Senate Dems to pursue new strategy on abortion -

[mzmolly]

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.

...

A Democratic leadership aide said that, while only a slim majority of voters favor abortion rights, an overwhelming majority support promoting the use of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education.

...

“The issue of abortion is very different from the issue of prevention, access to birth control and access to comprehensive sex education,” said Anna Greenberg, a pollster for Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner, which works for the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. “I think that Senator Reid’s prevention-first agenda is not just smart in policy terms but smart in political terms because there is overwhelming support in the public for access to birth control and comprehensive sex education. People want women to be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies.” ~ Hillnews

Democrats using wedge issues? I like it!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. We can keep bashing Harry Reid here on DU if we want, but...

he's one helluva Minority Leader and one of the big reasons we're poised for big gains in November.

[mzmolly]

6. I think he's doing well overall.

:hi:

[Michigander4Dean]

16. No bashing here

He's not perfect, but he is awesome (if you don't mind if I call him that).

[Voltaire99]

39. LOL! Helluva leader or a heckuva chump?

If spectacularly failing to confront Bush, block his nominees, oppose the Iraq war, or vigorously defend reproductive freedoms are all measures of "a helluva" leader for you, then I'm pleased your weird optimism can keep you so satisfied.

Funny, though. Most Americans don't see much point in spineless Democrats. Reid's March approval rating is 19% positive, 53% negative. Lordy, what coattails for November!

See: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=648

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Okay, well, I live here in the real world

Where Reid never had a snowball's chance in hell of doing any of the things you say he "failed" on.

But you can live in bizarro world all you want. :hi:

[wryter2000]

2. That's what I'm talking about!

Fantastic idea. Hoist the prudish bastards on their petards. Plus, the policies would benefit people.

[wisteria]

3. I like it, we can talk up this issue of access to birth control

and sex education. The Re pubs falsely claim that information and access leads to promiscuity- but please, this isn't the Victorian age. Sex education and birth control access represent a commonsense approach to a difficult issue and will lead to a decrease in the need for abortion. Abstinence can also be discussed,but it shouldn't be promoted as the only alternative, that is just unrealistic.

[mzmolly]

4. It shall highlite that "they" the conservatives are loonies and "we"

the liberals are "sane."

[musical_soul]

10. Sex ed leads out to sex.

That's like saying that information about alcohol leads out to drunk driving.

[mzmolly]

12. Ha!

I'll have to remember that! :hi:

[bee]

5. thats the right move. excellent!

adding... bout time someone got to the root of the problem.

[calmblueocean]

7. Let me tell you how this will go.

A "prevention-first" sex-ed-plus-more-contraceptives agenda is going to be spun by the right as "The Democrats want porn and condoms in the public schools for 8 year olds!" I can tell you that in middle America, this will be a big loser of a strategy if it is what they try.

You want to neutralize abortion as an issue? Make a public commitment to furthering research for reproductive technology, including embryo extraction, storage, and reimplantation. I've written about this before, but the short version is that a commitment to expanding reproductive choice completely changes the debate. 'Choice' becomes not just a euphemism for abortion, but for a whole umbrella of possibilities, possibilities that conservatives will never offer.

Women ought to be able to store their embryos, and have them reimplanted later, when they're ready to bring them to term and raise a child. They ought to be able to donate them to others who might want to bring them to term with or without a surrogate, such as the father-to-be or a gay couple. Women ought to be able to donate their embryos to livesaving medical research, if they choose. This is the kind of future that people, lots of people, are willing to fight for. It's a future where sick people are made well, and where every child is wanted.

I'd really like to see the Dems snap out of their 1970s strategy and pick up some new moves for the 21st century.

[mzmolly]

9. They can try, but the majority of Americans support a sane agenda.

I don't think it will be views as "condoms for 8 year olds" given the fact that the vast majority of people are sexually active before marriage.

[Lasher]

28. Passing out rubbers to school children would not be popular

I think calmblueocean is right. Condoms have been made available to high school students before and the average voter reaction here was highly negative. I think there is a good point being made here but it would be prudent to keep such an initiative away from public schools.

