Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion

[PDittie]

I gotta say, straight up:

If the Democrats go in this direction, they have lost me.

As a middle-aged white man in a comfortable career, I am DONE with the Democrats if they support erosion of women's reproductive freedom.

DONE.

============================

After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.

The fight is a central theme of the contest to head the Democratic National Committee, particularly between two leading candidates: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe who argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society's most emotional conflicts.

Roemer is running with the encouragement of the party's two highest-ranking members of Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Dean, a former presidential candidate, is popular with the party's liberal wing.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/20041223/ts_latimes/democraticleadershiprethinkingabortion

[purduejake]

1. Me too!

If this fundamental stance is altered, what's next?

[genius]

47. Anyone here still think Pelosi and Reid are liberals?

[Placebo]

2. Well why would Nancy Pelosi support him...

if she was worried that his election to DNC chair could effect anything abortion wise? And besides, the DNC chair doesn't effect policy, they have a more organizational roll, with fundraising, building infrastructure and such. And also as a figurehead for the Sunday morning talk shows. (Blech.)

[serryjw]

59. Not exactly.......

Millions are given to the DNC and the chair can CHOOSE to support anti-choice candidates over more liberal ones.

[Radical Activist]

3. Rethinking abortion? Not really

That headline is misleading. When you get down to details in these articles all anyone has suggested is changing the way people talk about abortion to appeal to more people and allowing people who are pro-life to still be Democrats. No one has suggested the party change its pro-choice stance. Dean has made the same sentiments.

I guess this issue is so controversial that its easy to take statements a step further and blow it up into the party changing its stance on abortion.

[Placebo]

6. Exactly.

[janx]

8. Sorry RA, but this part doesn't sit very well with me:

If Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic chairman in the Feb. 10 vote, the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.


Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party's congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

[Radical Activist]

16. Senate Leader and DNC Chair

are positions that require building consensus. I don't think Reid or whoever is DNC chair will have any power to push a pro-life agenda, and Reid has made it clear he won't attempt to do that.

If we can frame our message in a way that gets pro-life voters to vote for pro-choice Democrats based on other issues then choice is better protected. At least that's how I'm interpreting these remarks. Although I can understand someone not being comfortable with too many pro-lifers in leadership.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. You're right. It's all about framing the argument.

The anti-choice side wants everyone to think the Dems want people to go around having abortions all the time because its a cool thing to do -- that it is a contreceptive choice, when it isn't and never has been. Pro choice means simply keeping it safe and legal, and human nature will keep it rare. Nobody goes through having an abortion unless they have to.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Reframing is generally a good thing for us to do but not for this

Stand clear as being pro choice ..... define pro choice as not being pro abortion if you must (even though EVERYONE knows this), but do not water down or reframe this message.

If, indeed, the country is as anti choice as everyone seems to be fretting about, why has not Roe v Wade already been overturned during the last 4 years?

I'll tell you why .... cuz that is a loser for EVERYONE. Even for Bush.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Want to reframe?

How about asking the anti-choice crowd the question: "Have you ever seen a Democrat grab a pregnant woman and drag her, kicking and screaming, into an abortion clinic?"

No one **wants* an abortion. But there are countless reasons, very perosnal reasons, why someone might *choose* to have an abortion..

[TwentyFive]

4. This would be the end of the Democratic party - for me anyway.

This is like taking away the right to vote or own property. It is basic to our society.

[serryjw]

60. What ever gains they get from the RIGHT.......

they will lose TWICE as many from the left.

[saracat]

5. I had a huge thread going on this. I say the same.

Did you see the Boston Globe article? I was mega pissed. I am confronting my state chair about this. I saw this coming before the election. I had to fight to include reproductive rights from our state platform. Unbelievable isn't it?

[PDittie]

10. Link your thread and the BG article, please

I am SICK TO DEATH of the fucking creeping conservatism every single place I look.

Battle stations, people.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I agree and I will do whatever it takes

to protect our right to choose. And if it becomes illegal, I will do whatever it takes to make sure women still have access to safe abortions.

[oneighty]

9. Although I personally

cringe at the thought of abortion I must defend the right of women to decide what is best for them.

I have two adopted children. I am glad they were not aborted.

