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. ...
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.
The fight is the tried and true issue of abortion, again in the forefront because the favorite of the congressional leadership in the DNC race is Tim Roemer, not only a member of the 9/11 Commission, but an abortion opponent. For instance, a search on his record brought up this tidbit: "Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad." And, of course, we have heard how moral values was the reason why the Democrats cannot get traction in Red America.
The reason, if there was one specific one, was as much a matter of not properly framing the party's platform (and yes, values) than any one issue. Therefore, if the party wants to reform itself, on some level abortion probably has to be part of the mix. All the same, probably not the way some people think. It should not be a matter of watering down the party's support of a basic right that touches upon matters of faith ("articles of faith" per Kerry), equality, autonomy, health, and more. What does the other side think?
On the other side of the debate, Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Conservative Women for America, which opposes abortion, said she thought it would be "very smart" for Democrats to elect Roemer chairman of the party.
"It would make sense for Democrats as a whole to recognize that Americans want protections for women and unborn children, want sensible regulations in place, instead of forbidding the law to recognize that an unborn child is a human being," Wright said. "To not pass legislation just to keep the abortion lobby happy is nonsensical, and it appears that some Democrats have recognized that."
Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that "it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing — really, to trick people."
Politics, however, is largely about packaging. Reform is partly about re-packaging, since ultimately the basics of the party is not going to completely change or anything. The same here. As I noted, we are not really talking about "single issue politics," but something that touches any number of things. The problem in my eyes is that sometimes the party does not properly make this clear. And, Roe v. Wade itself was part of the problem because it did such a lousy job defending a right much more defensible than various critics (including progressives) make it out to be.
Let's revert back to that "yes" vote on family planning funding. Notice that term: family planning. It has an interesting ring to it, and is a quite useful term ("birth control," for instance, was a rarely used term until the 20th Century). President Bush's opposition to government funding of any family planning organization that in some fashion includes abortion in its menu is as troubling as it is easy to attack.
Spend a small percentage of your dollars, most of which is spent on women's health in non-controversial ways, to even talk about the subject, and nothing for you. Money that would be spent on birth control and other means to decrease abortions. Is this about abortion or is it about free speech, women's health, and respect for life? After all, there were less abortions in the U.S. in the years of Clinton than the first four of Dubya.
And, what about "partial birth" abortion? A term that helps people forget that the abortions are quite often (and pro-choice Dems supported a law that would so limit) necessary for the woman's health, and would therefore legally occur in some fashion at any rate. President Clinton vetoed a form of the bill Rep. Roemer supported, not because he was an extremist, but because of the lack of a health exception that the U.S. Supreme Court itself suggested was required.
Who has the best potential message here? The party that supports an unconstitutional law that threatens women's health (and involved the Attorney General in the medical records of women) and doesn't even necessarily stop any abortions, or the Democrats who would support a sounder version, while protecting such things?
So, by all means, refocus the abortion debate, remember that many who oppose it are not bad people (but demand that the other side do the same ... list the Christian faiths that support the right to choose, if necessary), and support things that will probably lead to a decline in the necessity of abortions anyway. All the same, do not think that the way to regain America is by depriving the people of their basic rights, which is just what some hope such a "refocus" truly would mean.