Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT: Democrats Weigh De-emphasizing Abortion as an Issue - Reassessing touchstone election issues
New York Times ^ | December 24, 2004 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

Posted on 12/24/2004 7:08:45 AM PST by OESY

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - Democratic leaders say their party needs to de-emphasize the issue of abortion rights, concerned that Republicans have hurt the Democratic Party by portraying it as an uncompromising champion of abortion.

In interviews and public appearances since Election Day, Democratic officials have said that the party should open its doors to abortion opponents and that candidates should make abortion a less central focus of future campaigns.

Party leaders said they were not abandoning their fundamental support for abortion rights, but said Democrats should consider accepting some restrictions that enjoy popular support - like parental notification when teenagers receive abortions.

The remarks, taken together, amount to a significant reassessment of a touchstone issue of the Democratic Party after an election in which President Bush won a second term and his party strengthened its hold on Congress.

The debate also comes as Democrats are reappraising the party's positions on gay marriage, another social issue with which Republicans appeared to hurt Democratic candidates in the recent elections.

On abortion, Democrats said they were particularly frustrated that Republicans portrayed them as out of step on the issue during the campaign, noting that polls show a majority of Americans support at least some access to legal abortion.

"All these issues that put us into the extreme and not the mainstream really hurt us with the heartland of the country," said Donna Brazile, a Democratic Party leader who managed Al Gore's campaign in 2000. "Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies."

Howard Dean, campaigning two weeks ago in Orlando, Fla., to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic national chairman, drew nods of approval from Democratic state party leaders when he urged the party to embrace Democrats who oppose abortion.

"We ought not turn our back on pro-life people, even though the vast majority of people in this party are pro-choice," Dr. Dean said. "I don't have any objection to someone who is pro-life, if they really dedicated to the welfare of children."

"If somebody is willing to stick with us who is pro-life, that means they are the right kind of pro-life person," said Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont. "What I don't want to do is to have a national message that makes it impossible for you to be a conservative, or to be a progressive who can't win."

And Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said Republicans had "been successful at painting the view of the pro-choice movement as abortion on demand - and nothing can be farther from the truth."

The post-election debate that has played out as the party seeks to choose a new leader has stirred concern among abortion rights groups, which have for more than a decade embraced Democrats as partners in their movement. Some advocates said they feared they might become scapegoats as the party seeks to assess the defeats of November.

"I think it's a big mistake for Democrats to think they can win politically by moving away from a pro-choice stand," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America. "It's time for Democrats to stop playing the defensive role on this issue and of doing a better job of showing how extreme the other side really is."

Gloria Feldt, the president of Planned Parenthood, said Democrats "need to stop allowing the extreme, anti-choice right wing of the Republican Party to paint them into a corner where all they talk about is abortion. We have the high ground here if we focus our policy and our discussion on the prevention of unintended pregnancies."

But Democratic leaders said they were concerned that their candidates - in particular John Kerry - were perceived as morally untroubled about the issue.

"We let the Republicans define us as the abortion any time, anywhere party," said Gordon Fischer, the departing Democratic chairman of Iowa, a state where Mr. Kerry suffered one of his more frustrating losses to President Bush. "The Republicans get by as targeting us as the doctrinaire party, when they are the doctrinaire party. "

Howard Wolfson, a Democratic consultant and adviser to abortion rights groups and Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign, said the party had to rethink how it talked about the issue.

"The majority of Americans are pro-choice and yet a majority of Americans just voted for a president who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade," Mr. Wolfson said.

"There is a tremendous disconnect there," he continued. "Either we're going to begin talking about this a different way and making our arguments effectively, or we're going to keep losing."

Simon Rosenberg, the president of the moderate New Democratic Network and also a candidate to lead the Democratic Party, said: "Being pro-choice is not only a majority position in the party, it's a majority position in the country. I don't think we have to run away from choice as a party, but I do think we have to explain our position that we want to make abortion safe, legal and rare." That formulation was a trademark phrase of former President Bill Clinton.

Some Democrats from more conservative states have already found their own way on the issue voting in recent years to ban a procedure that its opponents call partial-birth abortion.

