The message to pro-choice Americans from Washington, DC last week could not have been any clearer: If you thought reforms to solidify women’s access to abortion were on the Democratic Party agenda, think again. You can’t even expect them to be left alone. Under a Democratic Party White House, a Democratic Party House of Representatives and a Democratic Party Senate, you can expect abortion rights in America to be further restricted.

Election Season 2008: Democrats Speak in Pro-Choice Votes

You could be forgiven for thinking during the 2008 election season that the Democratic Party had a strong pro-choice agenda. After all, the Democratic Party declared as much.

The Democratic Party Platform, set in the summer of 2008, declares:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

NARAL Pro-Choice America head Nancy Keegan was invited to address the Democratic Party’s nominating convention in 2008 with the following pre-approved televised speech:

I am honored to be at this historic convention where delegates will nominate Senator Barack Obama as the next pro-choice president of the United States.

As a former elected official from Montana, I am proud to say that my party—the Democratic Party—is a party of many faiths and backgrounds united behind these core moral values: we support and defend a woman’s right to choose safe, legal abortion….

Tonight, we invite Americans who share our values, including moderate Republicans and independents, to unite behind our common goal of electing Senator Barack Obama, an effective and passionate leader who will protect a woman’s right to choose now and for future generations.

During primary season, Democratic Party strategist James Carville spoke for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, making fun of candidate Mitt Romney for being a wishy-washy waffler on protecting women’s abortion rights:

Remember when Mitt Romney realized that he wasn’t nearly Neanderthal enough to win the Republican presidential nomination, so he started flip-flopping on basically everything? One minute, he was for stem cell research. During the campaign, he was adamantly against it. You think he’s pro-choice, but – poof! – now he’s always been anti.

These clear signals, along with Barack Obama’s voting record, signaled to Ohio State University Assistant Professor Amy White that pro-choice priorities would be championed under an Obama Administration. White declared after the election in November 2008:

Reproductive rights? This is an area, I believe, in which we can breathe a huge collective sigh of relief, yes, with the election of Barack Obama. We have great reason to be optimistic, I believe, concerning future selection of Supreme Court justices. I think, had it gone the other way, considering that John McCain explicitly said in his second televised debate that he did not believe anyone who supported Roe would be qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, we can basically give a cheer here. Barack Obama has shown support for Roe over and over. The National Right to Life Coalition rates him as having a completely pro-choice stance. He voted No on preventing minors from crossing state lines for an abortion, he voted No on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. In 2006 he also sponsored bills providing contraceptives to low-income women. In general, it seems that reproductive rights have a friend in Barack Obama.

Legislation Season 2009: Backtracking on Reproductive Rights

At the beginning of 2009, the promise of a pro-choice agenda in Washington, DC seemed reasonable to expect, considering that a Democratic President held the White House, a big Democratic majority held the House of Representatives, and Democrats held 60 votes in the Senate, the long-sought “filibuster-proof” majority that would hold as long as Senate Democrats held together.

Fast forward to November 2009, just one year after the election of a Democratic President, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. The Stupak Amendment to the health care bill passed the House on November 7, with 64 Democrats voting YES to forbid private insurance companies from covering abortion in their health care policies even in circumstances where women pay premiums out of their own pocket. The Stupak Amendment could not have passed without those Democratic Party votes.

How will the Stupak Amendment fare in the Senate? Remember that the Democrats in the Senate have a filibuster-proof majority so long as they hold together. A united Democratic Party in the Senate could simply bat aside the Stupak Amendment. But are the Democrats united in the Senate? Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has already declared of the Stupak Amendment, “I want to make sure something comparable” is in the Senate bill. More conservative Senate Democrats, including Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, have yet to make their positions on the Stupak provisions clear, but already the 60-member majority has been cracked.

And what about the White House? If a health care reform bill with the provisions of the Stupak Amendment passes the Senate and survives a House-Senate conference committee, will Barack Obama sign it or veto it? Our President is working very hard to not answer that question.

In an interview with ABC News, President Obama speaks:

Here’s a question a lot of Senate Democrats want to know. You said, when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that — that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?

Barack Obama: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change.

So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time.

Can you figure out from this statement exactly what Barack Obama’s position is on the Stupak Amendment? I can’t figure it out; Obama’s declaration is meant to avoid any commitments on the issue, commitments that the Democrats made back in 2008.

