Hillary Clinton irritates a lot of pro-choice feminists because of the perception that she’s moderating on reproductive freedom issues. For example, this article from the Albany Times-Union, which asserts in its headline that “Clinton advisor signals abortion shift”:
A top adviser to U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told abortion-rights activists Thursday the Democratic Party is “the party of pro-choice America,” but said it also must be able to accommodate differing views on this contentious political issue.
Howard Wolfson, a Democratic strategist, noted the election last week of anti-abortion rights Democrat Robert Casey in Pennsylvania was “critical” to the party’s success in wresting control of the U.S. Senate from the GOP. Casey defeated Republican incumbent Rick Santorum.
“I think it’s indicative of the fact that this is a party that is a broad tent,” Wolfson told members of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State.
Bad news, right? Until you read Wolfson’s actual remarks, which are printed below the fold.
It’s an honor for me to be here today. I had a speech prepared explaining away yet another disappointing election — and I can’t tell you how happy I am that I was able to leave that one at home!
I have been aware of your powerful advocacy for more than a decade – ever since I got my start in NY politics working for Nita Lowey. And so I want to thank all of you, and each of today’s honorees, for your passion, commitment and effectiveness. NY is the most pro-choice state in the nation thanks to your hard work.
What an election it was. Here at home, thanks to the hard work of so many in this room, we elected a statewide slate of pro-choice Democrats — Spitzer, Clinton, Cuomo and Hevesi — each overwhelmingly elected over anti-choice or multiple-choice candidates.
And that’s not all — we elected three fabulous new Democrats to the House — each one a pro-choice champion who defeated an anti-choice or multiple-choice opponent.
Are you seeing the trend here?
It wasn’t so long ago that New York had two anti-choice statewide elected officials and 11 anti-choice Representatives in Congress. Today every one of our statewide officials is reliably pro-choice and all but 7 of our representatives in the House are pro-choice.
This change did not just happen due to osmosis — in many of these races, choice was a critical issue in determining the outcome. Let me state it clearly: in every NY election since 1998 in which choice was an issue, the pro-choice candidate won.
So we have many reasons to feel good about our work…even more so because you know that this political reality reflects a broader set of views and attitudes here in New York that trusts women to make difficult and personal medical decisions for themselves.
So here in the our state’s capital things are looking good — and they are also looking better in our nation’s capital, to the south.
Thirty-three of the new representatives are pro-choice, and the ranks of the pro-choice caucus in the House has increased by 22. In the Senate, 4 new members are pro-choice.
These increased numbers will help advance an agenda focused on preventing unintended pregnancies, increasing access to family planning and upholding Roe.
I believe this is a real moment of opportunity and optimism — an opportunity to form real partnerships with leadership at the state and federal level.
We also enjoyed much success in state races around the nation — and in some of our reddest states. South Dakotans decisively rejected a statewide ban on abortions and elected several new legislative opponents of the ban. In Kansas voters decisively turned out of office their radically anti-choice Attorney General. Pro-choice governors defeated anti-choice candidates in key midwestern states like Ohio and Michigan.
Voters around the nation — in blue states and red ones — sent a clear signal last week against government intervention in women’s reproductive health, and in favor of a woman’s right to choose.
This is our moment to build a durable governing majority with partners at the state and federal level around the values we hold so precious — privacy, individual responsibility, and a respect for the wisdom of women’s decision-making.
Tangibly that means contraceptive equity, increased funding for Title X, more research on contraceptive technologies, access to emergency contraception for everyone who needs it.
And our message to the American people should be clear: the best way to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies is to ensure that women and their families have the means to make the best and healthiest reproductive decisions for themselves.
Sounds pretty good to me. I certainly don’t see anything to indicate that Clinton is backsliding on reproductive rights, and I’m not sure how the Times-Union reporter managed to extract that message from his statement. Even the CEO of Family Planning Associates was surprised by the article:
An Open Letter on Howard Wolfson’s Address to Family Planning Advocates
On November 16, Howard Wolfson gave an insightful and invigorating address at Family Planning Advocates’ Annual Meeting in Albany, New York. It was a speech that brought pro-choice advocates to their feet in applause.
