Skip to comments.Pro Choice Groups May Drop 'Choice' in Abortion Debate
Posted on 07/31/2005 2:46:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
The Democratic think tank Third Way -- run by the same strategists who moved the party to the center on the gun issue -- is crafting new message and policy ideas to help Democrats appeal to Red State voters on abortion, Newsweek reports in the current issue.
And the pro-choice groups themselves have begun tinkering with their approach, even considering whether to abandon the framework of "choice" itself. Last week Democrats signaled that abortion -- or at least the general topic of "privacy" -- will be a major issue at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation hearings.
"We've gotten a little far away from talking with people very much from the heart," admits Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood. The Roberts hearings could give the movement a first chance to publicly test the new strategy, reports Newsweek Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Debra Rosenberg in the August 8 issue (on newsstands Monday, August 1).
After issuing a series of memos and a major poll on the issue this fall, Third Way will roll out a new strategy to help Democrats broaden their support without sacrificing the party's core values. In one forthcoming brief obtained by Newsweek, Third Way divides voters into abortion "polars" -- those at each extreme, who believe it should always be legal or always illegal -- and abortion "grays," those who believe abortion should be mostly legal or mostly illegal.
Surprisingly, Third Way found that Democrats were losing among abortion grays, even though more of them leaned pro-choice.
The pro-choice groups themselves have also been heatedly debating what to do. This spring, activists in New York and Seattle invited Berkeley linguist George Lakoff to speak about how to reframe the abortion issue.
"They found that choice wasn't playing very well," says Lakoff, who's become an unofficial guru to beleaguered Democrats. He told the groups it was no wonder: "choice" came from a "consumerist" vocabulary, while "life" came from a moral one.
In one of his more controversial suggestions, he advised the activists to reclaim the "life" issue by blaming Republicans for high U.S. infant-mortality rates and mercury pollution that can cause birth defects. "Basically what I'm saying is that conservatives are killing babies," he says.
Lakoff advised focusing on reducing unwanted pregnancies and suggested that the groups talk about "personal freedom," a phrase intended to evoke unpopular government intrusion into matters like the Schiavo case.
Their "core value" is to butcher as many infants as possible.
Whenever a Dem says "I'm for a 'Womans Right to Choose', they should be asked "to choose what?"
The fact that they have to look for new euphemisms for abortion speaks volumes.
But who knows, 'privacy' sure does sound good doesn't it? Who can object to privacy? I mean, sure, as far as Constitutional rights go, it is a phony one, an invented-out-of-thin air right, created on a whim a few years before Roe.
The GOP must be ready to make clear the truth, that when they say 'privacy' they are actually speaking of judicially-mandated abortion on demand. Just like when they say 'let the states decide on gay marriage', they actually mean that they want state courts to impose gay marriage, or just have the Sup Court impose it nationwide.
All of their talk on 'values' issues is nothing but deception and lies so long as they insist on using the Courts to do their dirty work for them.
The "choice" is whether or not a HUMAN BEING has the right to live, they would be hard pressed to explain that logic.
Actually, swinging the focus to "privacy" could have some traction. I don't think the government has any business in personal medical decisions, no matter what they may be -- unless the government is paying for them.
That ought to do it. If "choice" won't, why do they think blaming Rs for infant mortality is going to do it? They're sickos.
The problem with putting lipstick on a pig is getting the pig to hold still for it. The nut-case left will have a hard time letting go of abortion as their main focus in life.
"But who knows, 'privacy' sure does sound good doesn't it? Who can object to privacy? "
Does that mean that I can use this "right to privacy" to indulge in illegal drugs in my own home? Can I invite a prostitute to my home and "the right to privacy" would protect me? Is that what they mean?
we can extend this to make all current criminal acts "legal" as long as committed in private.
IOW the Third Way wants to merely change the word but not the deed.
This will be an excellent barometer to LITMUS TEST THE REPORTERS!
So they hired a cunning linguist to reframe the abortion issue.
Because I think that they are speaking another language, and if they had understood what I said, they would never have given it to me.
Is the joke on them, or me?
Name it what it is, pro-death.
One hundred and forty years ago, the Dems were in favor of citizens right to choose whether or not to have slaves. Times have not changed much
Do I have the right to keep my tax dollars that are used for the abortions?
See my tagline
"The problem with putting lipstick on a pig is getting the pig to hold still for it. The nut-case left will have a hard time letting go of abortion as their main focus in life."
Agreed. Articles like this are recurring. It is easier for Democrats to see the problem than to see a solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.