Day 2 of DNC: Repro Rights a Point of Emphasis as Protests Continue
While party has embraced abortion rhetorically, it needs to involve the real champions and leaders of abortion rights within the political discussions held by party leaders.
The second day of the Democratic National Convention again emphasized the critical role of reproductive rights in the party’s present and future.
The day began with the Democratic Women’s Caucus, held at McCormick Place in Chicago. Roughly 1,500 seemed to be attending. The highlight of that was a surprise appearance by Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz, whose speech was interrupted by hecklers who disapproved of the party’s handling of the situation in Gaza.
That’s also been a point of emphasis, but I also spoke to several attendees and elected officials. For the most part, the sentiment in the party supports a two-state solution. Still, there’s a feeling that the moderate position, as that is considered, is being overshadowed and shouted over by people who want a purely Palestinian state in the Middle East, where Israel is now occupied.
Most speakers that I heard at two events I attended, as well as at the convention, wanted to focus on abortion rights. It intrigues me that there is such a disparity between how the party handled this issue before Roe versus how it now handles it after seeing what kind of political power it brings to people who embrace feminism.
For years, abortion was treated as an issue that had to be downplayed because it would alienate working-class people, as the conventional political wisdom held. After Roe was overturned, former President Jimmy Carter said it was time for the party to focus on helping poor people, including appealing to a broader audience of evangelicals who were against abortion.
During his administration, Barack Obama famously sought common ground, a source of criticism within Democratic circles because of the sense that Roe was the compromise neither side was happy with.
Bill Clinton adopted the rhetoric of safe, legal, and rare. Now I’ve written about that, and I sensed that it was a clever way of saying he wanted birth control to be the primary means of family planning. But a lot of women felt it stigmatized abortion.
Obama and Clinton were reproductive rights champions, leaving a legacy that advanced those issues. But insofar as political messaging, there was an attempt to appeal to people across the aisle on the issue.
Those days are no more. And now, Republicans seek to distance themselves from the issue because they see it as political kryptonite. It’s to the point where antiabortion leaders like Randall Terry have left the party and launched their presidential candidacies instead of falling in line behind Trump.
As a side note, I appreciate Bill Clinton’s famous line about how Republicans fall in line while Democrats fall in love. However, I see a great deal of friction in both parties.
That’s evidenced by the interruptions prominent Democrats have had during this convention. And driving throughout Pittsburgh on my Uber shift, I see hardly any political signs for either party. It’s the strangest thing. Neither side seems excited. I’ve been told here that Harris signs haven’t been distributed yet, which may account for them not being represented. However, as for Trump, there’s a wide swath of the Republican party that wants a humiliating defeat to regain control of the party apparatus. I have seen hardly any signs of Trump in Pittsburgh, even though he’s been the candidate for months.
For reporters and political observers, I would trust the signage more than the polling data, as some polling services on sites like Nate Silver’s are unrecognizable and hadn’t collected data until the Harris campaign started. I’ve recommended reporters ask for the methodology of those polls to examine whether they were designed to produce a result that favored one candidate. Things like polling numbers affect campaign donations, so there’s a motive to make the numbers look good.
Insofar as abortion, what a difference a few years makes. We don’t want to overstate our role or attribute too much of the success to one person or group. It was a collective effort of individuals who permitted themselves to be influenced by one another and to take ideas and consider criticism before making better decisions.
My favorite part of the day was an enjoyable interview I had with Congresswoman Lois Frankel, whom I spoke to about the Comstock Act and the absurdity that an archaic law Margaret Sanger campaigned against is now the basis for legal theories on how to curb abortion access. She told me what it’s like speaking to Republicans in Congress.
“When you talk about reproductive freedom, it's like you're talking to settlers from another planet,” Frankel said. “I mean, it is just cold.”
I told Frankel that both Barry Goldwater and George H.W. Bush had supported abortion rights at one point in their career. She remembered when there were pro-choice Republicans in Congress. Now, she gets patronized about reading the Bible after telling a conservative Georgia congressman that she was going to the Pro-Choice Caucus.
“It went downhill from there,” Frankel said.
At an event held by All In Together, a nonprofit focused on advocating for young women politically, three executives–New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly– spoke about the collaboration liberal states have had in protecting abortion rights.
I had hoped to speak to them about the flip side of that–the tension that exists between influential leaders in pro-choice states versus those in control of antiabortion ones. What types of things will Democratic governors and attorney generals do to thwart politicians like Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who wants to treat abortion funds as accessories to the crime of violating the state’s ban on the procedure?
Those funds are used to pay for abortions out of state, which means that Marshall considers it a violation of the law based on the person’s residency instead of the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. There’s no precedent for that in American legal history.
There are true stars and intellectuals of the reproductive rights movement, such as University of Pittsburgh professor Greer Donley, who should have been invited to speak at the caucuses about the jurisdictional conflicts that have arisen since Roe was overturned. Part of the purpose of a convention is to prepare leaders for the challenges that will arise and to develop solutions based on what great legal minds tell them is the wise thing to do. Donley is someone who could become the next Eleanor Smeal or Gloria Steinem.
I applaud Cecile Richards for inviting Kate Cox to the convention. I’ve covered the situation in Texas about how doctors haven’t performed abortions in exception-based situations because they fear prosecution and litigation. Using Texas’ delegation time was sensible for drawing attention to it. I wish Texas were a swing state, as another speaker of the delegation said, but it hasn’t gone Democratic in nearly 50 years at the presidential level. Maybe with time and an authentic grassroots movement that’s based on appealing to the traditional sensibilities and tastes of white, Latino, and other Texans. Politicians like Ann Richards certainly won over the public. So did Lyndon Johnson. The candidate has to be colorful or, in the case of Johnson, charmingly coarse and vulgar.
We need visionary leaders who aren’t afraid of engaging in challenging debates or addressing people who are deeply angry at the political system and fourth estate that has transitioned from being a watchdog to a cheerleader.
I’ll have more tomorrow in Chicago. I hope everyone enjoyed Obama’s speech. Everyone usually does.