Senate Dems to pursue new strategy on abortion

[Rose Siding]

The Senate Democratic leadership says it has found a wedge issue to strengthen the party’s position on abortion rights, which top strategists think has become a liability in recent years.

The wedge is legislation expanding access to contraceptives and sex education, which polls show a majority of Americans support but which Democrats are betting will be difficult for social conservatives in the Republican base to accept.
....
The Prevention First Act is sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), one of few congressional Democrats considered anti-abortion. The bill, which Reid introduced at the start of the Congress, has the support of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), presumptive front-runner in the 2008 presidential primary and 21 other Democrats.

The bill would prohibit group health plans from excluding contraceptive drugs, devices and outpatient services if they cover the cost of other prescription drugs and outpatient services. It would also require the secretary of health and human services to disseminate information on emergency contraception to healthcare providers and require hospitals receiving federal money to provide emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040506/news2.html

I'm strongly pro-choice, but prevention is always the best option. And this is far, far better than running from the issue. -Or worse!: fielding anti-choice candidates.

[rodeodance]

1. yes, i agree. Prevention should be the rallying call.

.....but prevention is always the best option. And this is far, far better than running from the issue. -Or worse!: fielding anti-choice candidates.

[Warpy]

2. Nobody LIKES abortion

but like all other surgical operations, it can be and is a life saver.

After all, nobody wants a cholecystectomy, either.

Yes, the Democrats can hammer the religious wrong into a bloody pulp over access to contraceptives as a way to prevent abortion. This is definitely what they need to do, and all those incredibly pious pharmacists who don't want to dirty their pink little hands dispensing the pill have given them plenty of ammo.

However, they can't risk weakening their position on abortion, itself. Running antichoice candidates is political suicide. I know there is absolutely no way I'll vote for one of that ilk and I know I've got one hell of a lot of company. That really is where the line is for me.

"Safe, legal and rare" is a great line. Pushing prevention is a great strategy. Let's hope they all adopt it, even the pious ones.

[David__77]

6. Well, I don't dislike it...

It helps give women control over their destinies. That's good. We are conscious human beings, not slaves to biology. I do not believe abortion is murder, and I do not believe that fetuses are children. I don't dislike abortion.

[bunkerbuster1]

8. I'm not sure I like surgical procedures

they all pretty much suck.

But otherwise, I hear ya.

Autonomy = Good.

Enslavement = Bad.

[David__77]

10. What concerns me is the ideological standpoint.

Since Clinton was elected in 1992, the reproductive rights forces have been on the defensive ideologically. "Safe, legal, and rare" sounds good, but it is a defensive slogan. "Rare" isn't the point. Sure, offer women all the options in the world concerning family planning, but don't impede access to abortion. I do think things are starting to turn around now that rights are in real danger. Hopefully it won't be too late.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. I worry about the same things.

I don't want to give a damn inch on this issue. I want anyone to be able to legally terminate a pregnancy under the standards outlined in RvW, period.

And for all the yelping about how the "pro-life" (spit!) side has made inroads in the voting public, I don't believe for a minute that anything like a majority of Americans want to re-CRIMINALIZE the procedure.

If we'd only emphasize that more forcefully. If only we could remind people that it's about the CRIMINALIZATION, stupid.

[Warpy]

15. They're expensive, painful and a little embarrassing

That's why nobody likes them. After all, can you say you'd like to have an appendectomy? Both operations save lives, but nobody goes looking for either of them because they like them.

[rodeodance]

3. I first head Hil. C. talking about this a few months ago. Glad to see it

has made progress.

[MrModerate]

4. This should play well to the undecideds . . .

While being unobjectionable to almost everyone else left of center.

And I agree -- prevention is always the best option, if for no other reason than it reflects a realistic attitude about consequences that should be fostered in the society anyway.

The reason that the unplanned pregnancy rate is so high in this country compared to Europe (he opined) is not because our popular media is soaked in sex (although it is), but because it's soaked in sex but planning for the aftereffects of sex is still considered "sinful." European teenagers are much more realistic.

[BootinUp]

5. agreed. n/t

[AlGore-08.com]

7. The Dems have been using this strategy for (at least) 14 years

Why should this strategy suddenly be able to reframe the debate, 14 years into using it?

