Listen up
Steve Gilliard got email from a pro-life Democrat that Democratic activists should think through.
Anyway a couple of thoughts. I think one of the major messes involving the abortion debate in the United States is that its interpretation is pretty much unique. The rights-based interpretation of abortion is pretty much ahistorical - I know, for example, that Susan B. Anthony expected one of the signs of women's liberation would be the elimination of abortion. That women would no longer be so far backed into a corner that abortion would be considered an option.
Similarly, it's unique to the U.S. and Canada. In Europe it's viewed as more of a health and biology issue - France has considerably tighter abortion laws than the united States. Actually, on paper, pretty much every western european country has tighter abortion laws than the united states; also considerably lower abortion rates. I'd argue that one of the holes we're in in the U.S., and the reason that abortion is not a 'settled issue' the way it is in Europe is only partly due to pro-life militancy, it's also because of a marked unwillingness on the pro-choice side to discuss the issue. Since Roe, U.S. abortion policy has been pretty much static with one side desperately trying to pack the courts and the other side desperately trying to prevent it.
I haven't found anyone on the pro-choice side who views abortion as a celebratory act, but rather as a necessary choice - to eliminate the specter of back alleys and coat hangers. However, what the GOP does is focus on the corner cases of the issue - and the Democrats end up reacting in fear and ending up defending more and more indefensible cases. Partial Birth was really more vote-whoring than anything else, and also exhibit A in why the GOP doesn't care about abortion past getting votes - they had the ability to do something substantive, and this was their choice. Same thing with this anaesthesia measure they're pushing next. It's real goal is to put democrats on the defensive.