Before you get out that blowtorch, I want to say that I am in favor of sex education in our public schools. I just don't think it would be a smart political tactic for Democrats to give everybody the idea that we, and not the pukes, are the ones who endorse it.

[mzmolly]

35. They passed them out in my highschool. I think the fact that we had

to build a daycare to accomodate the teen/mothers and their children - made the notion acceptable.

[CTyankee]

45. Accurate medical information about sex is not the same as

"passing out condoms". But there is a danger: the repubs will make sex ed look like showing kids porno movies. We have to be real careful to phrase this correctly and "accurate medical information about sex, including abstinence." That is how Planned Parenthood describes it's sex ed program.

[musical_soul]

8. Translation: Let's do what we did before.

This is what the progressives promoted before. Prevention. We're the ones who got the Planned Parenthood places and other places helping women get contraception up and running. We're the ones who
encouraged that teens learn how to protect themselves if they had sex.

It's the same thing we did before. It makes me angry how the Repukes got so many people thinking that we were not for this stuff when we were the entire time. It's anti-choicers who hate prevention so much (outside of telling people no).

[mzmolly]

11. Yes, it's highliting the real issues.

As they were before pharmacies started denying women birth control. I have yet to hear of a man being refused a condom sale, by the way?

[musical_soul]

13. Good point.

I guess it's true. If men had abortions, there really would be a clinic open on every street corner.

[connecticut yankee]

25. or Viagra

[lady lib]

14. Finally.

This is what I've been saying for years. It's mind boggling that's it's taken them so long.

[mzmolly]

15. Yes, now let's see if they remind America WHO was in office on 911.

Glad they're finally listening to ya.

:hi:

[AX10]

17. I agree with this policy as well as the strategy.

:kick:

Harry Reid has proven himself the leader that Tom Daschle never was.

[pat_k]

18. Too bad it's the wrong wedge for the wrong reasons. . .

As is so often the case, the real question -- "Should this nation be putting women and their doctors in prison?" -- has been buried in the rigidly established terms of the debate.

Talking about "choice" doesn't put the focus where it belongs, and the word "abortion" has become so emotionally loaded it should be completely stricken from the discussion.

It's time to get off the beaten path. The following statement of the Democratic position I'd like to see does just that.

Short Version

Everybody is pro-life. The difference is, Democrats don't want to put frightened women and their doctors in jail.

Long Version

We are all pro-life. The difference is, Democrats don't think that frightened women and their doctors should be thrown in jail.

Democrats believe women should never have to face such desperate circumstances -- no health care, poverty wages, abusive environment – that the only option they see is ending a pregnancy.

Democrats are fighting to give women more options, so they can be assured that when they bear a child, that child will be loved, protected, and provided for, even if they are unable to do so themselves.

Democrats are committed to true individual freedom, which cannot exist without freedom from fear of economic hardship.

Democrats know that economic security requires access to quality education and medical care. Democrats know that a vigorous private sector cannot exist if work is not properly valued. Democrats are fighting for our right to equal access to healthcare. Democrats are fighting to guarantee a living wage for every American worker.
Democrats know how critical those first months are in the life of a child; they know paid family leave benefits all of us.

Democrats are fighting to make it possible for families to have confidence they will be able to give their children, and their children's children, the life they deserve.

Democrats know that private industry can only flourish and create prosperity for all when the power of the people to protect their interests is embodied in strong public institutions.

We are all pro-life. The difference is that some of those who call themselves pro-life think throwing frightened women in jail is the solution. The threat of jail did not work decades ago and will not help now. Democrats know we can do better than that.

The difference between "their side" and ours has nothing to do with valuing life, but when we allow them to commandeer the term "pro-life," we are conceding to their propaganda.

We need to ground our position in some basic truths and moral positions.

The first truth is that they want to throw frightened women and their doctors in jail. They are pro-prison.