During the 2004 cycle, the idea that we needed to distance ourselves from pro-Choice pols and groups (and embrace pro-gun pols and groups) in order to win was the CW. And like most CW, it was wrong. We didn't win, especially the down ticket races. And as a result, we're stuck with the Roberts Court, which just might rule that contraception or sex ed is a matter of states rights. Then watch many of the Red States rush to limit or even ban them - - and watch these same Dems fall all over themselves to be okay with that development.

What is even more sad IMNSHO is that this "prevention not abortion" is such an obvious attempt by HRC to look like her husband circa 1992. The idea that Bill Clinton was a universally loved figure even then is a fairy tale. His 1992 campaign got less than 50% of the popular vote (ditto his 1996 campaign). At least when the Republicans decided they all needed to be Reagan, they were modeling themselves after somebody who had won a major, decisive popular victory. If we've all got to be clones of a past Dem President, why can't we all be clones of FDR? Talk about strong on defense - - he freakin' won World War II. (Well, okay, he died before the war was completely over. So people who have a problem with that can embrace Truman, because you can't get stronger on defense than nuking our enemies.)

The winds of change are upon us - - we could use this moment to really shift the country toward progressive change. In the battle of ideas, we could be fighting and offensive war, not a defensive war. But the Washington Dems are determined that if they just repackage Clintonism one more time, this time they'll get the spin right. Because that's all this is - - spin, not a new idea, not a new strategy, not a new policy.

We're still suffering through the results of the GOP letting spin run their party, so why are we rushing to embrace style over substance?

[BootinUp]

11. Leaders lead in the situation they

find themselves in.

Whats sad about preventing abortions by sex ed?

Bill Clinton didn't have WWII or the Depression to solve. The problem he dealt with was primarily an electorate that felt politicians were all corrupt didn't care about them, and couldn't balance the federal budget and were inept on economic issues. Both major parties were taking blame in the press.

[AlGore-08.com]

16. The point I'm making is that this was (sort of) a new strategy in 1992

The majority of Dems have used this strategy from that day. To repackage it as the hot new idea for how to win the 2006 cycle is intellectually dishonest at the very least.

So what exactly is sad about preventing abortions by sex ed? Nothing, really. If you look at it in a vacuum. To state again what you said earlier - - leaders deal with the situation they find themselves in. And if our leaders were leaders they might notice a staggering obvious point: our situation is different than the situation in 1992.

When Clinton ran with this as part of his platform back in 1992, the far right had only begun it's campaign to take over the media and the courts. You had to actively listen to Rush Limbaugh to know who Rush Limbaugh was. Fair didn't publish it's first major analysis of Limbaugh until 1994. Faux News was not launched until 1996.

The courts were also a lot different in 1992. Even though Rehnquist was the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court still gave non-conservative rulings on occasion. In Texas v. Johnson the Rehnquist court declared flag burning was a form of speech protected by the 1st Amendment; Lee v. Weisman declared officially sanctioned school prayers illegal.

Today, the Republican Party is run by an activist, whack-a-doo base that wants to end abortion, sex ed and access to contraception. The Republicans in office fall all over themselves to appease their base. And these same Republicans control every branch of government. We have the state of South Dakota outlawing abortions. And there's a bill in the Alabama State Legislature to do the same there. The Republicans running for Governor in Florida have all pledged to support an abortion ban there. We have "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", which pretend to be clinics but really serve to dissuade women from even considering abortions (and vacuum up over $60 million from the Bush admin, who are huge boosters of these bogus clinics). We have whack-a-doos who oppose sex ed running school boards across America. We have whack-a-doo pharmacists around the country who refuse to sell contraceptives.

Then there's the medical issue. Sex ed and contraception by themselves doesn't prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Just cause you know you should use a condom and know how to use a condom, that doesn't mean the condom won't break. There's no form of contraception that is 100% effective - - even a sterilization procedure can fail. Even abstinence doesn't guarantee that a woman will never get pregnant - - because rapist is not going to ask a potential victim if they're abstinent, and then decline to rape any woman who says "Why yes I am abstinent, why do you ask?"

There's also the access to sex education issue. Sex ed is great - - if your parents sign the permission slip letting you attend sex ed. And even if your parents have no problem with you attending sex ed... what if your school drops the ball? What if your school doesn't have a sex ed teacher who will actually teach sex ed (my High School health teacher was too embarassed to teach the sex ed component so he didn't teach it). What if your school doesn't have the money for text books that actually discuss contraception in depth (there are older text books that don't explain what sex is, let alone how to prevent pregnancy)? What if your school hasn't taught you to read yet, even though you're 18 (which happens a lot)? What if your school has a whack-a-doo school board that has replaced sex ed with abstinence education?

Then there's the class issue. What if you can't afford condoms? What if you don't have health insurance so you can't get a prescription for birth control (or get your tubes tied)- - and couldn't afford to pay for the prescription (or the hospital stay) even if you did have insurance? What if the whack-a-doos have run all the clinics out of your home town that provide free contraception? What if they've run all the free clinics out of your state? If you can't afford to buy food, how are you going to buy a bus ticket to Oregon to find a free clinic that will give you free condoms?

"Being for sex ed and contraception to reduce abortion" is feel-good meaningless-sound-byte politics. Pretending that a policy your party has been pushing for 14 years is an exciting new strategy is putting spin above fact. That's what's sad about this.

[BootinUp]

17. I know the history, and I disagree on a couple points

Its not just a feel good meaningless strategy. The Bush admin has reversed/cancelled funding for these types of things if I am not mistaken. It is a law that will implement real programs that will get used. I don't have a problem with some type of free contraceptive program, hope something like that can be done in the near future.

When you say that Clinton was the first to use certain political strategies I think that should be put into perspective. He certainly did make some adjustments to become the first democrat president to be elected in 16 years. Of course he could have just gone along and listened to experts like those that advised the 3 previous losing campaigns.

See the history of the conservative coalition goes back before 92, before 88, before 84, before 80. This shit has been happening for a long time.

[AlGore-08.com]

18. A couple points in reply

1.) The Bush admin has done an awful lot of reversing and canceling funding for sex ed and low cost womens' health care (which usually involves reproductive care). So have state, city and federal governments. The ultimate goal of the far right is to make abortion illegal in all cases. Supporting sex ed and contraception to make abortion less common doesn't do or say anything about what Dem candidates would do if the Supreme Court ruled that there's no right to privacy (which would theoretically allow states to make contraception illegal as well) or what anti-choice measures individual Dems would vote against and which they would vote for.

Suppose a bill came before Congress to make all abortions illegal, and a reporter asked a Congressional Dem what their position was. That Dem said "I think we should focus on sex ed and contraception". Would you know whether that Dem was going to support or oppose the bill - - or how hard they would fight for either position? That's why I say it's feel-good meaningless-sound-byte politics.

2.) The idea that Clinton's strategies should continue to be followed would have more merit if his 1992 victory were ever really discussed in an objective way. It's always discussed as if Clinton won this huge popular vote victory, which proves that Clinton and his proposals were hugely popular. That's a hard case to make if you really look at the results. Clinton won the electoral victory, but he only won 43% of the popular vote. In one of the previous three losing Dem Presidential campaigns, the losing Dem actually got more of the popular vote than Clinton did in 1992 (Dukakis got 45% of the popular vote, Mondale got 40%, and Carter got 41%). And the two "losing" Dem candidates after Clinton both got 48% of the popular vote - - a higher percentage than Clinton.

Clinton's 43% became a win because there was a strong 3rd party candidate in the race, who took almost 19% of the vote himself. If Perot had not been a factor - - if he had gotten the usual 2% or 3% that 3rd party candidates usually get, Clinton's 43% would have been a landslide win for Bush I. The only states where Clinton actually won a majority of the votes were Arkansas and D.C. Clinton won the rest of his states with less than 50% of their popular vote, including: California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Washington, Oregon and Iowa - - even bluer than blue states like Massachusetts and Hawaii did not have a majority of voters vote for Clinton. Clinton even won four states with less than 40% of their popular vote: Maine, Vermont, Montana and Nevada.

Clinton and the Clintonistas have liked to claim over the years that Perot took as many votes away from Clinton as Perot took away from Bush, but that's misleading at best. If Clinton had really won over those folks they would have voted for Clinton. (Another "duh".) Instead, almost 19% of the voters found Ross Perot, a guy who was eccentric to say the least, a better choice for President than Clinton or Bush I. Therefor, Clinton's strategy and Clinton himself were not as persuasive as Clinton and the people who made their careers out of being associated with Clinton like to claim.

