DSCC, Emily's List & Naral

In their search for middle ground on the subject of abortion, Democrats are encountering a mixture of resistance and retreat from abortion rights advocates in their own party.

Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party leaders, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman, Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party's thinking about new restrictions on abortion.

Adding to that, Congressional Democrats named a professed opponent of abortion rights, Harry Reid of Nevada, as the leader in the Senate. Some Democrats supported another abortion opponent, Timothy J. Roemer, for the party's chairmanship.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has actively recruited at least two abortion opponents to run for the Senate in 2006. And perhaps most symbolically, the party is seeking to enlist Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's treasurer, to challenge Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart foe of abortion rights.

Mr. Casey is the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, a hero to abortion opponents inside and outside the Democratic Party. After trying unsuccessfully to have the party's 1992 platform state that Democrats did not support "abortion on demand," Governor Casey denounced the party for refusing to let him speak at its convention in New York on behalf of other Democrats who shared his views.

In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had encouraged him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.

"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.

But Mr. Schumer's overture has roiled party loyalists who remain unyielding in their support for abortion rights, exposing a deepening rift in the party. Abortion rights groups that are major financial donors to Democratic campaigns say they may fight Mr. Casey in a primary with a candidate who shares their beliefs.

Karen White, political director of Emily's List, a group that raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said the group was "very excited" about possibly backing an abortion rights supporter, Barbara Hafer, a former Pennsylvania treasurer.

Emily's List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group's Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."

Emily's List is circulating a study it commissioned by the pollster Mark Mellman stating that abortion "was not a factor in voters' decision-making" in the November elections.

Ann Stone, president of Republicans for Choice, an abortion rights group, said her organization's members had not been re-examining their positions, as their Democratic counterparts have...

"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."

Mr. Schumer, for his part, said abortion rights groups should worry about Republicans, not Democrats, if they want to preserve Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. "What we find is that even the most pro-choice Republican senators just vote down the line for judges that are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe," he said.

Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.

There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control...

But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."

But Ms. Pearl added, "When the day is done, I don't believe they will backslide," in part because of the importance of abortion rights advocates to the party's base of activists and contributors.

In a New York Times poll last month, 36 percent of respondents said abortions should be generally available, 35 percent said the procedure should be available but under stricter limits, and 26 percent said abortions should not be permitted.

The financial balance sheet is much more one-sided. Single-issue abortion rights groups gave over $1.4 million in the 2004 elections to candidates for national office, more than twice as much as the total from groups opposed to abortion rights, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition, Emily's List raised $34 million for female candidates who support abortion rights, according to the center. By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee, the largest donor opposed to abortion rights, raised about $1.7 million.

Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."

He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."

The article, in general was very disturbing, but in light of this particular blog thread, I am particularly concerned about the statement that the DSCC is "has actively recruited at least two abortion opponents" to run for Senate in 2006. One of those candidates, Robert Casey, Jr., of Pennsylvania would run against Rick Santorum.

So, let's see if I understand this. The Republicans have an anti-choice candidate. To counter that, the Democrats put up an anti-choice candidate. What kind of choice does that leave Pennsylvania voters? What does that say to the majority of Americans who believe in the right to chose? What does that say to women who believe that they alone, and not some government official, should be allowed to make decisions regarding their own health care and medical procedures? Why is it that the right to choose is sacrificed, when in reality, this issue is not the reason John Kerry "lost" the race in November?

Rather than seek out strong Democratic candidates who believe in core Democratic principles, and candidates who are unafraid to frame the issue of choice as George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute (who wrote "Don't Think of an Elephant")suggests, Senator Schumer and the DSCC simply folds and totally accepts the Republican anti-choice frame. What other core principles are the Democrats willing to yield to the Republicans?

Senator Schumer and the DSCC are playing a losing strategy, and I won't be donating to the DSCC as long as they head down this path. I'm sure I won't be alone in withholding funds. Why vote for Republican-lite when you can have the real thing? Anti-choice people will go for the real Republican every time.

If we thought 2002 and 2004 were bad years for Democrats in the Senate, 2006 is shaping up to be even worse if Senator Schumer and the DSCC have their way.

by KenP, From the Roots Weblog, Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 07:17:33 PM EST