The second truth is that being pro-prison has absolutely nothing to do with valuing human life, parenthood, or family.

Morality demands that we take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. It also demands that we do not violently impose our own moral absolutes on those who don't share them.

History tells us that tossing frightened women and their doctors into jail does absolutely nothing to stop a woman from doing whatever she feels she must-- even to risk her own life -- to defend her own mental health.

It is immoral to ignore the lessons of the past and advocate a policy with such awful consequences. (Women and doctors imprisoned, their skills locked away; families broken apart; lives cut short.)

Esteem for human life is the driving force behind the fight to minimize the conditions -- no health care, no job security, no home -- that make it impossible for many women to even contemplate taking a pregnancy to term This fight reflects a belief that every human being has a right to be free from want and fear.

We value life and can (and should) embrace the pro-life label with pride. It is time to put an end to their monopoly on the term and the ideas it embodies.

Note: The word "abortion" has become a powerful "stimulus" that provokes a rigid, emotional response. That conditioned response is a barrier to any sort of dialog. If we don't want to evoke the conditioned response, we have to stop using the term.

See also http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/1

[calmblueocean]

19. Did you ever post this as a forum thread of its own?

That's a great journal entry you have there. I'd love to hear what others think of it.

I have mixed feelings about embracing the "pro-life" label. Your reasoning is striking and compelling in many ways, but I also feel that it cedes too much ground. I think some would interpret it as saying that we believe abortion is morally wrong, but not worth punishing, because those who go through it have been punished enough. That's a significantly weaker stance than we have taken in the past. I also think it leaves open the idea of assigning other criminal penalties besides jail time to women and their doctors.

But the essence of your journal entry, I agree with. Criminalizing abortion doesn't end abortions. Only making women feel like they have more options will do that.

[tigereye]

38. thanks

that's just what this old clinic escort was thinking. I just want abortion to be infreqent, but also none of anyone's (govt or anti's) business.

I can't believe we are even talking about criminalizing abortion, in this day and age. That's how far this has come. Again. :( And I'm not sure I like talk of Dems running away from such a big issue of personal freedom for so many women.

[pat_k]

42. Yes, our "leaders" are very frustrating creatures . . .

They have been immersed in the bizarro world of the beltway for so long, their heads are filled with mush.

But I firmly believe that we can -- and must -- insert some reality.

Protesting and calling or writing to say "do this" or "do that" are excellent ways to show the breath of support for an action, but if we are going help them Wake Up and Stand Up, more of us need to go talk to them. More of us need to sit down with members of Congress or their staff as "citizen lobbyists" and engage in back and forth exchange, where we can elicit and directly challenge their rationalizations.

Right now, they subscribe to a system of dysfunctional beliefs that help them to defend against and dismiss our calls for action.

They run away from censure, or fail to declare our values and take a stand against the pro-prison faction hell-bent on looking up women and their doctors, or the the pro-war faction, or the pro-unitary executive faction for many of the same reasons. (e.g., their belief in the mythical backlash beast; a belief that is reinforced because it is so rarely tested -- and when it is tested, they somehow fail to notice that the beast didn't materialize.)

Because the same rationalizations underlie their failure to act on many different things, challenging rationalizations face-to-face can be particularly productive. Each rationalization we clobber with simple truths and moral positions makes action in other areas more likely.

As we try to insert some reality, it's important to understand that they are just people who are members of an insular social milieu that is dominated by Republican thinking, (Every administration hires people who outlive the administration, and the past few decades we have seen more years of Republican domination. As a result DC demographics skew Republican.)

For example, the mythical "backlash beast" they fear is probably grounded in a very real "social" backlash (dirty looks at cocktail parties or being shunned by those who object to some strong stance taken). We can counter this by helping them see the strentgh of the disdain the people "out here" view them with when they fail to stand up (i.e., fighting social pressure with social pressure).

Many of the dysfunctional notions "our leaders" have internalized are never challenged by their peers. Because the ideas are founded in common belief rather than reasoning and observation, they can fall like a house of cards.

