A piece at First Things points to a Slate magazine piece that celebrates the dropping of the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation that was formerly part of the plank. Instead it now says,
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”The writer at Slate welcomes this change. She says it will allow pro-abortion advocates to reclaim "the morality of abortion." (Anyone else see an oxymoron there?) And, I have to say, I'm not seeing an appeal to pro-life people in that language.
Apparently this new section was crafted to appeal to pro-life voters.
"The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."Does that do it for you? That doesn't sound like anything to me except more potential government spending to do things that religious people have been doing for years on a low to no cost basis.
Democrats for Life suggested a restoration of a conscience clause as part of the section on abortion. It read:
"We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues."It was rejected.
The Democrats have invited Bob Casey to speak at the convention. This is seen by some as another olive branch to pro-life voters. Some of you may remember that his father was not allowed to speak in 1992 because of his pro-life convictions.
So does all of this make you as a pro-life person feel more comfortable with a vote for Obama? What about those readers I have who are pro-choice? What do you think of these changes?
I don't buy it. From the reading I've done, and from the liberal commentators I've seen on TV, I don't think anything has changed except that the Dems are recognizing that America has become more pro-life--as was admitted in the Slate article--and they are trying to grab a few of the votes of people for whom life is a drop-dead issue. Of course, this is politics, so that's what we expect.