Middle-Ground on Abortion? Not There Yet.
With the Inauguration Day tear gas still in the air, the 2008 election season has just begun.
In a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters near the New York State Capitol, Mrs. Clinton firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of legalized abortion and praising the influence of “religious and moral values” on delaying teenage girls from becoming sexually active.
“There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate - we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved,” Mrs. Clinton said.
I respect Senator Clinton for attempting the cross the rickety bridge across the huge divide over abortion in this country, but I’m not sure it’ll work for her. Based on the reactions by her supporters and critics quoted in the article, neither seemed very happy about her remarks. It is possible that she’ll chart a course that’ll perfectly accomplish nothing but alienating both sides.
Her political instincts are exactly correct though. Divisive issues such as abortion were critical in 04, and will be no less important in 08. Both sides have dug in their heels and have grown more radical with each passing year. Any politician that can succeed in finding a compromise on the issue that can soothe the deep rifts it creates will win themselves any elected office they want. I’m skeptical that Hillary is the one who can do it.
She has a long history of fervent support for legal abortions, and that’ll be a tough history to play down when things come to blows. Plus her attempted compromise seems half-hearted at best, cynical and condescending at worst. While not changing any positions, she attempts instead to merely cloak her positions in conservative sounding praise for values and religion. She speaks about reducing abortions, but doesn’t say how that should be accomplished since restricting abortion doesn’t at all seem to be on her agenda. The only real break with ardent pro-choicers policy-wise, not rhetorical, is her support for restrictions on teen abortions and support for abstinence education.
It should come as no surprise to those who follow youth news that the first impulse of any politician seeking a compromise is to sell out the youth. To be fair she proposes to stress abstinence education, but not ‘abstinence-only education’ which is good, but still a disturbing opening shot. The article does mention Senator Clinton would have supported the partial-birth abortion ban had it included an exception for the health of the mother, which in my opinion is a positive step toward compromise, but no different than the claim John Kerry made.
If she can succeed in making some real steps, beyond simple rhetoric, toward re-inviting pro-life America back to the Democrats it will be a quite interesting election and national discussion on the issue. While I am not optimistic a real compromise will be made and found acceptable, I do hold out hope that such a position can be found.
January 26th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Yeah, I doubt she will find a real compromise, but at least she is talking it up. If she partners up with Obama as her VP, they could make a real run for the office in 08. She still has a long way to go in convincing me to vote for her though. Even if she winds up being “the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States!”
January 26th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
I don’t have anything against Hillary, but her comments about teens bugged me, about getting teens to not have sex until later in life or whatever. Are people under this ridiculous illusion that teens/young adults are the only ones who have unplanned pregnancies? Sigh.
January 26th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
It’s specifically her views towards teens that turn me off the most about her. On almost any other issue I could possibly be swayed towards supporting her… but with teens, forget about it.
January 27th, 2005 at 1:36 am
Its weird though, she was actually involved at the beginning of the youth liberation movement in the 70’s. I need to find it, but her early writings were pretty pro-youth rights.
My personal belief is that she might still have youth rights beliefs buried somewhere deep within her. She’s just cast them aside, repackaged them into children’s rights, and taken a softer, less direct approach because of political realities.
If we really succeeded in pushing youth rights into the national discussion, and it started to look like a more politically salient issue, I could almost possibly picture Hillary as the first youth rights President.
January 29th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I doubt that. She is a key member of the Bill, Hillary, Al, Tipper, Joe Lieberman, etc team that has taken a very hard line on youth rights when it comes to censorship, entertainment, curfews, parental authority, etc etc etc. I think it’s wishful thinking on your part.
February 8th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Yeah, you’re right Jason, she is pretty deeply entrenched in all of the anti-youth Clinton policies. That’s one of the things I don’t like about the Clintons…and Joe Lieberman isn’t a real Democrat; he should join the Republicans RIGHT NOW.