He campaigned during a time when the middle class was focused on the economy and blamed Bush I for that lousy economy. Abortion was an issue in the campaign, but it was The Issue of 1992.

3.) The fact that the conservative coalition goes back before Clinton is less than moot. Before 1980, they didn't control the public discourse. Today they do. In 1992 the conservative coalition was not running the federal government. Today they are.

You yourself said that Clinton would have been foolish to blindly follow the strategy of the previous candidates. Embracing political strategies just because they were used by a (sort-of-kind-of) winning candidate 14 years earlier is just whacked.

[BootinUp]

19. forgive me if I find some of this amusing

Perot was a strong candidate. I even briefly considered him before he pulled out. He actually lead the polling for a period. You have to admit that he was not a normal 3rd party candidate. He was kinda geeky, talked unlike a politician, very no-nonsense, and had these nifty charts to show how both parties were running us into the ground in a joint effort. Why do I point this out? Because it wasn't just people voting in protest to the other choices. He had a strong appeal to a wide range of voters. He then sabotaged himself and still managed to get 19% of the popular vote. So many of the people courting Perot went with Clinton including yours truly.

But the part that is amusing is when you compare Clinton's 43%, to other election year results when there was not a strong 3rd candidate, frankly I don't see the relevance. 43% is pretty damn good considering Perot's strength. Look don't take my word for any of this, I have attached some analysis for you to look at.

If you look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992#Voter_demographics

Clinton did very well with a wide spectrum of voter demographics. And Perot split votes from both candidates. Here is a section from the article:

Perot's almost 19% of the popular vote made him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Some analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.<1> Perot managed to finish ahead of one of the two major party candidates in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won Maine with 38.77%); In Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won Utah with 43.36%).
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992#Results

Note the second bold section where Perot actually finished second in popular vote in two states but the winner was not the same major candidate.


Here is the FairVote report referenced in the above snippet:

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm
Analysis: Perotís vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bushís victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s ñ Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.

-------------------
Back to Abortion.

Abortion has been legal since what '72? Not that long really. There has been much analysis of where the nation stands on the debate and what has occurred since Roe v Wade. The consensus from what I can see, is that while a majority favors legal abortions, the issue is simply not in our favor in many regions of the country. In some purple states polls indicate a preference for some regulation of abortion, parental notification for instance. I believe many folks are not comfortable with the high numbers of abortions in this country and any efforts to reduce them would be received favorably in exactly the regions of the country we are weakest.

I don't see a Dem answering the question the way you suggested above either. I think it would be more along the lines of "always legal but rare". Many Dems might even suggest that they are personally opposed to abortions but favor keeping them legal. The Dems need to make a better case for keeping them legal by refreshing memories what it was like for women before Roe v Wade. I have complained about this before. We really suck on our preparation for winning this debate. You already see women starting to get serious again about this of course and that bodes well for the future.

-----------------
You know there were political activists before 1980. The conservative coalition was a factor before '92. I didn't say they had made huge gains in the major media by that time. But they were working through Churches both Catholic and Protestant and other grass-root efforts. They were relevant as demonstrated by the way the Republicans simply demolished us in '72, 80, 84, 88.

[BootinUp]

20. Note the post above has been edited

for grammar and I added a link to the fairvote perot analysis report.

[hughee99]

9. Sounds like a great plan, but...

personally, I don't think this will be all that effective a wedge issue, though. IMHO, anyway, the lines have already been clearly drawn on the abortion issue. There are those who will vote for pro-choice no matter what, those who vote for pro-life no matter what, and those who will only take this type of position into minor consideration before voting. I think for the voters they're trying to sway, this is not a major issue for them. I do applaud the proposal, and they're welcome to try. I don't see how this will hurt them.

[mrgorth]

12. I like it

but don't think it will work. People generally don't think of birth control pills like they think of pain relievers or something.

[Jade Fox]

14. Thank goodness! We so need stop debating the....

morality of abortion, and start trying to end the need for it.

When will we start seeing better forms of birth control? It's ridiculous that many are still dependent on barrier methods in this day and age.