Posted on 02/13/2005 7:33:53 AM PST by Libloather
Sen. Clinton offers abortion solution
By John Aloysius Farrell
Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief
New York - It seemed a reasonable, almost obvious, point to make: The Democratic Party should represent Americans of all creeds and religious convictions, even those who have qualms about abortion.
"We shouldn't ... have a special-interest group define our stand on choice," said former Rep. Tim Roemer, a Democrat from Indiana, referring to abortion-rights groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America.
The hissing began at the rear of the room full of Democratic activists and spread throughout the hall. Last week, having failed to gain much support, Roemer dropped out of the race for party chairman.
It was a creepy little scene in a contest marred by behind-the-scenes ugliness, and illustrative of the challenge facing the victor in that race, incoming Democratic chairman Howard Dean.
Assessing their party, many professional Democrats see a glass half full. Outgoing chairman Terry McAuliffe is leaving Dean a massive grassroots donor list, a bulging party war chest, a new headquarters building and a state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation.
If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic, McAuliffe ruefully notes, he'd be picking up orders from President Kerry and heading for a new job as ambassador to Great Britain. A tweak here, a TV ad there, and the Democrats are back in business.
But the passion in the party comes from its liberal activists - the MoveOn folks and Michael Moore fans and NARAL members - whom Dean famously called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." These are people who oppose the Iraq war, despise President Bush and his domestic initiatives, and think their party needs to purify itself and harden its opposition.
Resolving those views - sustaining the left's passion while reassuring centrists - may be Dean's toughest chore.
The last Democratic president was a master at this kind of balancing act, so perhaps it is no surprise that a way out of this dilemma was offered by someone named Clinton.
In a Jan. 24 speech in New York, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton used that most contentious of issues - abortion - to offer the Democrats a template.
"I respect" your values, Clinton told abortion foes. She asked them to move past the apocalyptic rhetoric employed by both sides in the debate, and to work with her and other congressional Democrats to actually reduce the number of abortions in America.
"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," she said. Such sentiments are rarely heard in Democratic venues.
Clinton declared her support for "teenage celibacy" programs but said they are not enough.
She asked conservatives to join her in supporting family planning.
"Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies," Clinton said, adding that "more than half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion."
Clinton's proposal faces many obstacles. Catholics, for example, are taught that both abortion and contraception are sinful. Other congregations, and many secular families, don't like schools teaching kids about sex or birth control. And if you believe that life begins at the instant of conception, then some forms of contraception, which keep newly fertilized embryos from becoming viable, are tantamount to abortion.
But both sides need to consider: Are they letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Religious conservatives would have to settle for progress short of victory, and send a signal to their elected officials that the benefits of saving countless unborn children from abortion are worth blinking on sex ed.
Liberals would have to acknowledge that, 30 years after Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal, many fellow Americans still view the practice as Clinton described it, as a "tragic choice" of last resort.
The best way to keep abortion legal and safe may be to make it rare.
In her travels as first lady, Clinton witnessed the evil of communist Romania, where a dictator ordered women to have more children, childless couples were punished, contraceptives and abortions were banned, and "once a month, Romanian women were rounded up at their workplaces."
"They were taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe ... (and) examined by a government doctor with a ... secret police officer watching," she said.
Clinton also saw communist China, where "local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives because they had the opposite view - no more than one child," she said.
Maybe there is no way out of our culture wars. Perhaps Clinton's offer was just posturing.
But liberals should listen, and conservatives should test her sincerity.
Who would more than likely get an abortion - a liberal or a conservative?
My God, I just got a chill. And Bush won by 100,000 or better, I thought..
Her offer to do WHAT??? Give some lip service to godliness while passing out more condoms in the public schools?
"Freeper Infidel29 offers abortion solution... don't abort" that was easy, now on to this socialist security business...
Obvious answer lib socialist.
BUT question who should get an abortion?
ANSWER, NO ONE! (correct answer)
The Democratic Party is an amalgam of special interests, most of which are abhorent to mainstream Americans.
Fortnately, Dean is not the person to quiet these voices while giving the party the appearance of moving to the middle.
Hillary will benefit from the apparent contrast between the "new Hitlery" and the party led by Dean.
He did. But if you take one-half-plus-one of that margin and give it to sKerry, sKerry would have won by one vote (120,000 / 2 = 50,000; 50,000 + 1 vote = 50,001). A 60,000-vote switch would have given sKerry a 10,000-vote margin of victory.
Dean was an abortion Doctor.
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
That 60,000 number is bogus. Bush, of course, won Ohio by about 120,000 votes. What the reality-challenged Dems are saying is that if 60,000 of that 120,000 had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won Ohio. Of course, if far fewer numbers in Minnesota or New Hampshire or Oregon or many other states had switched from Kerry to Bush, the race would have been a runaway.
You said what I was trying to say, only you said it much more eloquently.
Uuummm, Terry, you would still be 60,000 votes short.
The state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation comprises mostly persons paid to work for the Democrats. It is a party of paid passion, and isn't paid passion also known as prostitution?
Rats! I thought this was going to be about Hillary aborting herself!!
(Ruined MY day.)
A 60,000 vote switch is different than 60,000 more votes, which is what was said.
Could someone please point out what Hillary is actually proposing. Hillary is not proposing any policy change, just spinning the rhetoric so it is not clear what Democrats stand for.
Oh, he meant 60,000 live Democrats would have had to have voted. They would have needed either 60,000 more dead Democrats to vote - or perhaps he meant the initial extra 60,000 would have had to have voted TWICE.
As nice as this sounds, the Pro-Abortionists won't let it happen, not even from a DemonRat. In the 30 years of Roe v. Wade, abortion has become generally accepted as a viable "health care" alternative, and as such has become a money making industry. The Abortionists do not want to be put out of business (heaven forbid they find work as regular medical practitioners), so they will fight anything that will keep girls from ending up in their doorway.
It's all about money.
A pregnant woman.
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.