Timothy J. Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, is one of them and he is running for leader of the party, making no secret of his views.

"I personally don't think that we should have late-term abortions or partial-birth abortions," Mr. Roemer said on CNN recently. "I think that's a moral blind spot."

In addition, some Democrats said that the changing environment might make Congressional Democrats less likely to go full force in trying to block any Supreme Court appointment solely on the basis of abortion if the nomination did not change the current 5-4 balance on the court.

Mr. Wolfson said that if Mr. Bush tried to replace a justice who supports Roe v. Wade with one who opposes it, than an all-out battle would begin. But he and other Democrats said that would not necessarily be the case if the president sought to replace one justice who opposes Roe v. Wade with another.

This emerging debate is the latest fallout from Mr. Kerry's loss as Democrats argue the reasons for his defeat. In doing so, the party is struggling to balance the views of its most loyal members with the need to block Republicans from broadening their appeal through cultural issues. Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader, lost re-election after a campaign in which his opponent, John Thune, spotlighted Mr. Daschle's support of abortion rights

Evidence of the reappraisal has come in the rolling post-mortems of Mr. Kerry's loss, and the campaigning now going on to replace Mr. McAuliffe. Here in Washington, Senate Democrats elected as their leader Harry Reid of Nevada, an opponent of abortion, without a murmur of objection. It was Mr. Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, who first pressed Mr. Roemer's candidacy for Democratic leader.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Iowa; US: Nevada; US: South Dakota; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: abortion; babies; brazile; bush; childwelfare; clinton; daschle; democrats; dnc; dncchairman; feinstein; feldt; gaymarriage; gordonfisher; gore; howarddean; kerry; lostdems; lyingliars; mcauliffe; morality; nancykeenan; napalminthemorning; naral; newabolitionists; newdemocratic; now; parentalnotification; partialbirth; partyofthehindparts; pelosi; pest; plannedparenthood; portrayals; prochoice; prolife; reid; republicans; roemer; roevwade; scapegoats; simonrosenberg; teenagers; thune; values; wolfson; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
I always suspected Karl Rove was writing those PR releases from the DNC, NOW and NARAL.

It seems that the goal of Democrats to make abortions "safe, reliable and courteous" exposed a gap so big you could drive a "straight-talking" Greyhound bus through it -- a flaw called "Let's lose the next several elections."

Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST) continues unabated.

1 posted on 12/24/2004 7:08:48 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY

What an unbelievable trend; this is the second time I have seen reports regarding this.

If there was ever proof that elections can affect how a politcal party evolves this article is close to it.

Now, the temptation will be simple by well meaning folks; to actually believe they are telling the truth.

To that I say this: Resist temptation folks, for though they may say a few ho hum things about abortion, you have yet to see a release from them suggesting that they approve of 'church going'. Nope, this is the anti God party, and that will remain their central agenda item. To that agenda item, may I say this to them:

Merry Christmas.


2 posted on 12/24/2004 7:16:13 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

ohh please please please please do that so the GOP can hammer them relentlessly on it....


3 posted on 12/24/2004 7:16:24 AM PST by MikefromOhio (18 days until I can leave Iraq and stop selling hot dogs in Baghdad....and boycotting boycotts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

I think they ought to emphasize gun control more often.

That seems to have been such a winner for him in the past...........hasn't it? Heh heh heh


4 posted on 12/24/2004 7:17:23 AM PST by Armedanddangerous (Yep, ya caught me, ya caught the tater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; Diago

ping


5 posted on 12/24/2004 7:18:23 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

If RATS really wish to soften their pro-abort image, then they would not be block an up or down vote on judges.


6 posted on 12/24/2004 7:20:33 AM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

I've said it before; put lipstick on a pig, you've still got a pig!


7 posted on 12/24/2004 7:20:55 AM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud in the State of Washington !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

All of this Democratic headscratching, and all I see is dandruff.

APf


8 posted on 12/24/2004 7:21:16 AM PST by APFel (Humanity has a poor track record of predicting its own future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Its funny the Democrats are swinging cats on abortion. For years we've heard nothing but dire warnings about how Republicans would face the music if they didn't become a "big tent" on the subject. Lack of principles on the other side got them where they wanted and now they're telling the public what they think it wants to hear. Their contempt for the intelligence of Red State voters is amazing.


9 posted on 12/24/2004 7:21:26 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The big lie continues. Democrats adore abortion--it is one of their sacraments. Now they are going to pretend they don't??

yeah, that'll play in Peoria. Not.

10 posted on 12/24/2004 7:21:51 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

How can we fool 'em better next time? George Lackoff's slick marketing may fool some of the people but sooner than later the Democrats' lack of sincerity becomes evident. You can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.


11 posted on 12/24/2004 7:28:00 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America: "It's time for Democrats to stop playing the defensive role on this issue and of doing a better job of showing how extreme the other side really is."

She actually believes that, doesn't she?

It's not Democratic leaders who will change their party on this issue. It's the public, continuing to reject politicians who seem not even to get queasy at the idea of murdering a five month old fetus. Political leaders are, above all else, opportunists. If we keep making the moral case to the public, Democratic "leaders" will follow suit.


12 posted on 12/24/2004 7:29:58 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

De-emphasizing the issue doesn't mean disbelieving in its importance - it just means not mentioning it.


13 posted on 12/24/2004 7:33:21 AM PST by mabelkitty (Blackwell for Governor in 2006!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BackInBlack

Remember, they're changing their tune as a means of getting lost power back not in the pursuit of upholding principles. Principles and Democrats ought never to be used in the same sentence.


14 posted on 12/24/2004 7:33:28 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
They may not mention they're for abortion on demand but silence can be a pretty powerful message as well. What we have here is a failure to communicate. See, the other side believes we're too stupid to understand their sophisticated message. So they presume if they talk down to the bien piesants that'll help them at election time. Liberals will never change.
15 posted on 12/24/2004 7:36:03 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Yeah one thing has to be made clear. Repubs did not hurt DEMocrats. Democrats did this all by themselves. They personally found a way to offend most Americans with thier positions. and they seem surprised that is exactly what happened.


16 posted on 12/24/2004 7:37:48 AM PST by rod1 (uired 4 more hours).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The new rat position on abortion will be "humane, painless" abortions done with a needle under the supervision of a caring and sensitive medical staff.
Since they have so little regard for the intelligence of the American voter,these A--holes probably would do this and probably would believe that real Americans would fall for it.
17 posted on 12/24/2004 7:38:24 AM PST by jmaroneps37 ( Frist/ Blackwell in 2008 for a landslide: you saw it here first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rod1

And they still act like rotten skunks over the election results. Spare me the wafting odor of liberal Le Pew.


18 posted on 12/24/2004 7:40:01 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

They don't really like Flyover Country folks, period. If there was some way they could do without us, rest assured they would.


19 posted on 12/24/2004 7:41:32 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
We have the high ground here if we focus our policy and our discussion on the prevention of unintended pregnancies."

Okay, honey, just keep on believing that!! Oh man, are the PP people living in bizzaro world ?

Merry Christmas to all my Freeper Buddies

20 posted on 12/24/2004 7:47:10 AM PST by KosmicKitty (Well... There you go again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Well. Perhaps the socialist liberals will call for the repeal of Roe V Wade.

No? You mean they're merely play acting?

21 posted on 12/24/2004 7:48:33 AM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
...concerned that Republicans have hurt the Democratic Party by portraying it as an uncompromising champion of abortion.

Yeah, we really had to work hard to cast that light on you. I don't know how we managed to get you to run a Presidential candidate who voted to keep PBA legal.

22 posted on 12/24/2004 7:49:27 AM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The Dems are and will remain clueless. Read Here
23 posted on 12/24/2004 7:53:55 AM PST by Davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Here's one angle on abortion the Dims can drop:

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Total Abortions since 1973

44,670,812

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

24 posted on 12/24/2004 7:57:04 AM PST by TigersEye (Democrat. The abortion party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
RAT pundits are perplexed as to why Flyover Country would vote against their economic interests. RATS assume Red States voters want universal health care, living wage, and increased salaries for teachers. They shake their heads when Red State voters consider gay marriage and abortion to be important issues. RATS continue to think their message isn't being heard. But it is and the Red Zones are buying.
25 posted on 12/24/2004 7:59:20 AM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I am wondering about these recent articles on abortion that the rats need to lighten up. I wonder if they know they lost the judge issue in the senate and are preparing their base for upcoming appointments.

