Re-framing the Abortion Issue

Vol. 2, No. 1--Pre-Summit, January 2005

By Charles McGarry and Laura Bonham

Millions of Americans now routinely vote against their own economic self-interest in favor of Republicans who seek to inflame a culture war against a perceived elite liberal establishment. One primary wedge issue separating these voters from the Democratic Party is abortion. Abortion is widely perceived as an issue dominated by moral purists on which there is no common ground or room to compromise. Centrist Democrats have begun to argue that we should nevertheless compromise on the issue to make the Democratic Party a big tent, while progressives fear that their principles will be jeopardized. This is a false choice. The Democratic Party can win pro-life voters across the heartland without compromising the right to privacy by re-framing the debate.

Democrats and other privacy advocates have made a fatal strategic error by allowing the Religious Right to frame the issue as one in which "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are perceived as mutually exclusive opposites. The logical extension of this position, however, is that "pro-choice" then becomes equated with "pro-abortion" and "anti-life." The current position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in fact, expressly assumes this equation.

We must reframe the debate to convey the message that support for the constitutional right of privacy does not make Democrats pro-abortion. President Clinton formulated the Democratic position on abortion when he said that it should be "safe, legal and rare." However, Democrats have failed to speak out on how they intend to make abortions rare. We must formulate and advocate a progressive pro-life program that does not infringe on a woman's right to privacy. The key elements of such a program are universal pre-natal and childhood health care, universal access to non-abortifacient birth control methods, subsidized adoptions (including, if needed, homes for expectant mothers), adequate paid family leave from employment and free or affordable day care for working mothers and students.

Such a program would be effective because women who obtain abortions overwhelmingly cite economic and relationship issues for their decision to abort. Offering a home where a woman can give birth in private and place the child for adoption is a realistic alternative for those with family problems. Increased access to birth control, along with a reduction of the cost of having a child is a compassionate way to drastically reduce the number of abortions. In fact, most people are surprised to learn that, while the number of abortions consistently increased under both Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush in a time of recession, the numbers were consistently declining for eight years under President Clinton, only to begin rising again under the current "pro-life" president.

The Republican "pro-life" program, in contrast, focuses on issues, such as "partial birth" abortions, that are almost entirely symbolic, affecting less that one-tenth of one percent of all abortions. Their promise to overturn Roe v. Wade fails to mention that making abortions illegal would probably not reduce the number of abortions in any significant way. Current estimates are that thirty three states would allow abortion if Roe were overturned, so legalized abortion would remain just a bus ride away. Even if abortion were outlawed in all fifty states, studies have shown that there were as many as 829,000 illegal abortions annually in the 1960's. Even now, over 44% of the world's abortions occur in countries where they are illegal, and which represent only 39% of the world's population - meaning that the abortion rate is actually higher in places where it is illegal. And we cannot forget that illegal abortions were also the number one cause of death among young women at one time.

By offering a progressive "pro-life" alternative, Democrats and privacy advocates can dramatically reframe the debate. We would be able to accuse the Republicans of "failing" to achieve any meaningful reduction in the number of abortions, despite 25 years of promises. We would be able to accuse Republicans of "using" the pro-life vote to achieve their regressive economic agenda, while offering those voters nothing but symbolic votes, and a goal that is both unnecessarily destructive of constitutional rights and which would be ineffective if passed. We would also be able to accuse so-called "pro-life" Republicans of hypocrisy, because of their support for the death-penalty as well as an unjust war in Iraq.

We must avoid the temptation to compromise our support of privacy rights by accepting increased restrictions on choice or agreeing to criminalize "some" abortions. At the same time, we cannot expect to win elections if we are perceived to be in favor of death, and that is exactly how we will be perceived as long as we allow "pro-choice" to mean that we are not also "pro-life." A progressive pro-life alternative will bring the heartland home to its Democratic roots.

As the Democratic Party moves to elect a new chairperson, we as progressives must participate in a campaign to ensure that the new chair will support an aggressive pro-life agenda that guarantees safe, legal, and rare abortions. Your state party can supply you with the contact information of your Democratic National Committee persons. Let them know that you support Howard Dean, who believes that the position should be reframed but not at the cost of imperiling choice. Your support of NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and Emily's List will further aid the preservation of a woman's right to choose.

Back to Index