Denver — A small but hearty group of pro-life Democrats think they’ve figured out a way for their staunchly pro-choice party to capture more of the elusive values vote: abortion-reduction legislation.
The legislation — which expands government programs for pregnant women and children — has great potential, said Vincent Miller, an associate professor of theology at Georgetown University.
“It provides an opportunity for Democrats to take the massive political capital around abortion and channel it into policy,” he said at a forum sponsored here by Democrats for Life on Aug. 27.
And it’s not just good for outreach. Abortion-reduction legislation instills the belief that government can provide for the common good. “In other words, it will help voters to think like Democrats,” Miller said.
Two of the pro-life Democrats at the event, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee and Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, have introduced legislation (HR 3192, S 2407) to bolster health care for poor pregnant women, increase adoption education, and expand health care and benefits for children. The goal of the legislation, they say, is to give women a true choice when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who was also at the event, is one of the recent crop of Democrats who have peeled off GOP seats by appealing to conservative voters. The members argued that legislation is important on its own merits. But they also acknowledged the political environment.
“In many situations, [the abortion] issue alone has elected a member of Congress in the House or the US Senate,” Davis said. “It’s time the debate moves to a different level.”
For Democrats, advancing the pro-life agenda is a Sisyphean task. Pro-life Democrats this week were celebrating Casey’s mere presence at the podium on Tuesday night — even though his mention of his opposition to abortion could not have been briefer or more tepid. Other claimed victories include a pro-life address from a pastor at an interfaith worship service earlier in the week and the inclusion of abortion reduction language in the platform. In such an environment, working against Roe v. Wade’s legalized abortion on demand is unthinkable. Instead, the pro-life Democrats emphasize expanded government programs for pregnant women and children. In fact, political opposition to abortion is rarely mentioned.
Bob Tuke, a Senate candidate from Tennessee, told the gathered, “I agree with everything I’ve heard so far and I’m a pro-choice Democrat.” His point was that Democrats for Life had effectively found common ground on the issue. But it left the question unanswered — what, exactly, makes a pro-life Democrat different than a pro-choice Democrat?
The Democrats’ 2008 platform debate might give an indication of how difficult it is to be pro-life in the party.
Pro-lifers declared victory that the platform included language “ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”
But in order to get that sensitive language in support of motherhood, the committee added stronger abortion rights language than in past platforms. The new language state that the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” A reference to abortion being “safe, legal and rare” was removed. Abortion rights advocates praised the deletion of the language as an overdue change that reclaimed the morality of abortion.
Rev. Tony Campolo, an evangelical member of the platform committee, told Democrats for Life about other items he tried — and failed — to get included in the platform. The first was an issue he calls “parallel of choice.” If Democrats are going to fund Planned Parenthood, they should also fund pregnancy counseling centers, he said. That didn’t go over too well. He also pressed for the platform to mention that Democrats possess a diversity of viewpoints on the abortion issue. That also failed.
The final item he wanted included was a statement that abortion is a moral issue, not just a political one. No go.
Even with their meager victories, pro-life Democrats seem genuinely excited about the party’s new openness to them. Campolo pointed out that he didn’t sneak onto the platform committee — Howard Dean appointed him.
The pro-life elected officials and candidates at the forum were effusive in their praise for Sen. Barack Obama, despite his 100-percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, a statement that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished” with a child if they faced an unplanned pregnancy, and promise that his first act as president would be to push abortion rights legislation. When queried about it by the press corps, the assembled Democrats defended Obama and explained they support him for his other positions.
Campolo said that public opinion on abortion moves in the opposite direction of the president.
“If we have a pro-choice president, we’ll move in the right direction,” he said.
In trying to find a home in the party of choice, it seems the Democrats for Life don’t have many options.
— M. Z. Hemingway is a Denver native.