{"id":16571,"date":"2008-08-13T09:50:14","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T13:50:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/16537.html"},"modified":"2008-08-13T09:50:14","modified_gmt":"2008-08-13T13:50:14","slug":"democrats-abortion-rights-and-a-shift-in-the-party-platform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/democrats-abortion-rights-and-a-shift-in-the-party-platform\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrats, abortion rights, and a ‘shift’ in the party platform"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following up on an item<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.” <\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

“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. <\/p>\n

“The new language around this is a significant shift for the Democratic Party,” Mr. Wallis’ group said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

I’m glad these folks are pleased <\/p>\n

koupit-pilulky.com<\/a><\/div>\n

, and if this additional platform language helps improve Democratic performance with pro-life voters, every little bit helps.<\/p>\n

But I’m not sure how “significant” a shift this really is.
\n
\nBeliefNet’s Steve Waldman noted<\/a>:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}