Mediaboss Marketing

By Kristen Day By Kristen Day August 3

Kristen Day is the executive director of Democrats For Life of America and advocates for a pro-life voice within the Democratic Party.

On Monday, Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.), the Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman, announced there will be no litmus test based on abortion for Democrats seeking office in 2018. As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America, Lujn said.

This attention to local values and interests was the crux of Howard Deans 50 state strategy, which earned the party victories across the country in 2006 and 2008. As Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez put it back in April: In order to execute a 50-state strategy, we need to understand whats going on in all 50 states, and attract candidates who are consistent with their messages but perhaps not on 100 percent of the issues. If you demand fealty on every single issue, then its a challenge.

Still, many Democrats were horrified by Lujns remarks. Shame on Democrats backing anti-choice candidates, Guardian writer Jamie Peck declared, for acting as if issues like abortion dont have profound economic implications. Of course abortion should be a litmus test for Democrats, New York Times contributing columnist Lindy West added.There is no recognizable version of the Democratic Party that does not fight unequivocally against half its constituents being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. Plenty more chimed in along those lines.

[Democrats could crush the GOP, if only they would welcome antiabortion liberals]

But when Democrats or others on the left bash the party for funding Democratic candidates with whom they disagree on abortion, they miss a key point: Democrats who oppose abortion arent like Republicans who oppose abortion. Not only are their priorities different, so are their policies. While Republicans who oppose abortion usually aim simply at banning the practice or making it difficult, Democrats who oppose abortion tend to take a whole-life approach, and to focus especially on reducing incentives to have abortions, rather than creating penalties.

Consider Pecks allegation that by funding candidates who oppose abortion, the Democratic party is de facto refusing to consider the economic aspects of abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats who oppose abortion are keenly aware of how many abortions are the result of financial stress and economic pressures, and we advocate constantly to reduce those burdens.

Signed into law along with the Affordable Care Act were several legislation proposals crafted by Democrats for Life of America called the Pregnant Women Support Act. We intended our proposals to reduce abortion by getting rid of many of the forces that push women toward abortion in the first place. We moved to eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition for insurers, require State Child Health Insurance programs to cover mothers, fully and federally fund WIC and provide federal funding for day care. Likewise, when Senate Republicans moved last year to institute a 20-week ban on abortion, we at Democrats for Life of America urged legislators to include a paid family leave package along with the bill, with the aim of reducing financial burdens on pregnant women and their families. And in 2012, antiabortion Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that would ensure that pregnant women receive reasonable adjustments on the job and that they dont face retribution for asking to be accommodated.

[Everyone agrees women who have abortions shouldnt be penalized. Or do they?]

In other words, one of the factors that best distinguishes Democrats who oppose abortion from Republicans who do is the very fact that Democrats are cognizant of the pressures that finances and the economy can place on a persons life, and we are invested in freeing people from them to the greatest degree possible.

But perhaps more important, it simply isnt true that, as West implies, antiabortion Democrats are comfortable with women being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. If supporting pregnant women with government programs and employment protections isnt enough proof of antiabortion Democrats commitment to womens health, safety and liberty, antiabortion Democrats have also argued for higher minimum wages and for expanding services available to pregnant victims of domestic violence, stalking and other forms of abuse.Democrats who oppose abortion want to stopabortion, but that doesnt entail a wholesale stripping away of womens autonomy, as the policies outlined above indicate. And it certainly doesnt imply a disregard for womens lives.

The abortion debate is polarized and often extremely bitter. Its easy to imagine that there really are only two sides: yours and the other guys. But Americans views on abortion are mostly in the gray area between always legal and never legal, and each persons moral perspective will be nuanced by his or her own values and experiences. When Lujn says that Democratic candidates who run for office in districts with strong antiabortion leanings deserve funding from the party, he isnt saying that the party is going to fund candidates whose positions are tantamount to those of Republicans. Hes rightly observing that Democrats real, bona-fide Democrats do have a range of views on abortion, and to win as many elections as possible, the party has to recognize that.

Read the original post:
Democrats don't need to be afraid of antiabortion liberals - Washington Post