Women's rights should not be decided by a bunch of grinning, fat, old, stingy, hateful, Republican, lecherous, photo opportunity pretend Christian male ass-holes.

So I am with you. Rare Safe and Legal. Democrats defend your own or lose them too.

180

[Dob Bole]

12. They're "rethinking abortion," not "eliminating abortion."

I had a thread about this earlier, and I think it's a good idea. Basically, it is this:

"For years Republicans have claimed to be pro-life while the abortion rate has increased. We will reduce the number of abortions taking place in our country without banning access to them."

That seems to be the argument they're heading toward. The article says that they do not support overturning Roe v. Wade.

[PDittie]

13. Please link in your thread and let's enter the fray

MO:

There's no mushy middle ground here. Either we as a party support a woman's right to determine her reproductive future, unfettered, or we do not.

Same as it has always been, or not.

This issue, more than any other I can think of, is going to split the left and right halves of the Democrats right down the middle.

If conservatives lay claim to the Democratic Party, it is time for me to find another party.

[Nederland]

29. Yes, there is a middle ground

And it is held by the majority if Americans.

It is your phrase "determine her reproductive future, unfettered..." that most people have a problem with. When asked is abortion should be legal, the vast majority of Americans say "sometimes". Not always. Not never. Sometimes.

If we want to win elections, that should also be the position of the Democratic party.

[Cheswick2.0]

38. If you want to lose election keep driving away women from the party

when the democratic party compromises on this they will never win again.

[Nederland]

54. You are Wrong

First of all, as I have repeated pointed out to you, and as you have repeatedly ignored, opinions on abortion DO NOT have a gender bias.

Second of all, the polls on this subject are clear. Fewer than 28% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Adopting a position that 72% of Americans disagree with is a recipe for electoral disaster.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll.htm

[Walt Starr]

42. I disagree

There is no middle ground on this issue. Either you support a woman's rights or you don't. Pretty clear to me.

[Nederland]

55. Questions

Just to be sure I understand you, what you say to the following:

1) If a person believes abortion after the 1st trimester is wrong and should be illegal, do they support women's rights?

2) If a person believes abortion after the 2st trimester is wrong and should be illegal, do they support women's rights?

3) If a person believes that minors should need parental permission to obtain and abortion, do they support women's rights?

4) If a person believes that a waiting period should be required before obtaining an abortion, do they support women's rights?

As I have repeatedly pointed on here, the abortion issue is not a simplistic black and white issue. There are a wide variety of opinions on this issue, not just two. This is not debatable, it is a fact. The only question lies in what you consider support of "women's rights" and whether or not that is massively out of step with public opinion. If you answer to every single question above is 'No', then prepare to lose lots of elections.

[Walt Starr]

57. Anti woman on all counts, IMO

and I'm through appeasing Republicans. The Vichy Dems can go the way of the Whigs, the sooner the better!

[Nederland]

63. Ironic

Considering that 70% of all women agree with #2, and the percentage is even higher among women that have carried a child to term. I guess according to you therefore, 70% of women are "anti-women".

[ThorsHammer]

23. As a pro-life person, I can live with that

Someone had posted a thread earlier about whether we would prefer it to be legal but safe and decreasing, or illegal, common, and dangerous, and almost all of us pro-life folks chose the first one. There is a lot that can be done - sex education, contraceptives, birth control pills, etc - to reduce the number of abortions WITHOUT caving in on R v. W. On a broader scale, education, healthcare, living wages, the economy, etc are also areas where the Democrats can make large strides without caving in. The theocons (not sure if that's the right word, I've also seen them referred to as "pro-birth") will never be happy, but most true pro-lifers (not pro-birthers) and moderates will.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. STOP!!! Pro Choice is the choice of 80% of America

If the Dems cave on this, they're done.

The best position for **any** candidate on this is to say loud and clear: "I will protect a woman's right to choose and my opponent will not"

Such a clear and strong stance will instantly alienate 20% of the voters. Another 20% more will cluck cluck, but in the end will choose choice, even if it is a last minute voting booth conversion. The rest - 60% - already **are** pro choice.

This is simple and pure pandering on the part of any Dem who thinks he needs to change position or .....uh ..... moderate it.

Cowards!

[Egalitariat]

17. Everything I've ever seen shows a pretty clear 50-50 split

Where do you get your 80% number?

