Obama's Squandered Opportunity On Abortion -- And How He Could Turn It Around
Yesterday I listened in on a phone press conference with leading pro-life religious liberals called by Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners. They were praising the new draft Democratic Party abortion plank which advocates government policies to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. (Click here to read the new plank and the 2004 platform). Wallis called it a "real step forward," while Rev. Joel Hunter called it "a historic and courageous step."
It seems to me that, on balance, if you're pro-life this platform is about the same as the 2004 platform -- slightly better in some ways and, actually, slightly worse in other ways.
Where it's better: the draft platform endorses policies, such as better sex education and health care, that would "help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby reduce the need for abortions." And, religious progressives were particularly pleased that the platform stated: "The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child," as well as policies -- such as "caring adoption programs" -- that make such a choice practical.
Where it's worse: the platform actually drops the language from the 2004 platform that abortion "should be safe, legal, and rare." That breakthrough formulation, popularized by Bill Clinton, reiterated support for legal abortion but rhetorically endorsed the idea that society would be better off with fewer abortions. By contrast, the 2008 platform emphasizes the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies and the "need" for abortions. It's a subtle but important difference that preserves what pro-choice activists wanted: absolute neutrality on the question of whether society is better off with fewer abortions.
Some of the religious leaders are hoping that Obama personally will go farther than the platform did. "Key is what Obama says at Saddleback," says Rev. Tony Campolo, a leading religious progressive and a member of the Democratic Platform committee, referring to Obama's public interview with Rev. Rick Warren this weekend. "What we are waiting to hear is that he sees this as a moral issue." In other words, we're supposed to look at the draft platform plank as Act One of a two act play.
Indeed, I can envision a way in which the Democratic Party could make real headway with pro-life voters, despite Obama's very pro-choice voting record. At Saddleback, Obama could make a strong statement that he thinks there should be fewer abortions in America and -- here's the new part -- the Democratic Party will be better at reducing the number of abortions than Republicans.
This may sound far fetched but it might actually be true under certain conditions. The Republicans have focused on legal restrictions -- but mostly what they propose is either substantively sweeping but unpopular, or popular but substantively marginal. They support a Constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, which certainly would reduce the number of abortions in theory, but hasn't come close to passage in decades. They support banning partial birth abortion which could be passed but affects less than 1% of abortions. And they have an ideological aversion to certain additional steps -- such as encouraging birth control and more government-financed health care for women -- that could help reduce the number of abortions.
Studies show that many women have abortions because of economic reasons so it's plausible that abortion frequency could be reduced through an agenda that focused on preventing unintended pregnancies (through family planning and birth control) , improving health care and wages for low income women, and encouraging adoption. Jim Wallis hailed the "Juno option": some teens who get pregnant should neither get an abortion nor get married but rather should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption.
So Obama could address pro-life voters directly and say something like this:
The Republican party uses you every four years to get elected. But they don't deliver on their goal of substantially reducing the number of abortions. They prefer symbolism to results -- demonizing Democrats to saving babies. It's time for a new approach. This new approach will make it less likely women would get pregnant. For those who do get pregnant, it will make it easier for them to have the baby. And for those who can't or don't want to raise the child, it will make it easier for them to find adoptive parents.
Let me be clear. I'm not retreating one inch from my commitment to the legal right to choose. It is because abortion is such a profound moral dilemma that it must be made a woman in consultation with her clergy person, her doctor and, yes, hopefully the father of the child. It is her decision. What we can do as a society is to make sure the deck isn't so stacked against her that she feels pressured to have an abortions.If we take this approach, I believe we can cut the number of abortions in America in half -- and I will commit to making this a major goal of my presidency. It's time to break out of the old approach on abortion that uses this as a political football. It's time to try a new way that protects a woman's right to choose -- but helps society dramatically reduce the number of abortion.
Obama has mostly adopted the value-neutral language of the pro-choice community. On a few occasions -- mostly when addressing Christian audiences -- he's changed his rhetoric, talking about abortion reduction as a goal unto itself. If he wants to win over moderate evangelicals he's going to need to enthusiastically embrace the abortion reduction language here on out. Politically, this means telling the pro-choice community: I'm with you on legal restrictions, but you need to accept that I'm going to campaign against abortion.
Would this approach actually win over all pro-life voters? No. Some will never vote for a pro-choice politician. And the Obama campaign has so far done a terrible job at responding to the single most important abortion charge against him, that he opposed the "born alive" legislation in Illinois that would have protected the lives of fetuses or babies that survived abortions.
But there are a large number of voters -- moderate evangelicals and centrist Catholic -- who support the Democratic Party position on almost every other issue. They are itching to vote based on Iraq, the economy and health care. Each time they sidle up to Obama they trip over the charge that he's a pro-choice radical. The Obama campaign has not come close to showing him to be anything other than that. It's not too late, but the platform plank was one opportunity squandered. The next big opportunity is his speech at Saddleback Church. If he doesn't significantly improve on the platform language and cast himself as a champion of an energetic, plausible, specific pro-choice abortion reduction agenda, he's not likely to do much better than John Kerry in winning evangelicals or Catholics.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
3 Supreme Court justics to vacate in next admin. Who do you want adding to Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia? Next question.
bottom line here: up to 3 Supreme Court justices will be leaving in the next admin. Who do you trust to make sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia don't get 3 more just like them: McBush or Obama?
Next question.
Why Barack is so timid about his pro-choice, antiabortion position? He does not want unplanned conceptions and unwanted pregrnancies after all.
Because he doesn't stand firm on many issues . . .
lol*.....
Because he doesn't feel the need to ram his personal beliefs down everyone else's throats.
LET WOMEN DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THIER BODIES !!!!!
WOMEN ARE NOT YOUR CHATEL TO BE FORCIBLE BREED!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed.
Woman have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.!!!
In this day and age there is no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Woman should not have the right to abortion on demand over and over and over again.
I totally agree. Here's my wish for an Obama position on this issue:
"You know what? I have no business telling a woman when, how and under what circumstances she can determine the course of her own biology. I can encourage, provide information, present alternatives, offer different points of view, but, in the final analysis, IT IS HER DECISION AND HER DECISION ALONE TO MAKE, AND NEITHER I NOR THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY BUSINESS EXERTING OUR POWER OVER HER INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO CONTROL THE DESTINY OF HER OWN BODY!"
Wouldn't that be refreshing? To actually hear a candidate put an exclamation mark at the end of his endorsement of Roe v. Wade instead of a . . .
I've listened to O's statements. He's not particularly a great spokesperson for women's rights.
So his position isn't surprising.
What's interesting is that Mac is considering a pro-choice VP. So much for that theory that he's "dangerous" on this issue.
I wouldn't count on it, PumaAnn. A pro-choice VP would unravel all the 'work' he's done trying to get the evangelical vote.
Still hoping, bitterface? Sorry, I don't think McCain said that he is considering it - only that it should not be the only deterrent to being considered a VP candidate. Considering his shaky hold on that base, it is not happening. He is trying to have it both ways and appeal to dimbulbs like you who want to vote against Obama anyway. Obama's position is fine with NARAL and his record is strong. That he is concerned about lowering the number of abortions is not inconsistent with his views. What is not surprising is your pathological need to come on this board and perform your one woman comedy act "I'm a'scared of Obama". We get it, you are not voting for him. And?
In national polling, over 80% of Americans believe that abortion should be permitted at least under certain conditions. The problem, as is often the case, is with the electoral college.
A great deal of those 80% live in deep blue states, and therefore their opinions don't matter in national politics. A great deal of the 20% pro-lifers live in the rust belt, appalachia, and the southwest -- swing states. Their opinions matter.
That's why we have a whole different kind of Democrat representing swing districts called Blue Dogs. Think of them as pro-labor conservatives. Teddy rather than Franklin. They want the federal government to stick to defense and commerce and let state and local governments handle issues like abortion and education.
They have a point. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states given jurisdiction over abortion, most states would remain pro-choice because big business would lobby to keep their pro-choice employees from quitting their jobs and moving out of red states. Cities like Austin and Atlanta would mount considerable resistance.
Maybe a few states in the Deep South and Big Sky would become pro-life meccas. And if that's the price to pay for breaking the abortion/gay/guns stranglehold on national politics, then why not?
Slightly off-topic.
We should be passing out birth control and free tickets to abortion clinics on the street corners. How many people are going around crazy because their mothers had children they didn't really want or weren't prepared to nurture? The best thing to do for children is to make sure they are born to parents who have already dealt with their own issues, learned how to be happy, and are fully prepared to welcome and nurture their offspring.
It is only the woman who can decide whether she can parent or not. Not the government and not a religious predator in disguise as a preacher.
I'm not opposed to abortion. But I am opposed to government funding of abortion. Why should we have to pay for someone else's mistake?
Pro-choice voting record? Obama has one? I didn't think voting "present" was a position, much less a "record."
Really, you have links that prove that Obama was voting Present on pro-choice legislation? Cause it's funny, since the pro-choice groups are all giving him at least Bs!
He did vote Present on anti-abortion legislation in the Illinois State Senate... because Planned Parenthood and NARAL counseled all pro-choice State Senators to vote Present in order to provide political cover for Democratic State Senators representing culturally conservative districts. Nobody voted No on those bills, and in any case, Present means the same thing as No in the Illinois legislature.
That's funny, because pro-choice groups support him. But I guess YOU know more than they do.
Yes. And right after they endorsed him, he threw them under the bus. Ask NARAL how much support from women they lost after their little gamble with Obama.
No, not all of us.
If Obama were to adopt the course you suggest, someone may ask him WHY he thinks a reduction in the number of abortions would be desirable. I don't think that is a conversation Obama would want to have.
I will be looking at what Obama's general election policy positions are with regards a woman's right to choose what goes on with her body, because if he isn't going to support the one thing that everyone gets down to about supporting him, i.e., selection of pro-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Justices, then I will not vote for him. It's time we quit courting the small per centage of religious zealots who have highjacked our government. I don't believe in their Saviour and I don't agree with their cherry-picked version of the what He was supposed to have said.
How could anybody actually LOOK at the statistics and think that the republicans are the party of fewer abortions????? The fact of the matter is that the locations with the highest abortion rates are the ones that not only limit the legality of abortions, but ALSO limit or remove the legality of comprehensive sex ed for kids and birth control for all ages.
*blink*
That's a very odd argument.
Whatever..
How is it weird? Those who want to reduce abortions (the so-called pro-life crowd) are the very ones who are anti sex ed and anti BC. Look at the states that they control, you will find that not only are there a lot more unsafe abortions in those states, there are a lot more unplanned pregnancies, which means that there would be more abortions if they hadn't restricted the number of providers.
By contrast, the states which tend to have a pro-choice attitude also tend to have more comprehensive sex ed (rather than just say no) and easier access to BC, and they ALSO have a FAR smaller rate of unplanned pregnancies, which results in a lower abortion rate.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