Victories could come faster than we think. Here in NJ, despite a couple meetings, we failed to get Lautenberg or Corzine to object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2001, but nevertheless, the experience drove home the lesson that "they are just people." Perhaps they should "know better," but we found that it wasn't a case of knowing and willful inaction, but rather a case of being clueless. Cluelessness is frustrating. but actually easier to deal with than opposition. In any case, we started the process of chipping away that continues (sat down with Menendez's Judicial LA on Alito and will be sending a request to meet on co-sponsoring Censure).

[pat_k]

41. "It's bad" concedes that coping with an unwelcome pregnancy is dreadful. .

. . .not immoral. Women who have faced an unwelcome pregnancy typically view the experience as dreadful. Even those who are sure of the course they must take from the outset are shaken.

But your points are well-taken. Mixed feelings are to be expect mixed. Adopting and transforming a label generates mixed feelings because "adopting" necessarily precedes "transforming" -- and in the gap, however short, it feels like we are becoming that which we have long rejected, which is an icky feeling.

If we are to adopt and effectively promote the "we are all pro-life" position, we should be prepared to challenge reactions -- like the ones you point out -- we can expect from the pro-prison people.

We can dispense with attempts to foist "it's immoral" on our "We're all pro-life" position by asserting something like this:

We do not share the moral absolutes your faction subscribes to, but we are nevertheless pro-life. We cherish the lives of women and seek to give them options, not life-sapping punishment. We believe that women should never have to face such desperate circumstances -- no health care, poverty wages, abusive environment – that the only option they see is ending a pregnancy. We believe that women should never feel they must break the law and risk their lives to defend their own mental health.

And, we can dispense with those who attempt to define some lesser punishment (i.e., to define themselves as "pro-punishment" rather than "pro-prison") by asking them questions and making assertions like the following:

What lesser punishment would your faction -- a faction that believes it to be a heinous crime to end a pregnancy; a faction that believes you have a right to impose your moral absolutes on countless Americans who do no share them -- suggest?

What punishment, except prison, reflects the beliefs your faction holds?

If your faction is not pro-prison, you are conceding that you have no right to subject Americans who do not share your beliefs to the punishment you believe they deserve. If you concede that you have no right to do that, then you concede that you have no right to impose any of your faction's beliefs on Americans who do not share them.

Seeking to punish is violence. It is immoral and Un-American to violently impose ones own moral absolutes on those who don't share them. If you are not pro-prison, apparently you have come to the same conclusions.

I think I posted this as its own thread at some point (I've been promoting some variation of this for more than a year), but haven't lately. I'll make a point of doing so when I have a bit more time to tend a thread.

[mzmolly]

20. I'm pro-quality of life personally.

I believe children should be embraced/loved/wanted.

For me it's not about choosing jail or not, it's about choosing to put women/doctors in jail or not, it's about choosing to bare a child or not.

Thanks for your well thought out opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Women's reproductive rights means much more than abortion

and the Dems are smart to illuminate that fact.

[incapsulated]

22. It's not only a good wedge issue

It's a REAL issue, when we have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions and states cutting back on any real sex education. In the fundiest part of Texas, there is no sex ed, but they do have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the state.

[proud patriot]

23. I like it

:thumbsup:

[Cheeps]

24. I agree that we have to stop...

allowing republicans to define who and what we are and what we stand for. How is denying young girls a vaccine that may save them from getting cervical cancer from HPV "Pro-Life"? How is refusing to help women who can't afford to raise children, hence making it more likely that they will choose abortion "pro-life"? I will never understand it. The ONLY way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and you do that with education and safe, reliable, easily accessable birth control. And the second tier of preventing abortion is giving women equal opportunities in life so that they can have their babies and support them. I have a 16 year old daughter and I refuse to allow these people to treat her as if she is of lesser value because she is female. She has the right to live her life the way SHE chooses, and she has the right to not be forced to live according to some stranger's "moral" code. How arrogant these people are!! If they put their money where their mouths were it wouldn't burn me as much as it does. If they TRULY cared about children and put as much effort into "saving" them after they're born, as they do before they're born, they might avoid being the hypocrites they are.

