Democrats eye softer image on abortion

[liberalcanuck]

(snip)

WASHINGTON -- Leading Democrats, stung by election losses, are signaling they want the party to embrace antiabortion voters and candidates, softening the image of the party from one fiercely defensive of abortion rights to one that acknowledges the moral and religious qualms some Americans have about the issue.

(snip)

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who is one of the most ardent supporters of abortion rights in Congress, has encouraged Tim Roemer, a former representative with a strong voting record against abortion, to run for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats' new Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes abortion rights.

(snip)

No prominent Democrat has suggested that the party change its long-held stance that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she chooses. But as Democrats assess what went wrong for them in November, some are urging a "big tent" approach that is more welcoming to those who oppose abortion. Democrats say that attitude might be especially useful with Hispanics, a critical constituency that tends to be Roman Catholic and whose majority support for Democrats has slipped in recent elections.

(snip)

Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, said the Democrats should "embrace" antiabortion voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as providing for children's medical care. "I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. . . . We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue," Dean, another potential candidate for DNC chairman, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" earlier this month.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/19/democrats_eye_softer_image_on_abortion/

[clydefrand]

1. In other words, we need to say the same thing...abortion rights

or right to choose, but say it the way repugs do couched in "moral values" rhetoric. That's ok with me. There are many Dems who like I abhor abortion when used as a birth control means. I don't know how many girls/women do that, but to me that is wrong. BUT abortion is often necessary and the repugs realize that, but they don't dare say it. So if we go back to the preabortion rights days, the rich will get their sterile abortions and the poor will get their coat hanger abortions. The latter will die or be very sick. Again the rich make out like the bandits.

[Prodemsouth]

6. All Kerry had to say was: "the abortion rate has gone up under Bush

It went down under Clinton to the lowest rate in 17 years and that voters are being played with on their legitmate concerns on this issue with no real results. We will try bring down these rates again with a better economy and that we will help adoption agencies. I think abortion is not good when it is used a birth control, but that there are private and family medical concerns and very personal concerns that also make me think that overturning Roe V Wade would be bad. That is the difference between us."- Repeat it often and he might have done much better- these issues could be diffused very easy if people would think. I heared he was concerned about losing the pro choice vote- because some were actually pro abortion. At the convention some activist were walking around with shirts that said I had an abortion ask me. Some of them want Dem candidiates to just love abortion.

[leesa]

28. Do you know of any girls/women who do that??

Why would anyone rely on abortion for birth control? It's a medical procedure that can have complications. It's not comfortable, It costs more than birth control.

[Egalitariat]

30. I do

My best friend got his girlfriend pregnant when we were in high school. They were using the "pull out first" form of birth control. Same thing with a fraternity brother in college.

They had an abortion because they didn't want a child. There were no medical reasons necessitating it.

I only know personally of 2 women who have had abortions, and both were for "birth control" purposes.

I'm sure other women I know have had abortions. Some probably for medically necessary reasons.

It happens.

I don't like it, but can't imagine telling her she's not allowed to do it.

[Bush was AWOL]

32. Me too...

I got a girl pregnant when I was in high school and she had an abortion because she was simply too young to have a child. Also, I know of two other girls who had abortions for the same reason.

[Dorian Gray]

41. Sadly, I do know a woman

who chose to terminate her pregnancies four times. She was sadly a very messed up person, however, and she self-medicated with drugs and alcohol. As a result of that, she was careless about sex, and had multiple partners, while never bothering to use birth control. My sister in law also has problems with alcohol, and she's terminated a pregnancy 3 times in her life.

I think that the reckless actions of people are due to self-hatred more than anything else. The majority of people I know would never have chosed to go through an abortion more than once. The few good friends that I know who have had them made sure that they used birth control religiously afterwards, to make sure that they do not get pregnant again.

[amazona]

45. well, it costs less than birth control actually

In my area a year's worth of birth control pills is a bit more than a termination, and you wouldn't get PG every year unless you were very unlucky.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

52. I feel the same way too.

I don't like killing in any form.

[MadHound]

2. Just one step closer to merging truly into the one party system

Good, maybe this move will drive even more people from the Dems and into the Green party. This continual rightward movement by the Dems is absolutely ridiculous. What part of "the majority of Americans in this country favor safe, legal abortions" do they not understand? What, they think that this will appease enough people who dislike abortion that they will win the election? HA! Fools, those people who dislike abortions won't switch from the 'Pugs to the Dems, unless the Dems promise also to make abortion illegal. Which, given the rightward rate of swing that the Dem party is going, may not be all that long.

