1. Very few people, either pro or anti-choice, are single issue voters on abortion as a matter of routine. When abortion is highlighted in a particular contest, the pro-choice side usually wins (all other things being equal, which they often are not). The anti-choicers who do use a litmus test are mostly very conservative anyway -- i.e. Christian Coalition types. These numerical calculations explain why there are very few anti-choice "progressive politicians."
2. Catholics were very big pro-clinton voters.And Lets not forget: MOST CATHOLICS ARE PRO CHOICE! ( catholics have a HIGHER Abortion rate than women of other faiths, by the way -- because they are less likely to use birth control. I think Hispanic women have the highest abortion rate of any ethnic group.)
3. Richard Marens suggests that some politicaly active religious Catholics failed to get involved in Clinton's health care agenda because he wouldn't "bend" on abortion. Leaving aside the awfulness of Clinton's health care plan, he DID Bend on abortion! The New Yorker reported that Hillary Clinton was ready to trade away abortion coverage if necessary; there was a conscious clause" a mile wide to enable doctors, nurses, hospitals with objections to refuse to be involved in abortion services.
In FACT, although Clinton has vetoed a number of high-=profile anti-choice measures, he has signed also quite a few: no abortions for military personnel, no health insurance abortion coverage for Federal Workers, etc etc. Abortion is harder to get now than it was under Bush.
4. I'm a little troubled by Max's opposing 'middle-class pro choicers" with "progressive catholics" who care about poverty.One, those progressive Catholics are probably just as middle class, however that elusive term is defined.Two, Prochoicers also care about poverty. three, Abortion is a major issue for working class women -- they're the ones who are having the majority of abortions, after all. Reproductive rights are not some frill for privileged people.
It's an especially disturbing classification in the context of electoral politics. Those "middle=class pro-choicers" are one of the most reliable demographics the Democratic party has! That's why so many politicians are pro-choice. If they could get more votes by opposing abortion, they would.
I'm not saying there are no "progressives" who are deeply opposed to abortion. But there aren't very many, and why women should be forced to bear children against their will to please Jim Wallis or the Catholic Workers -- are we talking even 10000 people here? -- is beyond me. NOW has a quarter of a million members. Emily's List is one of the biggest PACS in the country. Why not worry about alienating THEM?
I don't think this issue would even come up if abortion rights, and women's rights generally, were not seen as unimportant, a distraction. After all, there are probably many core beliefs and constituencies"progressives" could abandon and pick up a handful of activists here, a hundred votes there. Someone mentioned the death penalty, opposition to which certainly sets "progressives' at odds with most americans. Prison reform,enforcement of the fair-housing laws, fighting police brutality, opposing various popular wars (like the War in the Gulf). Not to mention all those laws and regulations that benefit some union workers but do nothing for anyone else.
Why are women the ones always asked to fall on their swords?
best, Katha