[Stinky The Clown]

18. I made it up

[htuttle]

15. Htuttle Rethinking Democratic Party

[Stinky The Clown]

19. And another thing .......

.... who, exactly, are the "democratic leaders"? I didn't realize we had any.

For some dems, it really is true .... you can't spell democrat without "rat".

[Grooner Five]

22. The Republicans

have found a way to include pro-choicers in their power structure and party tent. If the Democrats don't make similar room for pro-lifers, they write off a pretty huge segment of the population in its entirety. I'd bet there are more single-issue voters on abortion than pretty much any other issue.

[w4rma]

24. Don't forget gun rights. (nt)

[Grooner Five]

25. Amen...

...if gun rights aren't number one, then they're number two.

I just don't see how either political party can march in total lockstep on a controversial issue in our two-party system. There's got to be room for the inbetweens.

A large part of the problem is the way each party demonizes the other to appear more extreme than they really are. The GOP has had more success with it, and it's something Democrats must learn to get better at.

[ThorsHammer]

26. Very good point

I posted something above, and LisaL had a thread on this yesterday. There are definitely ways to include the pro-life (not pro-birth) people without dropping the pro-choice belief if we explain how Democratic policies actually reduce abortion. If we can convince just a small amount of them, the Republicans would lose power.

[enough already]

27. Time to draw a line in the sand

It's bad enough that Kerry/Edwards and the DNC won't stand up to the blatent FRAUD that took place in the last election. If they cave to the DLC-types on abortion, there is really no good reason to remain a Dem.

[Grooner Five]

28. I don't think they want to "cave"...

I just think they want to broaden the tent a little, and give moderates on abortion some room to breathe in the party. I think the GOP has painted Dems in to an extreme corner on the issue by creating moderate areas such as the debate over partial-birth abortion.

[serryjw]

61. WELCOME "enough already".............

I couldn't have said it better myself. Lets try and "fix" Bushit that is NOT why we lost.....why should we fix voting/election fraud?

[Walt Starr]

30. Walt Starr rethinking jumping ship

No way do I stay in an anti-Choice party.

[Grooner Five]

32. But that's extreme, Walt

Wouldn't Dems be smart to give the smallest of nods to 50% of Americans who are pro-life or favor a moderate position on abortion? Why concede the vast majority to the GOP, when they're already clever enough to allow pro-choicers in to their party structure?

The GOP will never be a pro-choice party, but they haven't done away with those voices. Why shouldn't the Dems reciprocate?

[Walt Starr]

33. No, rethinking abortion is extreme

The Democratic Party will NEVER NEVER EVER attract the anti-choicers. It simply won't happen. To rethink abortion, the Democratic Party is telling those who are pro-choice, "what are you going to do, leave?"

My answer is a resounding YES! I WILL FUCKING LEAVE YOU LOSER WHIGS!

[ThorsHammer]

34. Walt, please check my post #26

I may have misunderstood the OP, but my understanding was that they want to attract pro-life people WITHOUT caving in on the pro-choice side.

[Walt Starr]

They will never do it

but attempting to requires they backpeddle. Fuck that, I'm gone. Third Party all the way for me.

[ThorsHammer]

39. It is easier said than done

As a pro-life person, I would be fine with an approach that reduces abortions by adressing issues like sex education, contraceptives, birth control, etc. For most pro-lifers, myself included, this would easily be preferable to making it illegal (ie the pro birth crowd) but having them common and having people die with back alleys, coat hangers, etc. IF (a big if given the passionate feelings on both sides), the Democrats can articulate their message such that they explain to pro-life (not pro-birth, who will never be happy) that their (D) policies will reduce abortion, while still keeping the pro-choicers happy, this message could be a big winner. I think it is definitely possible, but will require someone who can articulate it and who won't back down from the theocons.

[Walt Starr]

41. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with giving a millimeter on this issue

And it is driving me, and millions like me, from the party.

The Democratic Party is setting itself up to lose forever. They have become the Whigs of the 21st century and this idiotic move proves it.

[ThorsHammer]

46. I don't think you have to give up anything, just phrase things better

I can see where you're coming from on things like Roemer/Reid, partial birth/late term abortions, etc, and it's understandable that you want to leave. However, on a broader scale (excluding the items mentioned above) I think it could be done in a way that doesn't cave in but still opens up the tent some.

