From the America blog:
… But, it has gone largely unremarked
analysis of the upcoming Pennsylvania primary that Clinton does have
one group of political activists to whom she is especially indebted.
Pro-choice groups like NARAL, NOW and Emily’s List have been the base
of her fundraising and organizational support. They have sent emails
and placed phone calls to voters in key primary states questioning
Obama’s commitment to Roe v. Wade. And, the generational cleavage among
women � older women tend to support Clinton by significantly large
margins than younger women � is also related to the abortion issue. For
older women, Roe was part of their emergence on the national political
stage, a process that they see coming to fruition in Clinton’s bid for
the White House.
Cleavage among women?
In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, it is
curious that so little
attention has been paid to Clinton’s dependence on these groups. Her
campaign is built largely upon her experience during her husband’s
tenure in office, and few pro-life voters will forget that it was Bill
Clinton who vetoed the Partial Birth abortion bill. Did she advise him
to do so?
There has been some indication that she
did indeed do so. Regardless though she voted against the partial-birth
abortion ban and does have a 100% NARAL voting record.
Clinton should find an audience in
Pennsylvania where she can distance
herself from some of the more extreme pro-abortion arguments. She could
say that the Democrats need to move beyond simply defending Roe and
find alternatives to abortion or new ways of preventing unwanted
pregnancies in the first place. She could repeat her husband’s mantra
that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and point to ways that
might make it more rare.
The effort would cost her nothing. The older women who are Clinton’s
base know where she stands on the issue, and they are never going to
abandon her. But, she could usefully position herself as a more
moderate candidate for the general election, and strengthen what
remains as her most credible claim to the nomination: the ability to
attract moderate swing voters, many of whom are Catholic and many of
whom have continued to deliver large majorities for pro-life Democrats
I do find this odd advice from a Jesuit
magazine (well at least I wish this was odd advice from a
Jesuit magazine). That basically Hillary should just
herself with no mention of actually wanting to reduce abortion. Just
repeat her husband’s mantra about abortion. It doesn’t matter if she should actually ever do such as thing and of course if she was actually
President she would veto any pro-life legislation and her
court picks would certainly not be the types to restrict abortion.
I also wonder what the writer considers
“extreme pro-abortion arguments?” From a Catholic perspective what
would be a moderate pro-abortion argument.