It is simply not possible to reframe the discussion of reproductive rights away from its current "pro-choice" and "pro-life" discursive structure. The terms are simply way too entrenched to be replaced by any Noise Machine, no matter its size, without a decades-long effort. Further, the current pro-choice frame serves its side well. Just look at
NBC polling that asks the question from the standpoint of the pro-choice frame:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). May 12-16, 2005. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances."
Woman and Doctor Rape, Incest, Life Always Illigeal
5/05 55 29 14
11/03 53 29 15
1/03 59 29 9
1/97 60 26 11
8/96 56 30 12
3/96 56 31 10
12/95 60 28 10
7/91 60 31 8
Clearly, the pro-choice frame serves us well, and abandoning it would not only be nearly impossible, but also a huge mistake. However, after reading a couple of compelling pieces recently, I wonder if we can add a compelling element to it that would further improve on our already extant advantages, and appeal to a group of voters who we are currently not reaching.
First, Howard Dean:
I'm not advocating we change our position. I believe that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets, and I think Democrats believe that in general. Here's the problem-and we were outmanipulated by the Republicans; there's no question about it. We have been forced into the idea of "We're going to defend abortion." I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don't know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their own mind about how their loved ones leave this world. I think the Republicans are intrusive and they invade people's personal privacy, and they don't have a right to do that.(...)
But when you talk about framing this debate the way it ought to be framed, which is "Do you want Tom DeLay and the boys to make up your mind about this, or does a woman have a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she gets." (...) This is an issue about who gets to make up their minds: the politicians or the individual. Democrats are for the individual. We believe in individual rights. We believe in personal freedom and personal responsibility. And that debate is one that we didn't win, because we kept being forced into the idea of defending the idea of abortion.
Dean is absolutely right. He also sounds
a lot like kos:
Problem is, abortion and choice aren't core principles of the Democratic Party. Rather, things like a Right to Privacy are. And from a Right to Privacy certain things flow -- abortion rights, access to contraceptives, opposition to the Patriot Act, and freedom to worship the gods of our own choosing, or none at all.
Another example of a core Democratic principle -- equality under the law. And from that principle stem civil rights, gender equity, and gay rights. It's not that those individual issues aren't important, of course they are. It's just that they are just that -- individual issues. A party has to stand for something bigger than the sum of its parts.
We cannot change the pro-choice frame, and we wouldn't want to anyway. However, we could simply tack on "pro-privacy" to the frame. Stating that you are "pro-privacy, pro-choice" livens up a static concept within our political discourse and causes people to view the issue from another angle. Further, since the right to privacy is both something that most Americans believe in and the legal basis behind Roe, "pro-privacy" does an excellent job of expressing the basic idea as to why Roe passed, and why the majority of Americans continue to support it. In short, I think that "pro-privacy," whether alone or coupled with "pro-choice," does an excellent job of expressing the core ethical belief behind support of reproductive rights in a way that "pro-choice" cannot accomplish on its own. Best of all, it ties into other progressive beliefs about sexuality. Being pro-privacy also explains being pro-contraception, pro-sex ed, pro-decriminalization of homosexual sex, all ideas to which the theocons grassroots are opposed.
So give it a whirl, and hopefully it will sink it. If you are pro-choice, say that you are pro-choice and pro-privacy from now on. This strikes me as a far more expressive frame than just pro-choice itself, and it might just help the people around us think more like progressives.
