Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
15. The phrase and soft support have harmed the matter of abortion rights. The national party removed it
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

and it's time the rest of the Democrats follow.

The right has moved so far right that they are actively taking away our rights. Prior to 1989, laws interfering with a woman’s right to abortion were ruled unconstitutional. The shift in the composition of the Court under the Reagan and Bush I administrations led to the 1989 and 1992 Webster and Casey Supreme Court decisions establishing a threshold of “undue burden” for the constitutionality of state-based restrictions.

Under this new legal regime, states can demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements; since 1994, almost every state has done so. These laws vary in their construction and studying the effects of these laws is difficult but suggests that additional barriers to abortion disproportionately affect traditionally vulnerable populations.

For example, the most severe waiting periods require two in-person visits to the clinic with a prescribed time between visits. In a world where many women lack paid sick leave and childcare, access to a provider in their community, and affordable transportation/lodging, a two-visit requirement may be insurmountable to some women.

Using this phrase is a linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it is both harmful and ineffective as a strategy to securing rights. The desire to help an individual woman achieve her reproductive desires by avoiding an abortion is a laudable goal, not because it reduces the need for abortion, but because it is what that woman wants for her life.

We need to retire the antiquated and harmful phrase. For good.

And to win elections, you need the votes of the "mildly anti-choice" voters. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #1
I think it was politically astute cthulu2016 Nov 2013 #2
It's lazy and opportunistic. Half the eligible voters don't vote leftstreet Nov 2013 #5
Yes, I agree that "rare" was added to assure anti-choicers that we pro-choicers aren't CTyankee Nov 2013 #3
But Democratic candidates already have the pro-choice vote. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #6
See, I think the "rare" thing is out of date. The centrists are more pro-choice nowadays. CTyankee Nov 2013 #19
Disagree. Myrina Nov 2013 #4
Exactly. "Rare" in this context means that education and contraception are widespread and working. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #7
What it *meant* was "vote for me" cthulu2016 Nov 2013 #10
Perhaps, but "rare" in this context means education and contraception are widespread and working cleanhippie Nov 2013 #29
Excellent explanation dragonlady Nov 2013 #16
Ideologues with a bone. Tip off- using the word "mildly" as a pejorative. KittyWampus Nov 2013 #8
You might want to re-think 'pejorative' cthulu2016 Nov 2013 #9
You forgot, that the term rare was applied after the numbers were released Savannahmann Nov 2013 #11
It is a phrase that recognizes that the vast majority of women as well as men at least have Douglas Carpenter Nov 2013 #12
Many people feel ambivalent about abortion AND support choice. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2013 #13
There are some women who do not feel it is a difficult choice for themselves. CTyankee Nov 2013 #20
I think there is another aspect to this that we should think about. CTyankee Nov 2013 #26
"Rare" was a term used to humanize the pro-choice movement LittleBlue Nov 2013 #14
The phrase and soft support have harmed the matter of abortion rights. The national party removed it PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #15
Because "safe, legal and abundant" Seeking Serenity Nov 2013 #17
Or... safe and legal. How about we leave the frequency a medical issue, not a political one? PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #18
Frequency is a sociocultural issues tied into political efforts like sex education. Kurska Nov 2013 #22
Then literally state that unplanned/unwanted pregnancies should be rare. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #23
I said that verbatim down thread. Kurska Nov 2013 #24
I mean the collective 'you'. The Democratic Party dropped the harmful "rare" portion years ago. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #25
I completely support abortion rights, but you know what abortion makes me uncomfortable. Kurska Nov 2013 #27
I wish you could separate your concerns from being ABOUT abortion. PeaceNikki Nov 2013 #28
Abortion should be rare, because unwanted pregnancies should be rare. Kurska Nov 2013 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Rare" was a po...»Reply #15