Democrats have been serious about reducing abortions

Here’s the Washington Monthly on Amy Sullivan’s new book, The Party Faithful:

Sullivan makes clear that ignoring such voters, as the party has done for the last forty years, has proven a recipe for political decline and electoral defeat. The story includes Jimmy Carter, whose frank talk about faith got him half the evangelical vote in 1976, and who went on to pursue policies on issues like abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment that outraged his evangelical base, creating an opportunity the Republican Party shrewdly exploited. As Sullivan observes, “the idea of organizing evangelicals into a conservative political force was the brainchild of a group of mostly secular New Right activists who saw conservative Christians as ‘the greatest tract of virgin timber on the political landscape.’”

I’m probably the kind of Democrat who should be most receptive to Sullivan’s message; I grew up in black evangelical culture, several of my closest friends are very religious, and I’m a firm believer in engaged Democratic outreach to evangelical communities.  But, as soon as Sullivan begins to make this argument, she loses me.  It always reads as if she is pushing Democrats to abandon (among other things) their commitment to reproductive rights.  By citing abortion and the ERA as reasons for the evangelical split, she’s almost implicitly saying, “We should have caved on those issues.”

In fairness, she has been clear about her commitment to reproductive rights.  And she doesn’t seem to want to throw reproductive rights under the bus [I hate this phrase] so much as she wants Democrats to bracket the question of abortion ethics and instead, connect to voters on the level of preventing abortions.  Which (truth be told) is probably the best short-term political strategy.  But I don’t think Democrats should cease making a positive argument for reproductive rights.  By bracketing the question of “is abortion acceptable?” Sullivan is almost conceding to the Republican Party/religious right that their answer – “no it isn’t” – is the correct one.  Which is the absolute worst thing to do, especially when reproductive rights really are in a precarious state around the nation.  This country has yet to embrace the idea that women are fully autonomous in all spheres of life, and to pretend like the question is settled is to lose the debate.

I have one other complaint with Sullivan’s account; she seems to not get the actual motivations of much of the “pro-life movement.”  She writes and speaks as if most pro-life activists are sincere about preventing abortions.  I’m sure that plenty are, but an equal number aren’t so much committed to preventing abortions as they are to controlling women’s sexuality.  The groups most vocal in their opposition to abortion are just as opposed to measures which have proven effective in reducing abortions: comprehensive sex education, easy access to contraceptives, etc.  If the Family Research Council were actually serious about reducing the abortion rate, they would drop their commitment to abstinence-only education and embrace something that works.  You have to engage with the pro-life movement you have, and not the pro-life movement you want. 

Since Bill Clinton, Democrats have largely been committed to an agenda of reducing abortion rates through increased attention on reproductive health, family planning and comprehensive education – exactly what Sullivan wants.  Do we need better outreach to evangelicals?  Absolutely (and especially on issues like the environment and poverty).  But let’s not pretend like the Democratic Party has somehow been hostile to the idea of reducing abortions.  And in our zeal to build a sustainable majority, let’s not throw our core principles to the wolves.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance