Dem's drop "safe, legal and rare" language from abortion position

[ccharles000]

Via Kay Steiger at Pushback:

It looks like the Democratic Party dropped the "safe, legal and rare" part of its platform on choice. The new platform (PDF), which was just released, puts less of an emphasis on the controversial abortion reduction framework. The section on choice reads as follows:
"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."

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010310.html

[Warpy]

1. Wow! What a wonderful improvement!

This is much better than the DLC "safe, legal and rare" nonsense that sounded very much like they thought it was icky doodle and were forced into accepting choice but would drop it at the first convenient moment.

This program will actually work, so of course it will be attacked by the dreamers.

[ccharles000]

12. I agree.

[kestrel91316]

2. They did WHAT?

:wow:

Color me completely shocked. I never thought I'd see the day. I'm unapologetically pro-choice and prefer my party that way, too.

[hamsterjill]

3. Amen!

Exactly. And some things that I've read of late were making me uneasy about the party's platform on abortion, so I'm glad to see that platform strengthened.

I've been feeling that the party's support for the right to choose was slipping. This makes me feel better.

[baby_mouse]

9. They did something liberal!

I am surprised.

Surprised and suddenly HOPEFUL!

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Glad to see them come right out and say..plain and simple.

[billyoc]

5. Good riddance to that triangulating clintonspeak.

[TahitiNut]

6. Amen.

[lyonn]

7. Nice to hear such good news, thanks for posting. nt

[texasleo]

8. "regardless of ability to pay" = Federally-funded abortions?

May not be the intent, but it will be portrayed as such.
Why the need to snatch defeat from the hands of victory all the time?

[Hidden Stillness]

10. This is Fabulous!

Yay, this is fabulous--and this is coming from a deeply religious feminist Christian. They finally got it through their heads that a clearly pro-abortion-rights opinion IS the general, mainstream, middle-of-the-road, popular, majority opinion. It is NOT CONTROVERSIAL. This is especially important as a statement, when the extremist anti-feminists are, yet again, gearing up for another highly financed attempt to kill all abortion rights and access in South Dakota, and make a test case of it there, then take them away Nationally and kill Roe v. Wade. This is a threatening time, and for the official Dems to show their support clearly now, is really fabulous. At last, something to feel good about.

[mopinko]

11. woohoo. looks like the democrats are back in charge of the party.

wow.

[elehhhhna]

13. YAY. One plank done. The rest are yawners, tho. They need a rewrite.

[bunkerbuster1]

14. Good. More like this, please.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. What a shock! The political "advisors" must have taken a day off to spend their dough.

For once, a very rare instance indeed, I applaud the platform committee who are usually so adept at double talk and non-speak.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. "Regardless of ability to pay" interests me.

Are they going further than that, and supporting free-at-point-of-use healthcare in general?

If so, not a moment too soon, but my (vague) impression was that they hadn't yet dared go quite that far.

[Bjorn Against]

17. Why are people opposed to the language "safe, legal, and rare"?

I am pro-choice all the way, and I want abortions to be safe legal and rare. Making abortions rare does not mean you have to put limits on abortion. What it means is that you do a better job at getting contraceptives out to the people who need them, and you provide comprehensive sex education.

The language "safe, legal, and rare" I believe helps us to emphasize that we do not think abortion is a good thing, we recognize that it causes a great deal of emotional stress to the mother. But while abortion is not a good thing, it is sometimes necessary. That is why we emphasize the word "legal", and adding the word "rare" does not mean we are adding restrictions on a woman's right to choose. Can anyone explain to me why I should be upset over the words "safe, legal, and rare"? I just don't see how those words limit abortion rights in any way.

[mopinko]

19. because they added the rare to placate the prolifers.

it is judgmental. it is a suck-up. i am glad it is gone.

[Bjorn Against]

22. But virtually every pro-choice person I have met wants to reduce the number of abortions.

Providing contraceptives, having effective sex education programs, and fighting poverty are proven methods to reduce the number of abortions without infringing on a woman's right to choose. I do not understand why basing a policy around these facts is "judgmental" or a "suck-up" in any way.

