NYT: Democrats Weigh De-emphasizing Abortion as an Issue - Reassessing touchstone election issues

New York Times ^ | December 24, 2004 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

[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.

[Reactionary]

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

No? You mean they're merely play acting?

[TigersEye]

...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.

[Davis]

The Dems are and will remain clueless. Read Here

[TigersEye]

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.

[Kuksool]

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.

[Raycpa]

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.

[Kuksool]

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

[N. Theknow]

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.

[ghitma]

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.

[N. Theknow]

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

I see you've met my ex.

[BackInBlack]

"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.

[McGavin999]

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.

[Raycpa]

We we married to the same woman ?

[N. Theknow]

We be husbands-in-law?

[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."

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.

[CyberAnt]

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.

[pookie18]

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

[TigersEye]

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.

[thoughtomator]

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.

[LibFreeOrDie]

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."