Lets look at the environment. Bush is ready to reappoint 20 judges that were bottled up. He wouldn't be doing this if he thought he couldn't bypass the filibuster, which implies he has the votes for the nuclear/constitutional option. The rats probably know this. If they put up a big fight the Red state senators get Dasheled in 2006.

If this is the environment and the rats are not going to fight hard, they need to prepare their base. The recent group of editorialist's discussing this same issue seems as if they are preparing the base for what is coming.

26 posted on 12/24/2004 8:00:45 AM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

If the RATS don't put up a fight over the judicial nominees, then their wealthly, pro-abort donors will dump them in 2006.


27 posted on 12/24/2004 8:03:59 AM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Well, since the Dims can't dazzle anyone with their brilliance, the next step is to baffle them with BS.

The "pro-choice" "unviable tissue mass" newspeak has gotten a bit old so they need to dream up new labels.

BTW, isn't it interesting to see Howard the Dud referred to as "Dr. Dean?"

Gives an authoritative ring to his words.

Of course to the discerning FReeper the ring is more akin to Dr. Mengele suggesting that twins should be studied more closely.

28 posted on 12/24/2004 8:04:50 AM PST by N. Theknow (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
So lets see if I have this right. A 14 year old can have an abortion without the parents knowledge, and have it paid for by tax payer dollars. At 16, 18 and 21 she can have her taxpayer paid abortions. Yet, according to NAARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Feinstein, its the "right wing extremists" that paint the demo-rats the abortion-demand-group. If that is not abortion on demand I don't know what is.
29 posted on 12/24/2004 8:09:00 AM PST by ghitma (MeClaudius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
I've said it before; put lipstick on a pig, you've still got a pig!

I see you've met my ex.

30 posted on 12/24/2004 8:17:20 AM PST by N. Theknow (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

"Remember, they're changing their tune as a means of getting lost power back not in the pursuit of upholding principles"

Absolutely. It's the citizens, not the politicians, who force change.


31 posted on 12/24/2004 8:20:20 AM PST by BackInBlack ("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The proof is going to be in the judicial committee. We'll see how serious they are.

To let you all know just how stupid the dems are, turning over Roe V Wade would not end abortion, it would just turn it back to the individual states. That means that the blue states would be abortion central and in the red states it would not be legal. If a person in one of those two different areas could not stand to live with the decision of their state, they could always move to a state that shared their belief.

32 posted on 12/24/2004 8:27:52 AM PST by McGavin999 (Senate is trying to cover their A$$es with Rumsfeld hide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

We we married to the same woman ?


33 posted on 12/24/2004 8:35:26 AM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

We be husbands-in-law?


34 posted on 12/24/2004 8:39:51 AM PST by N. Theknow (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
And Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said Republicans had "been successful at painting the view of the pro-choice movement as abortion on demand - and nothing can be farther from the truth."

Yeah, right.

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

There is nothing but circular rhetoric coming out of the left on this issue (well, actually all of their issues).

Without coming right out and saying it, their stance is abortion for convenience sake. That is the most calloused position a human being can take towards its most vulnerable kin. I am ashamed for us.

35 posted on 12/24/2004 8:50:13 AM PST by Ghengis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

I think this is hysterical. What are the dems going to do when the Roe v. Wade issue comes up ..??

And .. what are they going to do with the 20 nominees Bush is going to re-submit to the Senate ..?? They were all held back because of their anti-abortion views.

ROTFLOL!! They just continue to try to fool the American people and the people aren't buying it.


