WOMEN'S ISSUES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.
The draft of the Democratic Party platform, principally written by Obama's Senate policy director, the estimable Karen Kornbluh, is a remarkably feminist document, one befitting of a political party that, this year, came exceedingly close to nominating a woman. In the summer of 2006, I heard Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York speak on the Hill, lamenting that the lily livered John Kerry team had, for the first time in decades, removed support for the Equal Rights Amendment from the party platform. Well, this year the ERA is back, alongside a truly unequivocal statement of support for reproductive rights, an unprecedented statement in opposition to sexism, and new sections on equal pay, women's economic struggles, work-family balance, and violence against women. Read the whole platform here.
It's clear that care was taken to involve members of Hillary Clinton's circle in the document's drafting (perhaps Dana Singiser), or to at least take their concerns to heart. Clinton's run is presented in the document as a feminist historical feat, and in the foreign policy section, the draft borrows the language of Clinton's celebrated 1995 speech to the United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing: "Our policies will recognize that human rights are women’s rights and that women’s rights are human rights." Reflecting Obama's own long-standing interest in international development, the documented continues, "Women make up the majority of the poor in the world. So we will expand access to women’s’ economic development opportunities and seek to expand microcredit."
Lastly, it's worth saying a bit more about the abortion language in the platform draft. Some conservatives are interpreting the platform's mention of adoption and a woman's right to choose motherhood as a new attempt to reach out to mixed and anti-choice Evangelical and Catholic voters. But I also think the platform is a significant victory for reproductive rights advocates. The Clintonian formula of "safe, legal, and rare" has been scrubbed. The adoption stuff is hardly new. And both the 2004 and 2008 platforms, with their "regardless of her ability to pay" language, oppose the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents Medicare and Medicaid from paying for abortions. Anyhow, you be the judge. Here's the old, 2004 choice platform:
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
And here's 2008:
The Democratic 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.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.
I simply don't see this as a modification of the party's pro-choice stance. Rather, it's a strengthening of that position and a re-articulation of the commitment to helping low-income expectant mothers.
--Dana Goldstein
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (10)
I still would have preferred to see, instead of the “right to choose,” the “right to make the decision without government interference.” Support for Roe v. Wade – as a restriction against government interjecting itself in private decisions, as well as against taking sides in what is essentially a contentious religious dispute – is perfectly consistent with personal moral opposition to abortion. A right to “choose” – indeed, “pro-choice” – comes dangerously close to shutting out that constituency that can distinguish between religious mandates and compulsory force exerted by government. That’s a constituency the Democrats should own. Those terms carry an implicit declaration that either decision is equally acceptable. When there is serious and massive disagreement over what is right and wrong, making such a declaration is no more a proper function of government than conveying the idea that one is superior to the other. There is a difference, too, between an affirmative statement of equality and wording that amounts to a refusal to make any such judgment.
Posted by: urban legend | August 12, 2008 3:27 PM
Except it's not really a religious dispute. That, coupled with the fact that nothing you have to say makes the least bit of sense, means you should shut your private pie hole.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2008 4:01 PM
The link you provide still seems to be the draft version of the platform from before last weekend's platform committee meeting. I haven't seen the revised platform--and I am fairly certain it doesn't change substantively anything you talk about--but some of the language might be different.
Posted by: jacob | August 12, 2008 5:11 PM
yeah, you are correct, the language is better, if anything. some on the way left are overly personally invested in confrontational rhetoric though, and to them any lack thereof means weakness and betrayal. winning isn't important to those folks, the perception of being the most 'in your face' is what they value. indeed, if anything, to those people, winning means you're doing something wrong. its best not to listen to them.
Posted by: onceler | August 12, 2008 5:12 PM
The Democrats are right to defend the legality of abortion, and this is what defines pro-choice. It disgusts me that the far left condemns those that support the legality of abortion but consider it a morally inferior choice to be anti-choice. And I think by morally equating abortion and not getting an abortion, the Democrats lose their moral advantage on the issue.
Posted by: Bondo | August 13, 2008 12:00 PM
I whole-heartedly agree with you Bondo.
Posted by: Brian | August 13, 2008 2:11 PM
I simply don't see this as a modification of the party's pro-choice stance.
What prochoice stance? it's been pro-abortion. Where was there a single word that supported a right to make a choice that wasn't abortion?
This is a change in that it's a move away from proabortion to prochoice, which is progress of a sort, but it's about as much a move to a middle ground on the prochoice/prolife spectrum as moving from Berkeley to San Francisco is a move to Middle America.
Posted by: Christina | August 13, 2008 7:13 PM
Here's my take on all of this...
http://unratedunfiltered.blogspot.com/2008/08/democrats-their-big-tent-platform.html
Posted by: Roger Rathman | August 14, 2008 3:22 PM
دردشة
Posted by: دردشه | June 15, 2009 11:32 AM
thanks
Posted by: حنين | منتدى حنين | دليل حنين | النبراس | September 10, 2009 9:29 PM