Are the Dems shifting their approach to abortion?

Are the Dems shifting their approach to abortion?

Interesting, even as the Republican party becomes less and less responsive to pro-lifers, and social conservatives in general, Democrats are trying to sound more and more like pro-lifers.

Realistically, however, there is less than meets the eye.

Sensing an opportunity to impress religious voters — and tip elections — Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail have begun to adopt some of the language and policy goals of the antiabortion movement.

For years, the liberal response to abortion has been to promote more accessible and affordable birth control as well as detailed sex education in public schools.

That’s still the foundation of Democratic policies. But in a striking shift, Democrats in the House last week promoted a grab bag of programs designed not only to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also to encourage women who do conceive to carry to term.

What we have here is an attempt to have it both ways. They want to seem like they’re shifting without actually making the killing of unborn children illegal. And let’s not forget that “preventing unwanted pregnancies” does not mean abstinence and chastity education. It means contraceptives.

Providing cover to weak-kneed pro-lifers

Technorati Tags: | | | | |

  • Here is an article from Princeton University that suggests the only way to reduce abortion is by making it illegal. Abortion rates actually go up, even if welfare benefits increase because in more liberal states social workers can offer abortion to pregnant mothers when seeking state help.

    The hypothesis that social welfare programs reduce the likelihood of abortion is also soundly rejected when considering the generosity of state safety nets. In all specifications for the full sample, women’s probability of choosing abortion significantly increases with their state’s per capita welfare spending. Using column 1, the estimated probability is 17.6 percent in states one standard deviation below the mean welfare spending ($509 per capita, similar to California’s
    cost-of-living adjusted spending) but 26.0 percent in states one standard deviation above the mean ($815 per capita, similar to Massachusetts’ adjusted spending).

    It could be that more restrictive abortion policy simply indicates lower tolerance of abortion among political elites and the mass public (Gerber 1996; Wetstein 1996), but my focus on enforcement rather than passage of a law should mitigate this concern. Low-income mothers living in states with more restrictive abortion policy climates are less likely to choose abortion. Regardless of the mechanism by which these laws work—by actually preventing women from obtaining abortions, as their opponents contest, or by changing women’s minds, as proponents argue—state abortion policy appears highly relevant to women’s decisions. p. 26

  • Domenico,

    I have been around politics to become jaded by the utterly hypocrisy and deception of the Democrats and many of the Republicans who are that in name only.  At the risk of seeming to lack Christian charity, Democratic politics have been reduced to utter scum.  Simply because a biting dog wags its tail now and then is no reason to trust it.

  • As Pres. Bush said when he was first running for Pres. in 1999-2000, we’ve got to change a lot of hearts before abortion will be eliminated. 

    Even if a constitutional amendment could pass the Congress, there is no way that it would have enough support in the states right now to be ratified. 

    It is not up to the President or our elected officials to work for changed hearts on this issue . . . it is up to our religious leaders and community activists.  Change is coming, but it is very slow.

    On this issue, President Bush kept his promise in the most important way; by appointing Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  We must pray for them every day, and pray that they will be joined by like minded Justices in the near future.