I can say with certainty that every person who heard that address was as shocked as I was to read the Times Union headline this morning inaccurately pointing to an “abortion shift” by Democrats.
Mr. Wolfson’s message was just the opposite: the Democratic party plank that supports a woman’s right to choose was overwhelming affirmed by voters November 7.
Congress gained 22 new pro-choice members – the vast majority of whom are Democrats. Of course, not every Democrat is pro-choice, but there is clear evidence of increasing support for women’s health and rights throughout the party and the nation.
Mr. Wolfson emphasized the opportunity that we in the pro-choice community have to work in partnership with elected officials to advance a positive agenda for women and families.
His passionate and open speech was met with thoughtful questions from his audience. They received honest answers – often met with cheers – that affirmed their daily work and energized them to move forward in their mission.
It is unfortunate that such a strong speech was distorted in such a way.
Sincerely,
JoAnn M. Smith
President and CEO
Family Planning Advocates of NYS
That’s a solidly pro-choice statement if I’ve ever heard one. But a long-time pro-choice Democrat slipping on abortion issues is far more interesting than the truth.
Thanks to Peter for clearing this up.
What has happened to the press? What motivates them to such sloppy, lazy or untruthful work? Can someone please tell me because there was a time, a long time ago, when I thought journalists were the seekers of truth and justice. I guess I was just a stupid kid then.
I don’t mean to be too cynical, but why can’t both accounts be right? Of course a major advisor to HRC is going to play up her pro-choice credentials to a pro-choice group. But why couldn’t he also throw in a brief comment about how great anti-abortion Dems like Casey are? Then he and Clinton show that to anti-choice groups as evidence that they’re drawing a line, even praising someone like Casey at a pro-choice meeting. Or is there any reason to think that the newspaper lied about his comments about Casey?
(Not to be too much of a dick, but it’s a little hard to tell what he said because the newspaper makes a mistake in reporting it. Of course electing someone else was “critical” to getting rid of Santorum. But it sounds as if Wolfson was, however briefly, praising or at least noting the necessity of fielding candidates like Casey for the Democrats to be successful.)
I think the reason people are so suspicious of Clinton is because her hubby almost preferred to play centrist cultural politics to anything else. Don’t get me started on Ricky Ray Rector, but that, to a lot of people, is the perfect emblem of his presidency and of his political career as a whole.
I agree with those who say the Democrats should be running on economic issues rather than cultural ones. If HRC wants to run for president, of course she’ll try to show anti-choicers that she’s not as bad as they think. But I think the Dems, for the next two years and in 08, should put the onus on the Republicans to make politics about abortion and stem cells rather than jobs and health care–not to mention basic competence in governance. In other words, Sherrod Brown’s election might be more instructive than Casey’s. I think HRC should be pointing out the stupidity of making politics about things like abortion rather than trying to show people that she’s actually much more anti-choice than they may have heard.
PA Democrats are often pro-life. I think Murtha is too. It’s our own little idiosyncracy. I think it says something for the Dems that they can absorb their pro-lifers, while the Repubs ostracize their pro-choice counterparts.
Like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger?
They don’t ostracize the pro-choice among them. To the contrary, that’s the face they put on the party during national campaigns. Ever notice that the NRC prime-time speakers were moderate and pro-choice even as the party platform was right-wing and anti-choice?
What the heck is “multiple choice”? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term.
I don’t see anything in the speech that indicates any backsliding, true, but I think that the pro-choice movement has become far too apologetic lately. Maybe most of the dems are still pro-choice, but aren’t they often willing to throw out women’s rights as the first way to lighten the load? Hoyer has a great voting record on choice, and I’m a big fan, but he introduced a bill to restrict abortions.
Casey’s father was barred from speaking out against abortion rights at the 1992 Democratic convention, and he fussed and screamed about it the rest of his life. Now we have more of the same to look forward to from the son. Hooray.