This is just plain stupidity on the part of the Dems, and quite frankly I shake my head and mourn for the loss of the party of the people that I knew in my youth. Now it is just another corporate controlled wing of the business establishment in this country, pandering to the theocratic fascists for money and votes.

[Prodemsouth]

8. No. A deeper survery on this attitude finds that the concern is mainly

there when abortion is used as birth control. That people become more pro choice when you talk about medical concerns,the life and health of the mother. That is what a large majority of Americans think. The same survey showed that people in the Democratic Party were viewed as pro abortion not pro choice and wanted to encourage abortions.

[Darth_Kitten]

16. How do we know that abortion is used as birth control?

We quite frankly don't know everybody's "reasons" for having them. It doesn't matter what some people "think" about why others are having or not having abortions. There will always be that smug repub hypocrite who will hate abortion because he/she thinks some uppity young woman is too independent and too sexual, etc. Everybody has their ideas about sexuality, birth control, and whatnot, but perception is not always reality. (If people only realized how many married, upper-middle class, and very religious women had abortions)

Abortion is always "evil" when somebody we think we know and don't like exercises their choice. People should mind their own lives and stop butting in where it's none of their concern. :)

Abortion should be a woman's choice. Period. We don't really speculate on the "selfish" reasons many men won't take care of their own kids, pay child support, hell, even change or help feed their own young, so why do people worry so much about women and their "selfish" reasons?

(this is what I would tell America, not the poster I'm responding to!!! hehe!!) :evilgrin:

[FizzFuzz]

19. What you said!!!

Right on, Darth_Kitten

""We don't really speculate on the "selfish" reasons many men won't take care of their own kids, pay child support, hell, even change or help feed their own young, so why do people worry so much about women and their "selfish" reasons?"" <---I love this. Boy is that ever the truth.

[Sparkly]

17. That's a problem of perception

not reality. You're saying people surveyed (link to survey, btw?) think abortion is "used as birth control," an idea that portrays women as reckless, finding it just as easy to get pregnant and have an abortion as take a pill; and if a large percentage of people think Democrats are "pro-abortion" or "encourage abortions," we have a bigger PR problem than I ever thought.

[liberalcanuck]

3. I love most of Dean's plans for our party -- but his stance on this issue

seemingly goes against his 'republican-lite' mantra.

[w13rd0]

9. Not at all...

...it's in keeping with his "all states appeal". He says we should embrace the voters, not the policies, and that we should reframe the discussion in moral terms, letting those who are TRULLY pro-life have a home in the party. I myself am for economic and social justice, I'm against wars of choice, against capital punishment...these are TRUE pro-life positions. The GOP is just "pro-fetus", they aren't even "pro-baby". They seem most concerned with the stages of the life cycle that occur pre-birth and post-death, and have little compassion for those travelling in between. We should be unafraid of pointing that out.

ON EDIT: oh, and when Dean says "I think we should make a home for pro-life Democrats", he could have been referring to Kucinich. I actually think that Kucinich could have played a more interesting and influential role in the primaries had he not re-imaged his stance on the issue. He would have then been the trully pro-life candidate without qualifiers or limitations, rather than simply anti-war.

[Prodemsouth]

10. Jeeze many here are over reacting to this. Dean is saying we can

address the issue by exanding what it means to be pro life but that dosen't mean we think over turning Roe V Wade is a good idea. See my first post.

[madfloridian]

33. No, here is his stance...from my post in GD Politics.

In the Boston Globe today, Howard Dean's position on welcoming pro-life is only partially presented. I am presenting more on it below the Globe article, as it is unfair to mention him in the same article with Roemer and make them sound alike. They left out that Dean said we do NOT change our position. He said not to let them define the issues.

To be very clear, Howard Dean is pro-choice and very clear about it, Roemer is NOT pro-choice. In fact he appears to me to be against a woman's right to choose.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/us_house/articles/2004/12/19/democrats_eye_softer_image_on_abortion/

SNIP.."Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, said the Democrats should "embrace" antiabortion voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as providing for children's medical care. "I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. . . . We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue," Dean, another potential candidate for DNC chairman, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" earlier this month."

From MTP last week:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/6702005
MR. RUSSERT: SNIP.."Is there a way the Democrats could change their vocabulary on abortion?

