Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
No Abortion Shift, No Need To Cater to Anti-Abortion Activists.
In his U.S. News and World Report column, Dan Gilgoff buys into the idea that President Obama and the Democratic Party should be mindful of voters who worry that Obama will "overreach on abortion rights," based on the new Pew poll out on abortion attitudes.
But that poll doesn't show any seismic shift in abortion attitudes, nor does it contain any warnings to Obama and the Democrats that they should be any less pro-reproductive rights. According to Pew:
Among people who know that Obama is pro-choice, a plurality (29% of the public overall) think that he will handle the issue about right. About one in- five (19%) worry that Obama will go too far in supporting abortion rights, while very few (4%) worry that he will not go far enough in supporting abortion rights.
Who are the people who are worried about this unspecified overreaching? Fifty-two percent of conservative Republicans, and only 19% of moderate Republicans, and only 18% of independents. So the Democrats should shift their agenda to satisfy the fantasies of conservative Republicans that Obama is some "radical" on abortion rights?
Gilgoff maintains that, although the very Pew poll he cites shows decreasing interest in abortion as a core issue, "The debate raging over abortion coverage in healthcare reform is an example of how the issue can threaten Obama's broader agenda." Perhaps, he suggests, White House and Congressional leaderships' meetings with anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak show a willingness to cater to the party's pro-life caucus (although there's no evidence that the meetings produced any movement). As Adele Stan showed so deftly in a post about White House religious adviser Jim Wallis, it's not pro-choice advocates who are threatening health care reform with wrangling over abortion. It's some of the same anti-choice activists who Gilgoff says Obama needs to placate who can't be satisfied with any of number of restrictions on abortion coverage.
--Sarah Posner
COMMENTS (4)
You didn't read the Adele Stan article carefully, and certainly haven't read Wallis carefully.
For her proof of Wallis's nefarious attentions, Stan did not quote Wallis, she quoted from his opponents.
What Wallis actually said was:
"Evidence suggests that supporting low-income and pregnant women with adequate health care increases the number of women who chose to carry their child to term, so if we do reform right, we can reduce abortion in America. While religious people don't all agree on all the issues of abortion, we should agree that it must not be allowed to derail the crucial need for comprehensive health care reform."
Care to peel off a good number of liberal pro-lifers?
As Ann Friedman has pointed out here, 80% of pro-lifers are in favor of contraception and sex education.
But no. Just push them all away because they're not pure enough for you.
Enough thoughtfulness. Now back to the black-and-white world of TAPPED.
Posted by: captcrisis | October 9, 2009 4:57 PM
@captcrisis Actually, Wallis's Web editor responded to my piece (in which I quote Sarah Posner) on the Sojourner's site, and offered no refutation of the substance of either of our critiques. The only refutation offered was that since the right doesn't think Wallis is strident enough, I must somehow be wrong. But Wallis has defined himself as anti-choice, and his maneuvering proves it.
Posted by: Adele Stan | October 9, 2009 6:32 PM
@adele stan
Thanks for responding. Let me compliment you on your body of work. I might seem contrarian but that's only because I pipe up only when I disagree.
Wallis's Web editor offered no "refutation" of the substance of the critiques because he wasn't addressing it. In his brief post he was simply pointing out how being a pro-life progressive gets both the left and the right angry at you.
Now, if you ask Wallis to specifically address your critique, and ask him to rebut your specific accusation about his being dishonest with caring about health care reform, then we can see whether you're right or not.
I take Wallis at his word that one of his goals is to reduce the need for abortions. He's not going to budge from being pro-life. If at any point he seems to be sacrificing his progressive goals on health care and poverty, for the sake of criminalizing abortion, then you've got him dead to rights. He hasn't done that, so I see no reason to accuse him of being deceitful.
Wallis is pro-life: he thinks abortion is a wrong thing that should be eradicated. Obviously you disagree with that. But both of you can travel the same road for a certain distance, to the extent your goals are shared. The shared goal here is access to health care. By contrast, with many conservative pro-lifers, the road they want to take goes in the other direction, so you would be at cross-purposes to begin with.
Why is everyone at TAPPED so afraid of this guy? He seems O.K. except for being pro-life. That's an unforgivable sin based on your unshakeable certitude on the issue, written in stone, inherent in the very fabric of Creation. Your attitude toward pro-lifers is no less a dogma of condemnation than, for example, Christian fundamentalists have toward someone who is outwardly and proudly gay.
Posted by: captcrisis | October 11, 2009 11:45 AM
Thanks for a persuasive response to Gilgoff's argument.
As I hear Gilgoff, he's arguing, essentially, that the majority of Americans who do not toe the line drawn in the sand by the religious right should be held hostage by that minority.
On what grounds, I wonder? In a pluralistic secular society, shouldn't positions binding on the majority be established by consensus and dialogue, not religious fiat?
I hear Gilgoff calling for the latter. And I'm unmoved by the call, except to want to push back against it.
Posted by: William D. Lindsey | October 13, 2009 10:30 AM