By Dave Andrusko, Today's News & Views
I like to think it's not often that I completely miss the coming (not to mention the arrival) of a book by a political reporter of some repute that deals directly with abortion. But such is the case with "If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear," written by Melinda Henneberger.
Henneberger has worked for Newsweek, The New York Times, and briefly for huffingtonpost.com. An op-ed on abortion, based on the findings in her book, ran June 22 in the Times under the headline, "Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats."
I imagine the headline alone was enough to set off the bloggers at huffingtonpost.com. Suffice it to say they eviscerated Henneberger with gusto, foul mouths, and a conviction that they knew where she really is on abortion that borders on omnipotence.
So, what did Henneberger say about abortion in the Times? (I can't go further; I'm hoping to pick up the book tomorrow.)
Henneberger begins with Rudy Giuliani, explaining that "a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone." Her conclusion is in the second paragraph: the war on Iraq aside, "Democrats must still win back such voters to take the White House next year."
Henneberger's tour over 18 months in which she "traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into '08" convinced her "that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because 'security moms' saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion."
Henneberger only makes clear what we have known and said for umpteen years. The Democratic Party has suffered grievously from having become the unabashed, there are never enough abortions/there can never be any restriction on abortions, party of "choice."
But the ballistic response of the bloggers at places like huffingtonblog.com notwithstanding, the real message in her piece is two-sided and not nearly as threatening to pro-abortionists as these responses would suggest.
Henneberger, as we've already seen, knows that, by being pro-life, the Republican Party has enjoyed an enormous electoral advantage, which it could throw away by nominating someone like Giuliani. But even if they didn't committed such as egregious mistake, Henneberger argues that Democrats can still win enough pro-lifers over, provided they show pro-lifers respect and (my word) hedge.
She disagrees with Democratic leaders who say that "anyone lost to them over this issue is not coming back -- and that regrettable as that might be, there is nothing to be done." There are lots of former Democratic voters who can be brought back into the fold, she believes.
Henneberger highlights Catholic women "who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word 'Republican.' Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party they'd prefer doesn't send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame."
What does that mean? She doesn't exactly spell it out, but it's pretty clear. She points to the over-the-top reaction of leading pro-abortion Democrats to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Unfortunately, Gonzales v. Carhart did not overturn Roe v. Wade--it upheld the constitutionality of a ban on a particular abortion procedure--but you could barely tell that by the reaction of the Clintons and the Obamas and the Edwardses.
That doesn't help Democrats, Henneberger argues. If you want to win pro-lifers back, just stop calling them "extremists," she advises, understand that they see abortion as "a human rights issue comparable to slavery," and cut them some slack on partial-birth abortions, support for which is an albatross around the head of Democrats.
Why will this work? Because "Most people differentiate between a fetus in the early weeks of development and at nearly full term, and draw the line at a procedure that Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan regarded as infanticide."
Henneberger concludes by contending that while "the abortion-rights lobby has raised a lot of money since the ban," she does not believe that "Democrats who hate [Gonzales v.] Carhart would "switch parties or stay home on Election Day if their leaders began to acknowledge such distinctions."
Two quick interrelated comments. First, the furthest that leading pro-abortion Democrats would ever "move" was on display during the many congressional efforts to pass the ban on partial-birth abortion. And that was to conjure up pseudo-"compromises" which would have not banned anything.
Second, pro-abortion Democrats are so wedded to the unlimited abortion forever crowd that even a trial separation on the most limited protective law is unthinkable. They have thrown in their lot with the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs of this world.
They have made their bed, now--and likely for the foreseeable future--they have to lie in it.
Note: You can read Henneberger's column here.
Re-posted with permission from Dave Andrusko, Today's News & Views