DR. DEAN: We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles. The way I think about this is--and it gets into the gay marriage stuff, too. We're not the party of gay marriage. We're the party of equal rights for all Americans. You know, I signed the first civil unions bill in America, and four years later the most conservative president the United States has seen in my lifetime is now embracing what I signed. We've come a long way. We're not the party of abortion. We're the party of allowing people to make up their own minds about medical treatment. It's just a different way of phrasing it. We have to start framing these issues, not letting them frame the issues.

SNIP.."I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats. The Democrats that have stuck with us, who are pro-life, through their long period of conviction, are people who are the kind of pro-life people that we ought to have deep respect for. Not only are they pro-life, which, I think, is a moral judgment--I happen to be strongly pro-choice, as a physician--but they are pro-life more moral reasons. They also, if they're in the Democratic Party, are real pro-life. That is, they're pro-life not just for unborn children. They're pro-life for investing in children's programs. They're pro-life for helping small children and young families. They're pro-life in making sure adequate medical care happens to children. That's what you so often lack on the Republican side. They beat the drums about being pro-life but they forget about life after birth. And so I do embrace pro-life Democrats. I think we want them in our party. We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue...."END SNIP

[liberalcanuck]

40. Thanks for the post. The original article is very misleading regarding

Dean's position. I like Dean's uncompromising style of tearing apart the other side's twisted logic.

Thanks for the clarification.

[madfloridian]

42. Yes, the Globe was just making it sound like all were alike. More.

I put more at my post in GD Politics.

Individual freedom should apply to abortion decision
DEAN..."I believe that the issue of abortion is a medical rather than a political decision. I don't see how a government regulation that tells doctors how to practice medicine can be supported. Republicans claim that they are the party of individual freedom, but they are the first to tell other people how to live their lives.
Source: Winning Back America, by Howard Dean, p.142-3 Dec 3, 2003

Q: Where do you stand on the partial birth abortion ban?
A: In the four years between 1996 & 2000 there were no late term abortions performed in my state. Late term abortions are very rare and should never be used except to save the life or health of the mother. I just don't think the government ought to be making personal medical decisions for Americans. No respectable physician would ever do a late term abortion except for the most serious reasons. That is why I did not support the President's bill
Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

SNIP.."As a physician, I do not like the idea that Congress or the President think they should practice medicine. Abortion is a deeply personal decision which ought to be made between the patient, the family and physician. It's none of the government's business."
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

The notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense. This is a rare procedure used only to save the life or health of the mother. We have had no third trimester abortions in Vermont in the past four years.
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

[bklyncowgirl]

4. Democrats should make the moral arguements for legal abortion.

There is a moral and practical arguement to be made. Sadly what most anti-abortion people hear is "It's my body and I get to choose what to do with it." While that should be part of the arguement it should not be the only thing people hear. It makes it too easy for anti-abortion crusaders to stigmatize pro-abortion rights advocates as selfish hedonists who want to have sex without consequences and then kill their babies.

[Poppyseedman]

15. What moral reasoning can be made for abortion

besides the life of the mother?

The issues of abortion is a moral one as well as practical one.

Kill the fetus before it's born because it might have a terrible life?
Kill the fetus because the mother life will be harmed equivocal because she carried a fetus for nine months ?
Kill the fetus because it will be a burden to society?

Start standing on the "moral value" of abortion, I'll throw you a rope before you sink into the quicksand.

The party needs to follow Dean's lead by "We can have a respectful dialog, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue,"

The rigid abortion position in the party leaves no room for people of conscience who disagree.

[gottaB]

31. the moral value of *legal* abortion

In such cases as these, it is immoral to blind oneself to the ways of the world.

We cannot imagine all the reasons a person might have for choosing to abort a pregnancy. We can infer from statistical correlations what some of those reasons might be, but there are compelling arguments against using such inferences as a basis for passing absolute moral judgements. In the first place there is the matter of indeterminacy. We really can't be sure how another person comes to such a decision. In the second place, without being in the very situation of the person making such a decision, we cannot be certain that it is not the right thing to do. If that seems counterintuitive, consider the very frequency of abortions. Could so many people be wrong?

Counterarguments. A. People know in their hearts that abortion is the wrong choice for them to make, but they are misled into having abortions. B. Moral laxity in social institutions causes more people to choose abortions. I don't believe either one of those arguments stands to reason--although of course there are always incidents to shock the conscience. The question is, do such incidents typify most occurences? And then there is the problem of imposing one's beliefs about good and evil upon others. It is possible, by way of contrast, to judge a person for the crime of theft without considering whether the human being is inherently disposed towards doing good or doing evil. Can we truly judge a person for aborting a pregnancy without making presuppostions of this sort? Not, I think, if we consider everything we know about the frequency of abortions and its correlating factors. To argue that permissiveness causes abortions would be to stand in defiant ignorance of the obvious. To impose that denial upon all of society in the name of morality would be antithetical to everything morality is supposed to be about.

