- The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 29, 2004

For Republicans, Social Security has been the untouchable third rail, at least until President Bush promised reformation by transformation.

For Democrats, the third rail has been abortion — no exceptions, no restrictions, no compromise. Now some Democrats sound perhaps willing to alter their fundamentalist position on abortion to stop their electoral hemorrhaging and start winning elections again. Could they be serious?

In a Dec. 23 New York Times story headlined “Democrats weigh de-emphasizing abortion as an issue,” several prominent Democrats suggest their party should at least open its doors to abortion opponents and make abortion less central in future party campaigns.

Some party leaders said Democrats might embrace at least one restriction, such as parental notification before a minor girl can get an abortion. Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said, “Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies.”

Maybe she is having trouble because that is precisely what is happening. More than 40 million children have been killed legally in America since the Supreme Court imposed Roe vs. Wade on the nation 32 years ago next month.

Democrats seem unconcerned so many discarded members of the human family are not with us. These were 40 million taxpayers for new Democrat programs; at least 20 million women, some of whom might have become feminists and Democrat voters; 40 million people, one of whom might have discovered a cure for cancer or other dread diseases; 40 million once regarded as “inconvenient,” but surely not if they would have been allowed to be born; 40 million branches of family trees who will, themselves, never bear fruit and whose lines have been cut off.

Comments by Democrats trying to get back into the “moral issues” game are revealing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, said Republicans had “been successful at painting the view of the pro-choice movement as abortion on demand — and nothing can be farther from the truth.” Perhaps the senator might explain her voting record, which to a fair reader might prove abortion on demand is precisely what she favors.

Mrs. Feinstein voted no on a criminal penalty for harming an unborn fetus during a crime (March 2004), voted no on banning partial-birth abortions except when necessary to save the mother’s life (March 2003, October 1999) and voted no on maintaining the ban on military abortions (June 2000). Mrs. Feinstein was recommended by the liberal EMILY’s List of pro-choice women (April 2001). She received a 100 percent rating by NARAL for her pro-choice voting record (December 2003).

If the public perceives the Democratic Party favors abortion on demand, it is because of senators (and many other Democrats in Congress) like Dianne Feinstein who done nothing to curtail abortion.

There is but one reason to restrict abortion: What is being killed is a human being. Any other “reason” seeks to invoke a moral standard one has just denied.

There is a way Democrats can do something about their image and still remain “pro-choice.” They can back laws requiring women to receive full disclosure before having an abortion. We do this with automobiles, food and bank loans. Consumers increasingly benefit from laws designed to give them information so their choices will be educated. Why do so many pregnant women lack information about the procedure and alternatives?

Over the last 30 years, I have spoken to hundreds of post-abortive women. They say they would not have had abortions if they had known more about the procedure, such as sonograms, and about adoption and pregnancy help centers that care for the woman and baby before and after birth.

What would be wrong with laws that empower women with additional information, even while abortion remains legal?

If Democrats won’t back empowerment by informing women seeking an abortion — at least giving them as much basic information as they receive before the state issues a license to drive — one can only conclude the party’s reported interest in changing its image is based not on convictions but on political pragmatism. If that is their game, they will deservedly continue losing elections.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide