D's more robustly adopt Cuomo's 1984 advocacy of social safety net to reduce incidence of abortion

[GeographyDude]

Notre Dame University

Sept. 13, 1984

http://archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm

" . . . the people who call themselves "pro-choice" can support the development of government programs that present an impoverished mother with the full range of support she needs . . . . . those who gather under the banner of "pro-life" can join in developing and enacting a legislative bill of rights for mothers and children, as the bishops have already proposed. . . "

Now, Democrats have in fact advocated for a social safety net. Which is a tough sell, all the more during economic hard times when people are angry and resentful.

But . . .

Until CHIP passed in 1997, I don't remember a whole lot of advocacy of health care for pregnant women and children as a super logical first step for expanding health care.

Nor do I remember much advocacy that this would be a good way to reduce the incidence of abortion (although this may work either more or less well than people might think).

 

[GeographyDude]

the C-Span video

https://www.c-span.org/video/?124642-1/cuomo-notre-dame-speech

The American public has a slight majority in favor of legal abortion, but there are strong, sometimes single-issue voters, on the other side. And part of the art of politics is addressing this.

 

[Dave Howery]

The American public has a slight majority in favor of legal abortion,

more than slight. A quick Google search tells me that 61% want it legal in some form (although not always in the current rules) and only 38% want it illegal in all cases. As you might guess, political and religious affiliation affects the opinions a lot, as does race and age...

 

[Hades]

The problem is people want the taxes of America the welfare of Sweden and the demographics of Japan.

 

[TastySpam]

more than slight. A quick Google search tells me that 61% want it legal in some form (although not always in the current rules) and only 38% want it illegal in all cases. As you might guess, political and religious affiliation affects the opinions a lot, as does race and age...

A large swath of that 61% are people who want abortion to be restricted after 12 weeks or so (first trimester?), but otherwise legal. The issue is that's a significantly more restrictive abortion regime than what Roe provided (the first TWO trimesters).

 

[Dave Howery]

A large swath of that 61% are people who want abortion to be restricted after 12 weeks or so (first trimester?), but otherwise legal. The issue is that's a significantly more restrictive abortion regime than what Roe provided (the first TWO trimesters).

yes, there are a range of opinions.... the one you noted, some who want even fewer restrictions, and a lot who want it just as it is now. The article I looked at noted that pro-life people are significantly concentrated amongst whites (a racial group that is slowly shrinking), evangelicals (ditto), and older people. As a political position, it seems to be one that is doomed to fade...

 

[TastySpam]

yes, there are a range of opinions.... the one you noted, some who want even fewer restrictions, and a lot who want it just as it is now. The article I looked at noted that pro-life people are significantly concentrated amongst whites (a racial group that is slowly shrinking), evangelicals (ditto), and older people. As a political position, it seems to be one that is doomed to fade...

Evangelicals are not shrinking in America - it's every OTHER Christian group that's shrinking, especially mainline protestants. IIRC, something like 25% of seniors and 25% of millenial are evangelical, while the ratio is like 25% of seniors are mainline protestant...and like 3% of millenials are.

 

[Dave Howery]

Evangelicals are not shrinking in America - it's every OTHER Christian group that's shrinking, especially mainline protestants. IIRC, something like 25% of seniors and 25% of millenial are evangelical, while the ratio is like 25% of seniors are mainline protestant...and like 3% of millenials are.

Okay. IIRC, religion in general is shrinking in the USA, with fewer affiliations all the time. And weirdly enough, the article I read noted that 56% of Catholics, the Christian group you think of most as being pro-life, are pro-abortion (in the USA, anyway)….

 

[TastySpam]

Okay. IIRC, religion in general is shrinking in the USA, with fewer affiliations all the time. And weirdly enough, the article I read noted that 56% of Catholics, the Christian group you think of most as being pro-life, are pro-abortion (in the USA, anyway)….

Yes, abortion views aren't actually shifting that much because the declining denominations tend to be the most liberal on these issues (Mainline Protestant denominations tend to be very liberal).

 

[GeographyDude]

more than slight. A quick Google search tells me that 61% want it legal in some form (although not always in the current rules) and only 38% want it illegal in all cases. . . . .

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

“Legal only under certain circumstances” seems to be the centrist, majority view.

 

[Snowstalker]

An easier POD might be through RFK, who was much more religious than his brothers and openly influenced by Catholic social teaching, surviving and being elected in 1968. Pro-life activism wasn't associated with conservatism until several years after Roe (there were figures on both sides of the issue in both parties, but it was primarily a Catholic issue and Catholics were heavily Democratic until Nixon when they became a swing demographic), and politicians like Reagan and George Wallace were pro-choice before flipping around to appeal to the Moral Majority.

 

[GeographyDude]

“ . . . Exit polls focused on only white evangelicals. But 1 in 3 US evangelicals today is a person of color. . . ”
https://www.christianitytoday.com/c...cals-trump-vote-81-percent-2016-election.html

Interesante!

But does give some pushback and questioning to the view that 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump. All the same, pro-life voters seem to be more reliably passionate on their issue than are pro-choice voters.

 

[Dave Howery]

“Legal only under certain circumstances” seems to be the centrist, majority view.

basically what we have now. Interestingly, that chart has 'illegal under all circumstances' as 10% less than the one I was looking at.

 

[Riain]

I have an idea, entirely unsupported by any evidence or experience, that abortion as an issue is tied to healthcare. In countries with universal healthcare contraception is supported and the norm, resulting in less abortions and making abortion a non issue. I suspect that in the US contraception is a bit dearer and a bit harder therefore there are enough abortions in the US to make it an issue.

Does that sound like bullshit?

 

[Johnrankins]

basically what we have now. Interestingly, that chart has 'illegal under all circumstances' as 10% less than the one I was looking at.

There are very few restrictions on abortion in the US.

 

[Dave Howery]

I suspect that in the US contraception is a bit dearer and a bit harder therefore there are enough abortions in the US to make it an issue.

it's widely available and pretty effective... but yes, the cost is solely on the people who want it. Unless there is a health issue involved requiring it, insurance doesn't generally cover it, AIUI.

There are very few restrictions on abortion in the US.

there's a time limit on it, unless the health of the mother is in danger... first trimester?

 

[Johnrankins]

there's a time limit on it, unless the health of the mother is in danger... first trimester?

That is barely a limit.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I have an idea, entirely unsupported by any evidence or experience, that abortion as an issue is tied to healthcare. In countries with universal healthcare contraception is supported and the norm, resulting in less abortions and making abortion a non issue. I suspect that in the US contraception is a bit dearer and a bit harder therefore there are enough abortions in the US to make it an issue.

Does that sound like bullshit?

In Canada there is a fair bit of debate on the matter (although it's largely been sidelined in parliament) despite having our single payer system and contraceptives being readily available. However, the debate tends to centre on the fact that Canadian law puts no restrictions what so ever on it.

 

[Dave Howery]

That is barely a limit.

so... just what would you prefer?

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . In countries with universal healthcare contraception is supported and the norm, resulting in less abortions and making abortion a non issue. . .

The overall U.S. health care system just doesn’t work that effectively as a market, much less broadening the circle to include low-income persons.

You may have heard the example of antivenom for rattlesnake bites in the U.S. It’s hysterically overpriced, and then negotiated down depending on the “plan” in wild west fashion.

A more widespread example is insulin, which ought to be in the nature of a damn utility.

And that’s how contraception should be, whether it’s birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, female condom, diaphragm, etc.