Which leads me to conclude that the most moral course of action for government to take in this matter is to allow for the exercize of conscience on the one hand, and to address the factors that contribute to high rates of abortion on the other. And where the fetus has reached a stage where it would be viable were it to be removed from the womb, an exception should be made and abortion should be prohibited, barring any foreseeable injurious consequences to the mother.

[Poppyseedman]

47. Your conclusion is exactly my point

Viability is the moral benchmark.

[madfloridian]

44. Ah, but we are NOT pro-abortion. It is spin.

That is what Dean is trying to say. I am staunchly pro-choice for the very reasons Dean gives......it is a decision to be made only between the woman and her physician. The government has no role in it.

Makes as much sense as trying keep women from getting birth control pills in some states now. Pharmacists are deciding to not fill prescriptions for them.

My question is why not regulate vasectomies, and stop the sale of Viagra and such products. Betcha if the government stepped in there, men would holler real loud.

The right wing has made this a wedge issue that should not exist.

[LisaLL]

37. morals of abortion

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent
unintended pregnancies in the first place. Democrats are the
Prevention Party, meaning we support all the measures that
have been shown to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce
abortions, and protect the health and safety of women and
children (access to contraception, medically accurate
education about preventing pregnancy which includes
contraception and abstinence, promote the programs that have
been proven to be effective in reducing teen pregnancy, access
to emergency contraception--which could eliminate the need for
one half of all abortions in this country, keeping abortion
legal and safe). Furthermore, we support the things that make
it easier for women to raise their children ( prenatal care,
welfare, after care programs, family leave, health insurance,
etc).

Republicans are the Punishment Party. They support all the
measure that increase unintended pregnancies, increase
abortions, and impair the health and safety of women. (oppose
family planning, oppose emergency contraception, promote
unproven, inaccurate, abstinence-only programs while opposing
the programs shown to reduce teen pregnancy, distribute
falsehoods about contraception/family planning/abst-only
programs, trying to make abortion illegal). Furthermore their
policies make it harder for women to continue their
pregnancies and raise children. Their goal is not to reduce
abortions, but rather to increase the risks of pregnancy,
STDs, medical harm, poverty-- to serve as punishment for
having sex. Saying one is "pro-life" and then
deliberately opposing everything that reduces abortions while
trying to make abortion illegal (read more dangerous) is
extremely immoral. Pretending that one's goal is to reduce
abortions while doing this is dishonest.

If someone feels strongly against abortion they should be
strongly Democrat in order to reduce abortions and unintended
pregnancies.
If someone feels strongly about the welfare of children and
families, they should be strongly Democrat in order to allow
families to have children when they are best able to provide
for them and raise them in nurturing environments.
If someone feels strongly about the safety of women, they
should be strongly Democrat because when contraceptive use is
maximized,and abortion is legal fewer women die of pregnancy
related causes.
If one feels strongly about honesty, they should be strongly
Democrat because we are honest about our goals and our
policies while the Republicans depend on dishonesty to sell
their view.

We have the moral high ground and the evidence on this issue.
We need to use it!

[LisaLL]

43. moral reasons for contraception and abortion

It is an enormous responsibility to be a good parent. It is because women recognize this, value children, and want to be the best parent they can be that they use contraception to prevent pregnancies and turn to abortion if pregnancy occurs. This is why they will risk their lives to do so when abortion is illegal: Defending their children.

Abortion is related to pregnancy unwantedness which is determined by fertility and resources.

What makes a pregnancy unwanted? Women determine what size family she can provide for based on her tangible and intangible resources. Women use contraception to delay having a child until they are in a position to provide a stable environment for their children. Women space their pregnancies so they can maximize the attention and resources they can provide for each child. Unintended pregnancy is a threat to the ability to take care of their existing children and a threat to the ability to take care of the children she will have in the future.

To reduce abortions, we can change a few of these factors. As a society we can reduce unwanted fertility by maximizing women's access and ability to use contraception to avoid pregnancies. As a society, we can also improve family resources by supporting social safety nets and investing in communities. But, it is unlikely that we will be able to change a woman's desire to protect and defend her ability to take care of her children.

[RobinA]

50. I'm a Selfish Hedonist

because I don't believe that Congress should be telling me what medical procedures I can and cannot have? To me it's a question of individual rights versus the government in the room with me and my doctor.

[demnan]

5. I think they are making it more "easy to be Green"

Hey in May of this year 100,000 people demonstrated in the March for Women's lives. Dean, Hillary Clinton and a host of Democrats were there. What happened? Did everyone forget about that march? This is one issue (this and the Iraq war) for which I refuse to compromise anymore. Fuck their concillitory attitude when it involves a woman's rights.

[NickofTime]

7. Abortion Rights are Central to Progressive Ideals

Caving on abortion rights will not gain a single vote, and will lose many.

[rfkrfk]

13. We need to pursuade people to change their vote

We need to swing votes, not make our enemies,
slightly friendlier.

[FizzFuzz]

20. 100,000 ? No, more like 1,000,000.

Despite what media suppressed and told the country.

[Bush was AWOL]

34. Can you read?

"No prominent Democrat has suggested that the party change its long-held stance that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she chooses."

[Prodemsouth]

11. Are we pro choice or are we pro abortion with some I am begining to

wonder.

[rucky]

12. How many kids have been adopted by Congresspeople?

they are suggesting alternatives, right? right? riiiiiiiiight.

They'll leave stuff like that to the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the party.

I, for one, am sick and tired of doing all the heavy lifting here.

[Yupster]

39. I think McCain has adopted kids

can't think of any others off-hand, but certainly no expert.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. This is so bogus. I'm 100% sure that the Republicans tampered with

the black boxes. And now they have us questioning some hardfast beliefs because we can't be sure. Well, I'm sure. Let's demand that they end up in the pen for what they did to us.

[cali]

18. It's vital that we begin to reframe the argument

because the argument has shifted. It's vital that we educate the public because the public doesn't understand Roe. The anti-choice forces have been incredibly effective at 'babyizing' the debate. How do we reframe the argument? For one thing we get the facts out there: Roe protects a woman's right to have an abortion until 'viability', then the state has a right to regulate. Many people believe that a woman can have an abortion for any reason throughout her pregnancy and that this is a common occurance. We need to let people know that there are very few late term abortions, and the reason women have late term abortions are not for birth control purposes. We need to explain that we do differentiate between a fetus of 2 months and one of eight months. We need to better explain why we opposed the phony partial birth abortion ban. We need to express our respect for people who oppose abortion. We need to differentiate between those people who oppose abortion at any stage and want personhood for an embryo from the moment of fertilization and those who, for example, believe that abortion after the first trimester should be subject to greater regulation. The latter, who are the majority, we can talk to, and can't afford to further alienate, the former are so extremist that dialogue is all but impossible. We need to stop reflexively dismissing people who want parental notification laws, and engage with them.

[FizzFuzz]

21. and we need a forum in which to have this discussion.

That's maybe the biggest part of the problem. The Dem's message is basically great, but no media coverage. No stage for the discussion to be held.

We need to buy some large media outlets, because people think what they see on network prime time TV is what the truth is.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. this party is so totally fucking clueless

Really, they should all just quit. Go home and quit.

If these guys had been around 150 years ago they'd be looking to find a common ground on slavery.

[The Flaming Red Head]

23. Right wing thugs who kill doctors and maim nurses and bomb clinics

need to be in another tent.

[alarimer]

24. People will die

If abortion is made illegal. We need to make this abundantly clear. If you want your sister, friend, cousin, etc. to die, the overturn Roe V. Wade. Because it will happen if it is overturned.

[cali]

26. It's not enough to argue this

Yes, that needs to be part of the argument, but not all of it. Please see my post above for a more comprehensive discussion. Second of all, I hate to say this, but overturning Roe- and please understand I'm a staunch supporter of Roe- would probably not change things to the degree that you may think.
Access to abortion is already terribly limited in many states. Supporters of Roe, too often don't recognize the inroads on access that the anti-choice people have made.

[jmowreader]

25. Get the Republicans to stop demagoguing it, and we'll talk

Right now, the people believe that the Republicans' position on the Democrats' position on abortion is correct:

* Democrats believe that a pregnant woman should have the right to have an abortion right up until the time the cord has been cut. (I actually had a Republican tell me "you Democrats believe a woman should be able to abort a baby while it's being born.")

* Democrats believe all pregnancies should be aborted.

* Democrats believe that tax dollars should pay for all abortions.

* Democrats believe all doctors should be forced to perform abortions on demand even if the doctor is morally opposed to abortion.

* Democrats believe the unborn baby is a parasite.

