but to put the root question more simply, it is absolutely ludicrous to allow ourselves to be held hostage to the rotting facade of duopoly politics by the single issue of abortion rights. i believe that most republicans, gwb included, ultimately do not want to do away with abortion rights and endure the ensuing backlash. they say they do, because, well, they've got to say something. and abortion rights is virtually the only pretended difference between the parties now. but actually rescinding roe v. wade would lead to genuine upheaval and bring a lot of new people into practical and--god forbid--electoral politics. neither party wants that.
that's what i really think, but lest that analysis be taken for a cop-out, let me be clear: i think it's ridiculous to remain hostage to the dems over the issue of abortion rights *even if it does means a roe v. wade rollback.*
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:07 PM To: lbo-talk Subject: abortion
More on abortion... Just to make things clear in advance, I'm not arguing that the Dems are "worse" on the issue - just that they're not as good as NOW seems to believe.
Between 1988 and 1992, the number of abortion providers fell by 8%; from 1992 to 1996, it was down 14%.
When's the last time Clinton offered a strong endorsement of the right to abortion? Here, according to a search of the White House web site, is almost everything of substance he's said on the issue this year. His defense of abortion is more legalistic than Nader's, and he's spent far more time cheering the decline in abortion rates than saying anything about abortion as an issue of fundamental justice.
Doug
----
CLINTON ON ABORTION DURING THE YEAR 2000
At the same time, our latest data show that teen pregnancy and abortion rates are also continuing to fall.
---
Q Mr. President, does the closeness of today's abortion vote in the Supreme Court suggest to you that abortion rights are at risk in the next court? Or does it suggest that the fact that partial birth abortion can survive even a conservative court say that they aren't as threatened as some believe?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I think the court decision is clearly the only decision it could reach consistent with Roe v. Wade. So I think what you know there is that that's the vote for Roe v. Wade. You can't have a rule like the rule of Roe and then ignore it. So that's why -- if you remember, on this late-term abortion issue, a couple of years ago I pleaded with the Congress to adopt a broad limitation on late-term abortions, consistent with Roe v. Wade, but to make an exception for the life and health of the mother, as the Supreme Court decision required. They declined to do that, and so we've had a political impasse here, and then you've seen what's happened in all these states.
So the decision is, I think, consistent with Roe v. Wade. And as you pointed out, it was narrowly upheld. I think that's about what the vote for Roe is. And I think that in the next four years, there will be somewhere between two and four appointments to the Supreme Court, and depending on who those appointees are, I think the rule will either be maintained or overturned. And I think that it's very much in the balance, depending on what appointments are made in the next four years. That's what I believe.
----
The Administration has made tremendous progress in reducing unwanted pregnancies and preventing unnecessary abortions.
----
[W]e've made a broad range of family planning and sex education programs more widely available for all Americans. And by making sure women have family planning choices, we are helping to make abortion more rare.
----
We do not fund abortion; we fund family planning, and we know that reduces the demand for abortion.