36 posted on 12/24/2004 9:21:13 AM PST by CyberAnt (Where are the dem supporters? - try the trash cans in back of the abortion clinics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Yeah, right...start with the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee & their pro-abortion litmus test ;-)


37 posted on 12/24/2004 9:25:39 AM PST by pookie18 (Clinton Happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghengis
Without coming right out and saying it, their stance is abortion for convenience sake. That is the most calloused position a human being can take towards its most vulnerable kin.

It goes hand-in-glove with the position that freeing millions of Iraqis from Saddam's murder machine is a waste.

It's on a par with disarming women and the elderly in order to reduce "gun-crime."

It's not far removed from the thought that old trees and animals that never really made it in the ecosystem are more important than productive jobs for men and women.

Kind of a pattern here and it all falls under the progressive/liberal label.

38 posted on 12/24/2004 9:25:41 AM PST by TigersEye (Free speech! It's not just for Democrats anymore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OESY

A Democrat reconsidering his stance on abortion is like a Christian reconsidering his stance on "Thou shalt not kill." It simply can't be done without becoming something else entirely.


39 posted on 12/24/2004 9:39:21 AM PST by thoughtomator (Nobody expects the secular inquisition!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

This was confirmed several years ago in a Boston Globe interview with the NH abortionist Wayne Goldner. When asked what percentage of abortions were due to maternal health issues, he responded "Tiny."

40 posted on 12/24/2004 10:24:17 AM PST by LibFreeOrDie (A Freep a day keeps the liberals away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie
Amazing isn't it? This is the part that gets me...

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

41 posted on 12/24/2004 10:27:52 AM PST by TigersEye (Free speech! It's not just for Democrats anymore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ghengis
And Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said Republicans had "been successful at painting the view of the pro-choice movement as abortion on demand - and nothing can be farther from the truth."

I know this to be false, based on a Planned Parenthood mailer I received several years ago. It stated that their goal for the year was to achieve "unrestricted access for abortions after 28 weeks."

42 posted on 12/24/2004 10:27:55 AM PST by LibFreeOrDie (A Freep a day keeps the liberals away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"Lack of principles on the other side got them where they wanted and now they're telling the public what they think it wants to hear."

- Exactly. You just can't "hide" a major plank in your Party platform and pretend to the voters that it's no longer something that's important. The Dems have to purge it's senior ranks of all the pro abortion activists and publicly distance itself from associated groups such as Planned Parenthood as a start in convincing voters that it's a real policy shift and not just an election tactic.
43 posted on 12/24/2004 6:58:14 PM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Howard Dean is a former Planned Parenthood abortion doctor. That says it all.


44 posted on 12/24/2004 7:25:32 PM PST by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Democratic officials have said that the party should open its doors to abortion opponents and that candidates should make abortion a less central focus of future campaigns.

Excellent!

This proves that uncompromising opposition to abortion works. Playing footsie with murderers doesn't.

45 posted on 12/24/2004 7:32:56 PM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2

They're stuck. They can't abandon their "Conshituencies"; all they can do is try to find a way to respin themselves in the media to "reposition" themselves.

We shouldn't even be debating whether they'll actually change - they don't deserve credit for being capable of change, because they're not. Instead, we should be strategizing what we can do to force them to continue to tear themselves apart internally.


46 posted on 12/24/2004 11:46:40 PM PST by fire_eye (Socialism is the opiate of academia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool; Raycpa
Great analysis, they know the judicial appointment issue is lost, its time to retrench.

Where would the Demo's donors go? The Demos know that they can slide on a few issues and the money will keep flowing, they are not the majority of course.
47 posted on 12/26/2004 8:16:06 AM PST by schu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Putting aside most of the content of this piece, since it is nothing but disingenuous spinning by conscience-less liberals, allow me to sum it all up in one short sentence:

Pro-lifers are WINNING!

48 posted on 12/26/2004 8:24:52 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OESY

I wondered how they'd spin this nonsense, and they're just getting started!


49 posted on 12/26/2004 8:26:31 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

"Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST) continues unabated."

Indeed. They are still lying to each other, and themselves, and think that somehow, out of that fraudulent soup, they will nurture a return to power.

Instructive as to just how seriously distorted the "reality" of the true believer can become.


50 posted on 12/26/2004 8:28:20 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson