A platform for Pro-Life Democrats

[txaslftist]

Yes, there are such creatures.

I've been thinking about this issue quite a bit, as I find it is something of a sticking point here in West Texas.

Criminalizing abortion isn't going to happen, and if it were to happen, it wouldn't work. Republicans continue to support the proposition that if we could only overturn Roe v. Wade, then we could reduce abortions. The fact is, they don't really want to overturn Roe, as evidenced by the appointment of Justice Roberts, who has said he will respect Roe v. Wade. Abortion remains for Republicans a wedge issue to divide the Democratic base.

If Roe were to be overturned, the question of the legality of abortion would simply be turned over to the states. There are many pro-choice states where abortion on demand would remain legal, ergo, women with unwanted pregancies would simply board a bus or a plane to get their abortion in a pro-choice state. Federal criminalization, while it might result in some reduction of abortions, it will also result in unsafe back-alley abortion, Mexican abortions, Canadian abortions, etc.

Abortion reduction within the current legal climate is a much more attainable, sensible and safe 'pro-life' approach. What platform should pro-life Democrats espouse to reduce, rather than outlaw abortions?

To reduce abortion, we should focus on the factors that cause it. I would submit that lack of education about birth control, economic problems, lack of support of adoption as an option and fear of social consequences of pregnancies are the primary causes of abortion.

Thus, the Democratic platform should include legislation geared toward 1) encouraging education regarding birth control, including abstinence (but not abstinence only as it does not work).

2) Support economic reforms so that abortion is not considered the only option based on an inability to afford to have a child. That means support of programs such as AFDC.

3) Support adoption education and initiatives. Encourage legislation that supports adoption counselling, financial support for adoption and tax exemptions for adoption agencies. Support and mandate counselling on adoption for unwed pregnant youths. Permit adoption agencies to pay more expenses to pregnant girls than just medical bills.

4) In regard to the social consequences, I would suggest that colleges and schools be required to re-enroll pregnant women who choose to take a semester or two off to have a child. I would suggest that some encouragement should be given to parents to support their child despite an unwanted pregnancy (admittedly difficult, but not impossible).

This seems to me to be a sensible Democratic response that goes beyond the "abortion on demand is a right, get over it" approach that alienates pro-lifers. I don't know of anyone who want MORE abortions, either Democrats or Republicans (let's forget the retroactive abortions for Republicans). A sensible approach to abortion reduction should be the basis of our abortion platform.

One man's opinion.

[CitrusLib]

1. I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't have a problem with any of that.

The problem is a Republican controlled legislature would kill all those initiatives for two reasons. 1) the far right base that elects them would not accept it. 2) your initiatives would cost money they don't want to spend.

I'm with Clinton. Abortion should be safe, rare and legal. Getting there is a legislative nightmare.

[rocktivity]

4. The only way abortion can be kept safe and rare

IS by keeping it legal.

And the platform doesn't amount to anything if choice is not once of the choices.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Arkana]

15. Same here.

Safe, legal, and rare, and we're prevented from making it rare by the screeching right who uses it to divide the base.

[iamjoy]

2. Most Pro Choice People Agree With All Of This

We are a little wary of #3, since so many adoption programs are faith based or run by groups with strong ties to the Criminalization faction (let's not debate definitions like Pro-Life and Anti-Choice).

Many in the Criminalization Groups support abstinence only education.

Most Anti-Criminalization groups support birth control education.

So, you see, you call yourself a Pro-Life Democrat, but your ideals are closer to the people calling themselves Pro-Choice.

:headbang:

[txaslftist]

5. Ah, but you can call yourself "pro-life" and run on this platform.

That's the magic.

[bleedingheart]

3. Raising the minimum wage and possibly advocating a living wage

It is just not an issue for single young women, there are plenty of married women who have abortions because they can't afford to feed another person and pay for daycare..etc

My mother worked in a doctor's office in a middle class area and she once remarked that people would be suprised at the number of middle class married women who have abortions.

I am pro-choice but there are people who make the choice to abort because of purely financial reasons.

[mzteris]

6. Prochoicers ARE Pro LIFE

duh.

We are not ANTI-life!

However, those who "claim" pro-life status - are really just anti-choice - and usually support the death penalty - so how "prolife" can they be anyways?

[Dark]

7. That's what I always try to tell people.

Let's reduce the reason people have abortions, make it so they don't have to sacrifice their future.

Then they always say "Well if those young people weren't running around all hopped up on pot and fornicatin' then there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies. And they wouldn't do that if there wasn't any sex ed in the schools. And if Bill Clinton didn't exist. God bless Bush. Amen".

[JerseygirlCT]

8. Couple of things

First, please reconsider your language. "Pro-life" is absolutely a misnomer for people who are simply anti-choice. Anti-abortion is a more neutral term, and more descriptive. By using the term chosen by the right, you begin to buy into their scheme.

Second, I thought your language was once again interesting in your paragraph on mandated counseling. "unwed pregnant youths". You do realize that the only pregnant youths are female, yes? Seems a way to try to sidestep the gender issues here.

Counseling is great. Mandated counseling is not.

Making it more possible for those who would wish to carry to term is a fine and dandy idea.

Generally speaking, broadening options is always good. Limiting choices is not.

[Nickster]

9. Isn't that basically what the Democrats for Life are saying with

their 95/10 plan? I thought that got slammed around here pretty good.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=45

[txaslftist]

11. I hadn't seen that before.

I actually like that platform quite a bit.

[Nickster]

14. Yeah I like it too, but I don't think that's the majority opinion around

these parts.

[txaslftist]

16. I don't know.

The militant prochoicers think of anything that even remotely infringes on the right to "abortion on demand no questions asked no matter how old you are no counseling needed" is an out and out attack on Roe v. Wade. I think if you could look at this in terms of 'these are the positions and this is as far as it will go', most wouldn't have a problem with that platform.

The opposition is more of a slippery slope kind of deal; if you cede mandatory counseling, for example, you are just one step away from outlawing abortions altogether.

It is unfortunate because it makes some folks look like they really favor MORE abortions. No one I know favors that.

[calmblueocean]

10. Good suggestions. Here's a few more:

I'd like to see us broaden the idea of what pro-choice means by offering more reproductive choices.

For instance, we ought to support medical research into safe extraction, storage, and reimplantation of embryos. A girl who gets pregnant in high school and finds abortion unacceptable ought to be able to have her embryo extracted and medically stored. Then she would have a whole host of options open to her, such as:

1) reimplanting her embryo later in life when she has the economic means to support a child

2) letting a surrogate bring her embryo to term while she stays in school

3) donating her embryo to a childless couple or gay couple to bring to term

4) donating her embryo for research into lifesaving medical treatments

5) offering the father the opportunity to find a surrogate and bring the embryo to term, if he wishes

While the window of embryo extraction would likely be short, over 80% of all abortions are performed within the first trimester, and women who wait are often simply hoping for (or actively trying to induce) a miscarriage. They may be struggling with determining their own moral feelings on abortion, and they may not even have the resources to access an abortion when they first find out they are pregnant. But if women knew they had the option to extract and store their embryo, with all the attendant possibilities, many would choose to do so. Abortions might be reduced more by offering embryo storage, donation, and reimplantation as options than by criminalizing abortion itself, which is the only "choice" conservatives have to offer. Describing a vision of this future would bring many pro-life and on-the-fence voters back into the Democratic camp.

A commitment to furthering reproductive technology would change the whole dynamics of the abortion debate. Protesting outside a reproductive health clinic would be pointless, since many women would be going there to save their embryos. Abortion would become just one facet of women's reproductive rights, which would also be folded into the greater framework of the right to basic healthcare in this country. A woman's right to decide how to proceed if she gets pregnant should not be determined by whether or not she can afford what she thinks is the right and moral choice.

New choices bring new challenges, but they also bring new happiness and new hope. The Democratic party should proceed towards a future with new choices, but always maintain it's commitment to women's rights. Just because these new choices would exist wouldn't give anyone else the right to demand, influence or discover what the woman's choice was. It's still her body. She would just be able to do more with it. The possibility exists for a future in which abortion nearly evaporates as a hot button issue, where the conservative stance on reproductive rights is laughed out of the debate. But we have to choose to make that future a reality.

[txaslftist]

12. Wow. If that's medically/scientifically feasible, why not?

[Zynx]

13. Everyone wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country.

I may be personally opposed to abortion, but I have never met a pro-choice person who has said "Yeah. I want thousands of abortions every year.".