On Monday, reporters asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for some clarity on the issue of the Stupak Amendment. Despite repeated efforts, clarity was not what they got:

Q: On the health care bill, does — the President supports, endorses, whatever you want to call it, the House bill. He’s made that very clear. Does he support the abortion funding restrictions in the House bill?

MR. GIBBS: The President, Chip, as you know, went to Capitol Hill to rally support for the bill. That bill is now through the House, which we’re quite pleased about. The Senate, once we get budget numbers from CBO, will become — that will move to the Senate floor. I don’t doubt that you’ll have a somewhat different bill. That’s the way this process works, and we’ll iron out differences as they come.

Q What’s his position on abortion funding restrictions?

MR. GIBBS: I think you heard the President in front of Congress several months ago, and we’ll continue to make progress.

Q So then he wouldn’t support anything like the provision that’s in the House bill?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to become a negotiator from Capitol Hill — on Capitol Hill from the podium.

Q Would he accept something that goes beyond what the Hyde amendment does?

MR. GIBBS: We will wait to see what health care reform brings.

Q So there could be something then in the end that goes beyond current law in restricting abortion funding?

MR. GIBBS: Chip, I wish we were having this conversation as the last part of this process, but as your network and others have pointed out, there are miles to go before we sleep.

…

Q Okay. And back on the abortion question. Candidate Obama campaigned as a pro-choice Democrat. This was a big debate between he and Hillary Clinton, who was more pro-choice.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t completely remember that debate, but go ahead.

Q But anyway, he was a pro-choice Democrat and now he’s — the House has passed some of the strictest legislation restricting abortion that we’ve seen in a very long time. I mean, can Barack Obama, who campaigned as a pro-choice Democrat, sign legislation with this language?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jonathan, we’ll — ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year.

…

Q To revisit Iowa briefly and the pro-choice debate that went on there, there were those in the Hillary Clinton camp who said because then-state senator Obama voted “present” on some votes, he was insuffiently pro-choice, and that was sort of fought out a little bit –

MR. GIBBS: Oh, that’s what you’re talking about. I mean, I think that was –

Q I’m just saying it came up.

MR. GIBBS: I think that was handled by people that the President had worked with, representing those groups, which largely dismissed that argument.

Q Which leads me to the question now — some of those groups — NARAL and Planned Parenthood — have condemned the language in the House bill and want it repealed. Does the White House agree or disagree with NARAL and Planned Parenthood’s interpretation of the bill currently?

MR. GIBBS: I’m not going to get deeply into this, except to say that we will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground.

Q In pursuit of what — just passing the bill?

MR. GIBBS: Health care reform.

Q Okay. But not resolving abortion to the satisfaction of NARAL or Planned Parenthood?

MR. GIBBS: I think this obviously is something that will have to be addressed in order to get to that point.

…

Q All right. One other question about the House vote. The President has been pretty clear all along that in terms of abortion he thought the status quo should be left untouched; in other words, the Hyde amendment should stand. Does he believe that the Stupak amendment enshrines Hyde, in terms of the health care exchanges, or goes beyond it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m going to leave the answer –

Q I’m not asking if you’re for or against.

MR. GIBBS: No, I understand –

Q I just want to know what you think it does.

MR. GIBBS: I understand. I’m going to leave it at the earlier answer that we’re going to continue to work through and make progress on these issues.

In all this policy debate, there is left almost unstated a position by Democrats in Washington: that the Democrats and Republicans will work together to extend the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal assistance to poor women seeking legal abortions. Before this year, the Hyde Amendment had to be renewed every year. But even before H.R. 3962 was amended by Bart Stupak’s provision, the Democratic bill acted to cement the Hyde Amendment in place, contradicting the Democratic Party platform statement:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The White House is leaving the door open for a health care reform bill that further restricts women’s access to abortion. The Senate’s filibuster-proof majority against new restrictions on abortion rights has already cracked. A large number of House Democrats joined in to make the passage of H.R. 3962 with significant restrictions on access to abortion possible. In the meantime, majorities in all of these bodies are quietly supporting the extension of Hyde Amendment provisions on a permanent basis to health care reform provisions.

Democrats hold the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is the largest congressional Democratic majority Americans can expect to see for a generation. If pro-choice reforms are not being implemented now, exactly when will they be? If further restrictions on abortion are being implemented at the time of the Democratic Party’s greatest strength, how can the Democratic Party continue to refer to itself as a pro-choice party?