Women's safety: D will keep them safe, R will be unsafe
Pre-conception: D policies will lower the number, R's abstinence only is a failure
Economy: Living wages reduce the number
Healthcare: same as economy
Education and job training: more of the same

I think it CAN be done w/o caving in a millimeter, but will be tough in practice. It's definitely a fine line, but there has to be some politician who can articulate these points

[Walt Starr]

48. That's not what they're going to do

You can buy into it, I don't.

[ThorsHammer]

50. Like I said, I may have misunderstood the OP

I think what I proposed would actually work for you, as you're not caving in at all on the matter of choice, but still finding a way to appeal to the pro-life moderates. However, if they do something different (ie "GOP-lite"), many people will leave the party. I'm hoping for the former, but fear the latter.

[Walt Starr]

52. Count on the latter

they've already signaled that's their plan.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. This pertains to the abortion debate how?

:eyes:

[w4rma]

51. "They"? What the heck do the Dem leadership have to do with that guy?

Seriously. That problem is a local problem and it's the principal who is the only person who made that decision.

[jonnyblitz]

36. what assholes.

jesus fucking christ.

[zacho]

37. Here's what they should do

They should advocate that states should have the power to determine their own abortion rights.

[Walt Starr]

40. Yeah, and while we're at it we can

have the states establish their own religions, too.

:eyes:

Fucking crock of shit.

[janx]

44. Step back to the seventies?

No thanks.

[Blue_Roses]

49. States already do have that right

[RoeBear]

43. If they want to re-think something...

...re-think gun control.

Being pro-choice with abortion and pro choice with gun ownership would be a consistent stance.

[Blue_Roses]

45. It wasn't the abortion issue that

resulted in the outcome of this election. This shouldn't even be an issue.

[zacho]

62. A large part of it was

Bush did about 10% better among Catholics this time. Argue to me that that shift wasn't a result of the complete pro-choice retoric of Kerry.

Abortion is meaningless. It doesn't have a direct effect on most of us. Our party has already adapted utilitarian positions particularly on tax policy. Besides if the court overturned Roe v. Wade the state legislature's could determine whether abortion is legal or not. The blue states will keep it anyways. Besides, an abortion ban in most of the red states will keep their poverty rates up, and the blue states will be more desirable to live in.

This next statement is a bit Machiavellian: Isn't it a good idea for a political party to have more to complain about than to defend? Think about that for a while. Abortion, gay marriage, opposition to religion in schools and the death penalty are petty issues that make us stand up for our principals, and thus constantly defend our positions. The Republicans have whined about us and these issues for years and they have had much success. Its worth it to compromise a bit on these cultural issues that we feel more through political debate than through everyday life.

[Orlandodem]

53. What's the Matter with Kansas?

Remember when everyone said that Dems need to read Thomas Frank's book about how people vote identity politics over their own self-interest and because of that, a state that ought to be blue is actually red.

I think that this is what is happening with stories like these. I don't want anything to happen with a woman's right to choose. But the repugs have mastered the art of being staunchly anti-choice while at the same time having people like the Gropinator (Ahnold) and Rudy, both pro-choice repugs, play a huge roll in representing the face of the national party.

We need to be staunchly pro-choice, but have a more inclusive face to our party.

Just a theory as to what is going on here.

[Grooner Five]

56. I agree with that

The GOP has been very clever with the abortion debate. They don't come out against it directly, instead going on the offensive in areas such as partial-birth abortion and parental consent for minors. This seems to force Dems in to extreme reactive positions, because the party is afraid to give even a little, seeing it as chipping away at Roe v. Wade.

That, unfortunately, paints an extreme picture of this party to the many moderates on the issue - those who don't who don't understand the larger battle, and can't see how Dems would defend the farthest positions for the sake of protecting ideology.

Party leaders would do well to moderate their positions a little, and put the GOP on the defensive for a change. I know a good few people who would come back to the Democratic camp if they didn't see it as the "abortion on demand" party, where a 13-year-old could sign up for a late term abortion without having to notify her parents.

[LTRS]

58. Ditto, I am DONE with dems if they take this road

Absolutely, positively, without a doubt DONE.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. The "leaders" are leading the party into oblivion.

And, it's dying with a whimper and whine.