Why won't Democrats let antiabortion progressives under their tent?

[DonViejo]

By Christine Emba May 3 at 7:35 PM

Christine Emba edits The Post’s In Theory blog.

Is it possible to be a good progressive and oppose abortion? This long-simmering question was brought to the fore recently when Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced their support of Heath Mello, a candidate for mayor of Omaha who is also, inconveniently, antiabortion.

Under pressure from abortion rights groups, Perez quickly walked back his support for Mello and said that being pro-choice was “not negotiable” for Democrats. That reversal was in turn rebuked by a chorus of high-ranking Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.). In the end, Perez walked back his walk-back, announcing there was no litmus test after all. But is there? Should there be? Increasingly, abortion opponents hear a resounding yes. The message they get from progressive activists and commentators, if not from Democratic Party leaders, is increasingly hostile: As much as the party professes to be a big tent, those who oppose abortion rights aren’t really wanted.

This is a mistake — and not only because it limits Democrats’ ability to keep or expand their voter base. It also reduces the core values of the progressive movement to a single symbol and constrains the debate on how to best achieve broader goals of social and economic equality. The associated contempt for antiabortion activists often relies on outdated assumptions about their aims and origins and fails to take into account the complexity of most Americans’ views on abortion.

Ironically, restricting abortion was once a progressive cause. Early defenders saw protecting the unborn as an extension of society’s responsibility to shield the poor, weak and otherwise defenseless. Many were wary of abortion’s eugenic potential and of how it allowed men more leeway to exploit or abuse women without consequence.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-wont-democrats-let-antiabortion-progressives-under-their-tent/2017/05/03/25af54de-3025-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html?utm_term=.1cc848a343e3&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

[HoneyBadger]

1. It better defines the party platform

To some degree it rationalizes why their are independent voters.

[Lint Head]

2. Abortion is a personal choice. I know plenty of Democrats who

are anti abortion but believe government should not be involved in a women's choice to have one. I can totally understand why people who want Roe verses Wade overturned would not be comfortable as a Democrat. Even if there is a poll that says a lot of folks are anti abortion some would indicate they are but are for choice which the poll would not capture.

[JHan]

3. One of the comments under the article deals with this well:

Rebecca R
9:22 AM AST
It is odd that in your paragraph regarding "solutions" to the challenges women face regarding child care, the workplace, and so on, you totally omit the most obvious, but crucial link: unfettered, uncensored, and full access to the entire range of contraception and reproductive healthcare services. Without that, women are literally procreative chattel - which is precisely what the GOTP wants. For the record, I know of no "secular humanists" who "oppose abortion" - please cite some substantiating references for that statement. Women must be granted full healthcare privacy and primacy - including, if necessary, abortion. No one proposes forcing those who oppose abortion to have one - but the right wing demands that their scientifically and medically factually-devoid beliefs be rammed down everyone else's throats. Choice must be just that: choice, without the invasion and intrusion of unrelated outsiders. That must continue to be the Democratic platform.

[msongs]

4. some people say abortion should be a 'choice" then ban those who choose otherwise. hypocritcal IMO

enforcing your own belief on others in the name of your "right to choose" is hardly any different than the fakely named pro-life crowd

[More_Cowbell]

5. Exactly

Might as well be GOP candidate

[That Guy 888]

6. It's a litmus test I wish they would keep and add others.

We've got a party that thinks they have the right to dictate what a woman does when she's pregnant and doesn't want to be. They should bring some progressive values and sanity to the party that's as anti-abortion as they are, the GOP.

We really don't need any watered-down Republicans siding with the GOP in the House and Senate on key important issues for all Democrats.

[Lil Missy]

7. Pro-Choice means you also have the right to choose NOT to have an abortion.

[Blue_Tires]

8. Who says we didn't? We've had them before...

[Jno_Gilmor_]

10. Being Pro-choice just means recognizing that it is the women's right to choose.

If a candidate is personally anti-abortion but believes it is up to women to choose for themselves, I can support them. If they are anti-choice, I can't.