And by the way who exactly is pro-life? I hope you aren't talking about the same group of people who supports the death penalty, war, and torture.

[mopinko]

24. no, i mean the phony pro-lifers

that get all googly eyed when they see a man in uniform. in fact, i mean the same prolifers who are pro-death penalty because some people deserve it.
look, it is political language. it is not the real language that real people speak. that is the problem with it. it is a mealy mouthed ploy. and it implies that some abortions are ok, and some are not. some people can handle the privilege, and some would only abuse it. it is a value judgement, which you only get to make if you share their hypocritical values.

[Bjorn Against]

25. I have heard that language used by real people many times...

And I have never heard it used in the context that you are saying it is used in. When I hear people talk about how they want to make abortions "safe, legal, and rare" it is almost always in the context of contraceptives, sex education, and fighting poverty. I have never heard that phrase used in reference to who should have privilege and who shouldn't.

[mopinko]

27. well, where the hell have you been?

and why are you arguing this on a democratic board?
enough. i am done.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Ummm....wasn't this part of the Democratic platform until right now?

You may notice that I never suggested any restrictions to abortion, and in fact made it clear that I opposed restrictions to abortion.

Is there something wrong with arguing in favor of contraceptives, sex education, and poverty reduction programs on a Democratic board?

[Scout]

53. i'm pro-choice and i don't care how many abortions there are,

as long as the women are safe and it remains legal, and as long as the woman isn't being coerced into the abortion.

"Rare" DOES imply a value judgement that abortions are bad and to be avoided, else why would one care how many there are?

Abortion itself is neither bad nor good, it just is.

[Dogtown]

59. You're missing the point, MN Against

I hope not with intent.

The phrase you're desperately clinging to is unnecessary verbiage. It's merely extra wind.

The new language says clearly what we want, without any qualifiers to muddy the waters.

If you don't get it now you're trying not to, and I'm done here.

[Bjorn Against]

66. It is not unnecessary...

It hits back against Republican charges that we actually like abortions. We don't like abortions, we believe however that sometimes they are necessary and it is not our place to stop a woman from making a choice. We do want to make them rare through education, contraception, and poverty reduction. We can make abortions rare without limiting a woman's choices.

[noamnety]

21. We don't discuss other medical procedures in those terms

because we don't feel the need to include a value judgment in them.

We want heart problems to be rare. We want heart surgery to be affordable and safe.
We want unwanted pregnancies to be rare. We want abortion to be affordable and safe.

[Bjorn Against]

23. "We want unwanted pregnancies to be rare"

Exactly, I agree fully. But is your saying "We want unwanted pregnancies to be rare" any different than saying we want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". By making unwanted pregnancies rare, wouldn't it logically follow that we would be making abortions rare as well?

[noamnety]

29. Nope, not the same at all.

One implies the problem is an unwanted pregnancy.

The other implies the problem is the abortion itself.

[Bjorn Against]

34. But unwanted pregnancy leads to abortion...

And I don't think you will find a single woman in this world who would tell you that they enjoyed having an abortion. Women have abortions because they are in desperate situations, it is never a pleasant experience.

I am 100% pro-choice, do not even think I am suggesting any restrictions be placed on a woman's right to choose because that is wrong. In fact I want to make abortion more accessible. I just am not going to pretend like abortion is not a problem, because the truth is it would be beneficial for women if we could reduce the number of abortions through methods like providing contraceptives, sex education, and fighting poverty. Do you honestly disagree with that?

[noamnety]

36. Nobody enjoys any kind of surgery.

Women have heart by-passes because they have heart disease.

Where is the democratic party statement saying we want heart surgery to be more rare?

I am confident you are smart enough to understand this distinction.

I am confident you are smart enough to understand that this distinction exists - even while understanding that unwanted pregnancies can be reduced through all the methods you cited, which are true, but irrelevant to this point.

[Bjorn Against]

39. But no one is trying to outlaw heart surgery, that is why the party does not make a statement.

I think we need to recognize that abortion is a political issue in a way that heart disease is not. When there is a heated effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade the Democratic Party has to respond. I think the words "safe, legal, and rare" were perfectly appropriate words to address a pro-choice stance.

[awoke_in_2003]

51. The republicans are good

at twisting peoples words. Leaving an ambiguous word like "rare" leaves the door to limits cracked open.

[Bjorn Against]

64. I don't think even the Republicans would want to twist a word like rare...

If they were to attack us on such a word it would look worse to the anti-choice people than it would to most pro-life people. They don't want to scare away their base.

[Rwalsh]

42. Then don't complain

when a woman gets an abortion because she doesn't want a girl. Or a handicapped child.

[Dogtown]

60. I won't

but I bet you will.

*HER* decision. Not yours.

[Scout]

54. some women have abortrions simply because they don't want to be pregnant.

all women are NOT in "desperate situations" when they get their abortion. Of course some women might be, but all women who have abortions are not desperate.

Many, many medical procedures are not pleasant experiences, but we don't seek to limit them.

[Bjorn Against]

63. And I never suggested ANY limitations...

We can argue over the definition of the word "desperate", but I would consider anyone who does not want to spend their next eighteen years raising a child to be in a desperate situation. You can disagree with that definition and that is fine, but the reality is abortion is not a pleasant experience.

You will notice that I have NEVER suggested any limitations to abortion in this thread. What I suggested was birth control, education, and poverty reduction programs. Reducing the number of abortions through these methods would be a good thing, and I don't see how anyone could possibly argue otherwise. If you can do so go ahead, but this a pretty uncontroversial position.

[Scout]

67. by agreeing that we should continue to encourage the wording rare

and reduce the number, you are by implication supporting limits.

Many things are not pleasant experiences.... :eyes:

apparently you are in the minority with your opinion, judging by the other posts in this thread.

[Bjorn Against]

69. I never implied I was supporting limits. In fact I was explicit in saying I do not support limits.

It is dishonest to suggest I am implying that I am support something that I have explicitly opposed multiple times in this thread.

And if you think you can judge who is in the minority and who is in the majority by a tiny sample of DUers in a single thread then I would suggest you take a statistics class.

[Scout]

71. supporting a reduction in quantity is supporting limits (ie, a limit to the quantity)

do you not speak english?

[Bjorn Against]

72. I speak English, but do you read? I don't know how many times I have to say it...

You can reduce the number of abortions by providing contraceptives, education, and poverty reduction programs. I don't even want to count the number of times I have said this in this thread, yet you insist on being dishonest and telling me I support limits despite the fact that I have consistently said the opposite.

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without placing limits on women. Pretty much every major pro-choice organization in this country supports providing contraceptives and sex education, I don't understand why you are pretending that these things limit a woman's right to choose.

[Scout]

78. you support reducing the number of abortions, therefore you support limits to abortions

duh

[Bjorn Against]

80. Explain to me how contraceptives, education, and poverty reduction limits a woman's right to choose.

[SidDithers]

79. "Women have abortions because they are in desperate situations"...

no, women have abortions for all kinds of different reasons. A woman has the right to make her own medical decisions, without having her reasons judged by you, me, or anyone else.

Sid

[Bjorn Against]

81. As I responded to the other person who made that point...

We can argue over the definition of "desperate" but it does no good. In my view anyone who is pregnant and does not want to or is not able to raise a child for the next eighteen years of their lives is in a desperate situation. You can disagree with my definition of desperate, that is fine but realize that I am not judging women when I make that statement. I don't want to give the false impression that what I view as a desperate situation reflects poorly on the woman who is in that situation. I never judged any woman's reasons for having an abortion. I support abortion rights fully, and I really don't understand why everyone is jumping on me when I have repeatedly expressed support for abortion rights.

[Bjorn Against]

26. And in fact we do talk about rare medical procedures on a regular basis...

A Google search for "Rare medical procedure" gave me 569,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?q=rare+medical+procedure&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[noamnety]

31. You are (deliberately?) misinterpreting context.

There is a huge difference between something being rare, and society wanting it to be rare.

Type O- blood is rare.
We want type 0- blood to be rare.

Not the same, not at all.

If you take the time to read the articles you linked, you'll see the difference. The procedures are rare, but being heralded as innovative. Read the first one: "Woman gives birth following rare medical procedure: ...'The success of the operation will serve as a boon to couples with the same problem."

Very different than "we want this operation to be rare."

[Bjorn Against]

33. There are many operations we DO want to be rare...

In fact I think most medical procedures we would want to be rare. We don't like to perform surgeries if they are not needed. We certainly want brain surgery to be rare, that doesn't mean we want to ban it.

How am I misrepresenting context? We talk about rare medical procedures all the time, and we certainly don't want to make most of them more common.

[noamnety]

35. It's the condition that REQUIRES surgery that we want to be rare.

We don't put out policy statements saying that we want surgeries to be rare. We want them to be used exactly as many times as they are required.

[Bjorn Against]

37. If there is a way to solve the problem without surgery, then yes we want surgeries to be rare.

By preventing unwanted pregnancies we would be making abortions rare. I don't know how anyone could claim this is not a good thing. If you have a counter argument I am more than willing to listen, but I really thought this position was non-controversial.

[Scout]

56. "We don't like to perform surgeries if they are not needed."

doctors DON'T perform surgeries if they are not needed, you are being ridiculous now.

[Fumesucker]

61. That's not entirely true..

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1644050,00.html

Are Hysterectomies Too Common?
Tuesday, Jul. 17, 2007 By COCO MASTERS

More than 600,000 American women this year will undergo a hysterectomy, or removal of the uterus. That rate is among the highest in the industrialized world. By age 60, one in three women in the U.S. will have had the surgery, and in more cases than not, they will also have had their ovaries and fallopian tubes removed during the procedure. Doctors have long turned to hysterectomy as a treatment for conditions that range from heavy periods to ovarian cancer, but its widespread use concerns some critics, who say it's tantamount to female castration.

So, what are women to do? The truth about the health effects of hysterectomy lies somewhere in between the extremes, and experts say the key is to educate patients on the alternatives to surgery.

In the U.S., some 10% of patients who undergo hysterectomy do so to treat cancer of the ovaries, uterus or cervix. In such cases, doctors agree that the procedure is necessary. And these patients undergo hysterectomy in its most radical form, which involves removal of the uterus, cervix, the upper part of the vagina and the lymph nodes.

[Bjorn Against]

70. Actually that was kind of my point...

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say we DON'T perform surgeries when they are not needed as that is simply false. Just look at a plastic surgery unit of a Beverly Hills clinic and tell me all those surgeries are needed.

Those are the exception however most of the time surgeries are a last resort. Generally doctors would prefer a patient does not develop the ailment that requires surgery in the first place. That is why my focus is on preventing unwanted pregnancies, it is possible to reduce the need for abortions by providing contraceptives, education, and poverty reduction programs.

[Festivito]

38. Wanting heart surgery safe, legal and rare is judgmental?

The safe is wanted.
The legality, although not questioned in this day and age, is wanted just the same.
And, the rarity is wanted as it indicates a lesser need for it, which is, well, wanted by anyone not wanting heart problems.

Why not you? How does this seem judgmental except in the eyes of prejudgment?

[noamnety]

41. Try this one:

"I want in vitro fertilization to be rare."

Thoughts?

[Festivito]

43. I'd like in vitro to be safe, legal and rare.

Safe and legal: I think we're fine.

Rarely needed because of fewer people needing such a procedure.

To un-include rare invokes a desire to lower the amount of sex people have or to desire to lower its efficacy.

Should, at future time, a majority of people want this high-end procedure all the time, I'd want to question the need and understand the loss involved in avoiding the tried-and-true method known for millennia. And perhaps my naturist stance could be seen as judgmental, however, I'd hope to be seen more as simply pragmatic to the continuation of mankind regardless of religion.

[noamnety]

44. I think your answer qualifies as judgmental, yep.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your judgment - just pointing out that my statement was itself an invitation to judge.

[Festivito]

45. Well, that's kind of a cheap shot.

...and not properly expressed.

What? My entire answer is judgmental? Including: "Safe and legal: I think we're fine."

Your, "I want in vitro fertilization to be rare." is not an invitation to judge in vitro fertilization unless predisposed to do so. In which case you should be dissing prejudgmentalism instead of judgmentalism -- an entirely different problem denoting people not looking at the facts before deciding.

[noamnety]

46. I didn't mean it was judgmental in a bad way.

I wasn't insulting you for making a judgment - anyone with opinions makes judgments. Heck, we are all judgmental about republicans here, right? It wasn't a shot at you at all or a personal insult in anyway.

It was demonstrating that when people are asked about a statement that something "should" be more rare, it's an invitation to start being judgmental, to view it as a "bad" thing, and to express why it's a bad thing.

Abortion is not in and of itself a bad thing, though - it's a GOOD thing, because it's an additional option open to women.

Just like heart surgery is a GOOD thing.

[Festivito]

47. Your only argument seems to be: "is so," to my: "is not."

At least I tried to give example and discussion of the example I gave, and used your exact words when responding to yours.

However, I think your favorite word is the pronoun it.

I hope it pleases you.

Good night.

[SidDithers]

77. Very well said...

Those statements also reflect my opinion, but I couldn't make with the words coming out of my mouth so good. :evilgrin:

Sid

[Festivito]

40. No one has answered your question yet. I don't think they can.

The responses I've read sound like someone drilled people with some propaganda and now they cannot think for themselves so they keep repeating the indoctrinated words they contain, in this case judgmental.

Good job keeping a cool head.

There are RW forces trolling about trying to undermine the LW disguised as LWers. They tend to be loutish and persistent.

[Lars39]

55. That is not how the anti-choicers view the word rare,though.

In their view, "rare" means that they get to decide who gets an abortion.

[Bjorn Against]

65. But that is not what the platform says is it?

Nowhere in the platform did it say anything about defining who can get an abortion and who can't. There are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions, without limiting choice.

[Cybergata]

18. Some times we move forward . . .

but considering just how far back the Bush/Cheney years took us, it almost seems impossible to get back to the days when other people besides the very, very rich mattered.

[SmokingJacket]

20. I wish they were rare, since abortions can be a bitch.

It sucks that anyone gets unwillingly and unhappily pregnant.

An unwanted pregnancy is a failure of birth control.

[REP]

32. I wish root canals and by-passes were rare, too

I don't get all hand-wringy over either, though.

[REP]

30. EXCELLENT

About time they got rid of the moralistic crap. Wonder if having a doctor in charge had anything to do with this.

[varkam]

48. Wow. We're actually growing a spine?

I must be dreaming.

K&R

[Solly Mack]

49. Wow

Unexpected .... ever so much better by dropping the rare

[countryjake]

50. Finally! Can we get back to what we fought for in the first place?

After all these years of having the youngsters moralize to us about how awful an abortion is, has the party finally realized that it is not a procedure to be ashamed of?

I wonder if this is in response to the obvious conservative effort to now go after and condemn other forms of birth control?

As someone who had to go to great lengths to end a pregnancy, back when abortions were illegal, I'll give the party a pat on the back for the new wording in that statement.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

52. Hoo-fucking-Rah!

This is the kind of policy statement I expect from my party. "...strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose" Now that's my party!

[Alter Ego]

57. Then they know where they stand, it would seem.

Sometimes I think the party planks should be required reading for every American before they go to vote.

[Scout]

58. good for them! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

62. Uh... they dropped those *words*. The exact same sentiments are still there....

So I don't see what the big deal is.

[ismnotwasm]

68. Another take

Dems' abortion line may soften
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion-platformaug13,0,7524446.story

(Cross post in Pro-choice)
"The Democratic Party has proposed changes to the party's platform on abortion rights with a new focus on reducing the number of abortions, in an overture to evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics"

Whatever. The right to an abortion is a human right.

[JerseygirlCT]

73. That's great! nt

[SidDithers]

74. Excellent...

good for them :applause:

Sid

[backscatter712]

75. Decent. I like it!

[Lance_Boyle]

76. I would've gone with "safe, legal, and well-done"

although I suppose the well-done would be redundant, given the "safe" bit.