One thing I’ve noticed in reviewing dozens of candidate websites is that almost no Democrats are listing anything about reproductive rights on their issues pages. From a research perspective, I consider this to be a pain in the ass because it makes it difficult for me to assess my degree of support for candidates. But the strategy that lies behind the phenomenon is another matter. And it is a strategy because it is new. In 2006 it was much more common to see candidates expressing their support for reproductive rights…sometimes front and center.
It’s just a hunch but I think abortion is receding as an issue that is motivating the electorate. Maybe a better way of putting it is that the issue isn’t polarizing the electorate as much as it used to. I think this is more a matter of priorities than any change in the electorate. In fact, I saw some polling not too long ago that said the electorate was moving to the left on basically every issue except abortion, which was moving in the other direction (if you know the poll I’m talking about, let me know and I’ll provide a link). So, I don’t think the Democrats are necessarily winning the battle over choice. And their collective decision to ignore the issue on their websites could be considered a sign of weakness…even capitulation. We’ve seen that on the issue of gun control (in my opinion, quite wisely) and we may be seeing it now on abortion. But that isn’t the only way to look at it. It could just be that our candidates are winning over Republicans and independents when they stick to other issues and reminding them of their pro-choice position simply stomps on their message and diminishes their effectiveness.
This reminds me of an old post by Armando called Defending Roe: Why It is Good Politics. That post focuses on the folly of abandoning Roe and letting it go to the states. A more timely question is this: are we in a political moment where it makes sense to soft-pedal the party’s pro-choice position? Or is there something fundamentally dangerous going on?
I don’t know. I would be surprised if the country really was moving towards an anti-choice stance.
I think that for a long time the debate was framed on whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that is now such a fringe position that it’s faded into the background.
Because of that, maybe politicians on both sides are willing to let it go…pro-choicers are happy not to have to have such a divisive issue in the forefront, while anti-choicers realize that Roe won’t be overturned but they can still focus on making abortions increasingly difficult to obtain on a more local scale.
Is that these people didn’t get where they are without being pro-choice. It’s one of those assumptions that one makes. It would take a Democrat running to mention that s/he’s anti-choice to make us aware. And besides for those people who actually care what EMILYs list or NARAL have to say, they list the stances of the people running.
I think it’s a really smart strategy to not beat people over the head with your pro-choice (which could be interpreted as pro-abortion) views. Most people are opposed to the idea of abortion but also don’t want to take away the right of women to choose what’s right for them. If you make the issue front-and-center, you are alienating voters who would otherwise be interested in the rest of your ideas. You’re forcing them to make a choice over a single issue.
Same deal with gun-control. Most people think it’s important for government to restrict who can own guns based on their criminal history and psychological state and that the government should keep track of who has guns, but few believe that sane, law-abiding citizens should be prevented from owning guns and using them responsibly.
Both of these issues are too complex and volatile to take a hard pro or anti position on. More subtle, nuanced positions are in order.
Actually, there’s quite a bit of support for banning private gun ownership. It’s just not anywhere near as motivated and organized as the pro-gun crowd, possibly because gun ownership questions affect a minority of the population while reproductive issues concern pretty much everybody.
Just speaking for myself, a candidate’s position on abortion is a make-or-break issue where my vote is concerned, but even though I’m in favor of banning guns, it’s not going to have a big influence on my vote because I ultimately don’t care as much about guns as I do about a couple dozen other, more important issues. I suspect I’m not the only pro-choice, anti-gun voter with similar priorities.
Well first of all, if Kennedy wants to chip away at Roe it will be chipped at. That battle is lost. But the battle against losing the court for the rest of our lifetimes is still important.
I doubt there’s anything fundamentally dangerous going on with respect to the Dems positions on choice. The Dems aren’t trying to get elected to fight a Republican president and Republican majority who will do all kinds of nefarious things including chip away at Roe. These Dems will be the majority and the type of justices that most of these Democrats would support having on the Supreme Court can automatically be expected to be in the `save’ Roe camp.
So maybe the specific symbolism of Roe isn’t as important today as it was before the 2006 mid terms.
Although it can, imo, only help the Dems to be seen as fighting for something (not quite the same as Armando’s view that if the Dems aren’t seen as fighting for something basic as Roe they will be hurt). The question is should the symbol of what they are fighting for be Roe?
It’s important to recognize that Roe isn’t the only problem. Hence Armando’s summary of Balkin’s point:
Roe is an easy symbol. If you make the claim that overturning Roe is extreme, Democrats know what you mean. It shows what you are fighting for.
Is there a different route to make the case for what Democrats stand for and are willing to fight for? Well, it’s harder. Try talking about the Commerce Clause. People’s eyes glaze over. Try making the case that conservative judges are willing to chip away at Wickard v. Filburn (which has already happened) or even Heart of Atlanta Motel. Most likely you will draw a blank stare. And even if you can explain it, most people would shrug it off. We are so used to the idea of a federal government with broad Commerce Clause powers that the idea it could change is hard for the average person to understand.
And until New Orleans was drowned, most people seemed ready to buy the Republican line that the federal government wasn’t useful and, hence, the constitutional limitation of its powers might be just fine. The fate of New Orleans and the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration on almost all fronts does, though, give the Dems an opening to show what they stand for.
Even more, the illegal wiretapping cases and the court’s refusal to grant standing give an opportunity to show how 4th Amendment rights are being chipped away.
So maybe it’s not necessary to rely on the symbolism of Roe. Or the symbolism of any particular court case.
Remember – this is purely a political question. It doesn’t come down to making Roe an issue in order to save Roe. In the end, if for whatever reason we defeat the Right’s attempt to put the court under complete control of extremist judges for the rest of our lifetime then we will have done what we can at this point to save Roe. (Subject to Justice Kennedy’s decisions).
Women are now looking down the barrel of a Supreme Court stacked by George Bush purely for the purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade.
And they are now asking, if it is overturned what will happened. Will authorities be arresting women who seek and abortion? Will doctors who perform abortions be sent to jail?
A lot of men an women remember those days. And if you don’t, a serious look at Dirty Dancing, or A Raisin in the Sun will give you and idea.
A lot of people who are pro-life are now pro-“safe legal and rare”. A lot of people who were on the fence are now wanting to see Roe v. Wade stay in place.
As an issue, Bush’s success has made it dead. Just as the gay marriage and anti-immigration issues are dead. The only live wedge issue Republicans have is gun control and Democrats are not biting on that one.
of their records and ratings on women’s reproductive rights and health issues – link
Here’s Hillary’s Agenda For Reproductive Health Care and a critique pointing out what it lacks – explicit coverage for abortion under UHC, requirements for religious organizations to provide services they consider “immoral,” and failure to restore Medicaid funding for abortion.