxes, more government oversight). This view of things leads liberals to abhore controls over people’s sex lives…who can have it (and with whom), where they have it, why they have it, how they have it, etc.

    Okay, okay…you have probably noticed that I have not brought life and death into this…yet 😉 The reason is simple: because of the basic viewpoints described above, conservatives (especially social conservatives) have been led to focus on the sanctity of life prior to birth…children are innocent and none more than the unborn. To me, there is some truth in this view. Liberals have been led to focus on the sanctity of life after birth…universal healthcare, anti death penalty, end of life choice etc. I see truth in this view as well.

    These two lines of reason seem mutually exclusive, and in the zero sum mindset that most of us have been indocrinated with, they are…but I do not see it that way. I believe abortion should be legal, safe and, yes, as rare as humaly possible. It must be legal and women need to be free to make that choice. It cannot be safe if it isn’t legal (desperate people will resort to desperate means), and, to the extent possible, it must be rare precisely becase life IS valuable and should be preserved whenever possible. But to TRULY reach this state, our society needs to have a complete vision.

    Most parents would prefer it if their children delayed sexual activity. It really comes down to a matter of degree. The problem is our country’s Puritan heritage which has made sex so taboo to many people. This has created resistance to necesary things like sex education that includes birth control and yes, abortion. This is a direct result of conservatives’ attempts to control thinking in this area. On the other hand, liberals’ zeal for championing abortion rights etc. has sometimes hampered them from acknowledging the value of preserving the lives of the unborn…I’d argue this comes from a fear of losing ground in the political battle over abortion.

    The unfortunate outcome of all this, of course, is the lost opportunity to forge a system that honors both viewpoints.

    To me, the new proposed language in the draft Democratic platform is a good step. It preserves the liberal value of keeping abortion legal and safe and takes a baby step (sorry for the pun) toward recognizing conservative’s value of preserving life before birth. Some liberal will argue (perhaps correctly) that this has been the liberal stance all along and nothing has really changed. I guess that is true. I do lean somewhat to the left in my personal world view.

    Well, I’m not sure if any of this makes sense, but I am sure it is long-winded, so I will end here. Hopefully a few of you are still reading this post.

  • There’s no morality in abortion. Well, there’s morality in everything. But this is personal, private determination of rights. Is it your right to choose the condition of your body? Your right to choose whether you will carry a potential life, with the risks and labors that entails?

    But it has always been the liberal point that pre natal and natal care should be available to everyone. It leads to a healthier society.

    …Which is why you don’t find many (or any) Democrats voting against health benefits for kids.

  • conservatives (especially social conservatives) have been led to focus on the sanctity of life prior to birth…children are innocent and none more than the unborn.

    Which explains the staunch conservative support for pro-child policies like AFDC and health care. Oh, wait…

    Liberals have been led to focus on the sanctity of life after birth…universal healthcare, anti death penalty, end of life choice etc.

    Which is why the Democratic platform avoids mentioning pre-natal health care and supporting rational contraceptive and sex education polices to reduce the demand for abortion. Oh, wait…

    Sorry, I disagree with your proposed dichotomy there, particularly in the notion that liberals are “led” to focus on issues other than abortion. The liberal position is that regardless of one’s personal feelings on the issue, soceity — quite rightly, in my opinion — simply does not equate abortion with infanticide or murder, and so there is no compelling reason for the state to interfere with a woman’s body.

    Conversely, the leaders of the conservative movement focus on this issue not because it’s a matter of sanctity, but because, as you identified earlier, because it’s a matter of control. I remind the forum for the zillionth time that the anti-choice movement has in its sights not only Roe but also Griswold, the ruling that held that among the uneneumerated rights Americans enjoy under the Constitution is the right to privacy, and therefore to birth control.

    The unfortunate outcome of all this, of course, is the lost opportunity to forge a system that honors both viewpoints.

    Given that the policy preferences of movement conservatives demonstrates precious little regard for the welfare of children once they’re born, I fail to see what is honorable about the viewpoint of the conservative leadership.

    There’s also the minor point that, for movement conservatives, there is no compromise on this issue (whereas pro-choicers are generally willing to accept at least some restrictions on abortion). So I must disagree with your contention that there’s a “lost opportunity to forge a system that honors both viewpoints” — for the anti-choice movement, no such opportunity exists. And so I must also disagree for your attempt, however well-meaning, to blame both sides for your so-called “zero-sum mindset.”

  • Wow, Greg’s kind of a dick, huh?

    Shall I take that as an admission you can’t support your assertion that anyone claimed “there’s no moral dimension whatsoever to abortion,” then?

    Next time you “throw a gauntlet,” jibeaux, I suggest you not start by misrepresenting positions. Instead of whining about your hurt widdle feelings, perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on why misrepresenting an argument deserves any respect at all. While you’re at it you can explain how it’s somehow my failing for dissecting your poor argumentation rather than yours for arguing so poorly in the first place.

    But if it just makes you feel better to blame me because you didn’t do your homework, you go right ahead. I’m happy to let our respective postings here speak for themselves.

  • Well, thanks, independent thinker #29. You review the issue nicely and comprehensively and it was a gratifying read. In each paragraph you make a very telling comparison between the two poles of this issue. Indeed, I hesitate to tarnish the clarity of your contribution with supplementary observations.

    As a general point, which I think Gregory and jibeaux locked horns on, everything we do has a moral dimension. Some actions affect others more than others, and none more than depriving another of life. However, in my opinion, it is not always useful in terms of end result for the law to be involved in some types of actions that may happen to be regarded as having dire moral significance. Cases in point could be drug use, sex and abortion.

    Whatever one’s personal opinion about the morality or advisability of such-like activities, it doesn’t follow that one necessarily has the right, moral or otherwise, to intrude or interfere. These are preeminently personal activities. Decisions relating to them have little to do with anyone else.

    Of course, others can be affected or involved, and usually are, but the criterion for judging their social impact is not dependent on external moral judgment, but rather on the extent to which they may harm or help. If no harm is done, whatever one’s opinion, there is no social issue, and hence no occasion for legislation to be involved. If harm is caused, there are already plenty of laws to deal with any such transgression.

    Specifically, and depending on one’s religious perspective, one may or may not regard abortion as killing. If your understanding leads you to believe that you are not killing, then no moral infraction occurs if you choose to terminate your pregnancy. On the other hand, if you believe that life has already begun then, presumably, you would eschew termination as an option.

    When it comes down to it it would seem that there is virtually no issue here, and certainly no basis for criminalizing a profoundly personal, spiritual decision. The empathetic support proposed in this new draft seems, therefore, to offer exactly what is best for our sensitive and critical human needs.

  • “Income support”

    No one can see how those two little words can stir a hornet’s nest?

    I sympathize with some of their line of attack, if not their motives.

    I do wonder why we favor mothers with job training programs that we wouldn’t give to identical childless women (or men for that matter.)

    This will potentially be used to suggest Democrats wish to return to a day when “baby bonuses” were handed out. Prizes made available if only a child is created. Job training for everyone would allow expectant and new mothers to prepare themselves to be better providers for their children. The same job training will allow fathers to be better able to afford the economic support expected of them (whether voluntarily or involuntarily.)

    Of course, government paying for such job training is necessary because corporations would much rather hire an H1-B visa foreigner who has already been trained at THEIR government’s expense and will oppose such training programs as it will be much harder to prove that no Americans with the same skills are available and besides that, an American will want much more money. We can’t have that.

    But I digress….

    • Comments are closed.