Lisa

[connecticut yankee]

26. So true

and welcome to DU, Lisa

[wicket]

27. Welcome to DU Lisa!

:hi:

[Cheeps]

31. Thanks!

[JDPriestly]

29. I strongly support this regardless of its popularity.

[kitkat65]

30. I don't believe this part . . .

"A Democratic leadership aide said that, while only a slim majority of voters favor abortion rights . . ."

I would guess that, at least in the Democratic voter base, the majority are for abortion rights, with an emphasis towards social responsibility and prevention.

[BattyDem]

34. I had a hard time with that line, too.

Every poll I've ever seen shows much more than a "slim majority" favoring abortion rights. :shrug: Some people may want more restrictions than others, but basically, there was a significant majority in favor of some kind of abortion rights.

[daveskilt]

32. Give em moderate amounts of Hell Harry!

Harry Reid proving every day that it is possible to be fiercely and passionately moderate. I love this guy - Harry for the first Mormon President of the US

[BattyDem]

33. Finally! A common sense approach to the issue

The fact is, no one WANTS an abortion. No young woman aspires to have an abortion. It's not something that tops her list of goals in life. It's a last resort when an unexpected pregnancy occurs due to failed birth control, human error, rape or molestation, or simply a stupid mistake.

This country does not treat sexuality - especially women's sexuality - with any kind of respect or reality. It's treated like a "sin" - something that's dirty and wrong that "nice girls" shouldn't think about. It completely ignores human biology and behavior. Basically, it denies nature ... and that's because the religious right has been allowed for far too long to impose their repressed views on the rest of society. If they choose to live like that, fine. That's their right, but they don't have the right to dictate how other people feel about their own sexuality.

Comprehensive sex education, access to birth control, expanded birth control research, access to the morning-after pill, and the removal of the RW shackles from all conversation about human sexuality, especially as it applies to hormone-infused teens, will go a long way in preventing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

We need to confront everyone on this issue with some simple questions:
Why would anyone be against taking steps to eliminate the need for abortion? If your motivation is truly to protect life and the mental health of women, why wouldn't you do everything possible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy from happening in the first place? Saying that "pre-marital sex is wrong" or that "women make the choice when they choose to have sex" is a cop-out - unless you condone the Taliban-like tactics of enforcing morality through law. Do you condone that? Do you believe that the government should tell tax-paying adults when, where, how and why they can have sex? If so, why do you hate freedom; why do you hate America? :P

[MrBlueSky]

37. Good Job Betty!

Excellent Betty! :yourock:

I have been saying these things all along.

I think what expresses my view best is my late, great adviser in college:

"Apparently, unwanted pregnancy is the Christian thing to do." - the late C. Eugene Mallory, PhD, Chairman Emeritus, Psychology Department, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA.

Get rid of abortion by making it technologically outmoded, outdated and obsolete.

And how do we do just that? Just as you suggest:

1. Handing out contraceptives (including "Plan B")... fully legally and governmentally subsidized... in Health Centers... Pharmacies and High Schools all over the country.
2. Sex education that emphasizes respect and what to do in an emergency.... not just "Abstinence only." This is "Abstinence Plus..." education.
3. Continuous research and development of newer and better contraception.
4. Stiffening penalties for sex offenders (to discourage rape and incest)... along with mental health treatment for anyone who abuses, wishes to abuse and the victims of sexual abuse.

If the conservatives agree to the above conditions, then maybe one day there won't be any abortions because no one will ask for them!

[tigereye]

40. they create a terrible conundrum don't they?

i.e. if you have sex, you are wrong, and then, if you are pregnant and have an abortion, you are doubly wrong. I hate those no-win situations.

[paul_fromatlanta]

36. Whether it helps politically or not - prevention is good

If it upsets narrow minded people so much the better.

[OzarkDem]

44. Good framing, good idea

glad they're finally starting to wise up.