* All abortions are performed as a form of birth control because there is no medical reason to abort a pregnancy in the United States, where we have the greatest system of medical care in the world.

All of it's bullshit, but if you asked your average rank-and-file Republican what the Democratic position on abortion is, that (or some variation of that) is what you'd hear.

Not that we believe there are medical reasons to abort a pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy, anyone? Happens in two percent of pregnancies; guaranteed 100 percent lethal to the mother unless the pregnancy is aborted.

Not that we believe ALL life has value, not just unborn life.

Not that Democrats have led the way in reducing abortion.

Hitching our wagon to the pro-fetus horse is NOT going to turn Republicans into Democrats. They'll just turn to welfare, social security, taxes, public housing or whatever you want to name that We Like and They Don't as a reason to hate Democrats.

Once again, it all comes down to one thing: we allowed the Republicans to define what the Democratic Party is and stands for, we haven't fixed it, and we're paying the price.

[cali]

27. Excellent post but.......

We need to bypass the right wing repubs and speak directly to the public. Don't forget that there are a significant number of pro-choice repubs. There are independents and dems we need to reach, as well.

[jmowreader]

48. Clinton described it best

He wanted to make abortion safe, legal and rare.

We also need to make sure sex education--NOT "virginity until marriage, and then you'll figure it out" education, but real sex education that talks about how to have sex without conception--is taught to all of America's youth. I think virginity-until-marriage education is counterproductive anyway. Everyone knows that when you tell a kid not to do something, that's the thing he wants to do most of all. And with all the No Sex propaganda...sex has GOT to be great if they are so emphatic about me not doing it!

[LisaLL]

49. sex ed

Right! There are comprehensive sex education programs that have excellent results in lowering teen pregnancy and high risk behaviors. There is ZERO credible evidence that any of the abstinence-only until-marriage programs reduce teen pregnancy.

If our goal is reducing teen pregnancy, then we need to use what has been proven to be effective.

We Democrats support using what is effective in preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions and protecting the health and safety of women. Republicans oppose anything that is effective in preventing pregnancies and abortions.

[jmowreader]

51. I would love to run this study

Take two communities of roughly the same size--30,000 would be good. Make sure they have approximately equal Democrat/Republican ratios, family-mix ratios and church attendance rates. And make sure they have the same number of high schools, junior highs, and elementary schools.

Also make sure each community has an abortion clinic and a Planned Parenthood. This is important.

They should be at least 100 miles apart so they won't intermingle on a regular basis, and they can't know they're part of a study.

Next, in community A we'll introduce a full-throttle chastity-only program. We'll have chastity in the classrooms, we'll slip chastity into classes that you wouldn't think of as ripe for chastity education (math class comes to mind, as does English), and we'll bring in the Silver Ring Thing. (http://www.silverringthing.com)

Community B will get a comprehensive sex education curriculum.

We will then compare the number of teen pregnancies, date rapes and abortions in each community over say, five years. We'll monitor the sales of contraceptives to people under 18 in each community. How much ya wanna bet that community A's sexual activities in all categories--especially the Date Rape category--will be higher than community B's?

[Deja Q]

29. A vote for the status quo... even when someone new is elected:

Everything's the same yet nothing's different.

[sandnsea]

35. Reproductive Responsibility

How about that to replace pro-choice? It could mean alot of things. A woman has the final responsibility over her reproductive organs. Responsibility for reproduction starts before the pregnancy. Responsibility for reproduction continues after the pregnancy. It is the utmost reponsibility of any society to consider the health implications of reproduction. Finally, men have reproductive responsibilty too.

[Walt Starr]

36. OOPS! Headline is wrong

Democrats Join With Republicans to Form Single Party Nation Under Republicatic-Democans

All fixed now.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

38. Yes, I think we should FUCK THE POOR, SUPPORT THEOCRACTIC GOVT, & GREED

I've left the party...

JB

[Gloria]

46. Jeebus, do we have to reinvent the wheel??? I heard post-election

Al From talking about how Clinton pulled in some of these voters simply by saying that abortin should be "safe, legal, and rare." Just by using the word "rare" it apparently indicated that Clinton was "rabid hardline" on the issue. Although he was staunchly pro-choice.

For Pete's sake, why can't this party choose the damned line and stick to it CONSISTENTLY instead of having to reinvent themselves (bad image) AND open up the door to all sorts of statements by different people who just further muddy the issue.

You watch, they'll dig themselves into a hole over this instead of just restating the simple language that Clinton used.