abortion

[kelley]

At 11:59 AM 9/15/00 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
>
>>I am not pro-Gore, but like the Cockburn argument that Gore had an antichoice
>>voting record way back when, the suggestion that a Democratic victory would
>>threaten abortion rights strikes me as misguided. Gore is now prochoice; he
>>will appoint prochoice Justices. Bush won't. Better attack Gore in areas
>>where he really is vulnerable, and there are lots of them --jks
>
>Access to abortion has been shrinking despite the fact that it's still 
>legal. I want to hear a good explanation of why the decline in the 
>abortion rate accelerated during the Clinton years over the Reaganbush 
>years. I suspect it's financing and the shrinking number of providers - 
>about which Clinton has done nothing. So despite the rhetorical 
>differences, access to abortion has been dwindling, and I think the 
>differences between the two parties is exaggerated to scare women into 
>voting for Gore.
>
>Doug

while it's certainly an issue, i think it's a little loopy to suggest that 
it's all clinton's fault.  it's like attributing economic boom to clinton 
too.  for one thing, reaganbush did a lot to undermine abortion and 
strongly encourage the right to step up their challenges to Roe V Wade.  as 
a symblolic figure clinton didn't do that since abortin foes certainly see 
him as an evil liberal.  the reaganbush era did much to shape the contours 
of the debate, to make those kinds of arguments acceptable.  so, while, 
sure clinton didn't help much or tr to turn back the tides, i cannot for 
the life of me see why anyone would lay the blame at his door, just like i 
wouldn't lay the kudos at his door for an economic boom.  not to mention 
that it's just shite use of the numbers.  sure the rate of abortion per 
15-44 childbearing women tells some story, but that change is so 
insignificant that i can't see why anyone would use those numbers as proof 
of anything at all.