Poll: Voters back wait for abortion. - As Democrats do we pay attention to the polls? Are we pro-abortion? No, we are pro-choice. Some thoughts.
According to the ajc (01-03-05), a recent poll conducted for the newspaper indicates that most Georgians support requiring a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion.
About 60 percent of 501 likely voters questioned said they "strongly" or "somewhat" support a waiting period. Only 33 percent said they "strongly" or "somewhat" oppose a waiting period. The rest said they were not sure.
The survey was conducted by the pollster Zogby International.
Abortion probably will be among the highest-profile issues of the Georgia legislative session, which begins a week from today, Monday, January 10.
(For those new to world of state politics, let me suggest a great way to follow the General Assembly. Lawmakers is a half-hour of live coverage of the Georgia General Assembly every day the Assembly is in session.
The weeknightly series comes on at 7 P.M., and as far as I know, will begin Monday, January 10. It is a quality production.)
In the past, anti-abortion Republicans have been thwarted in their efforts to push a measure known as the "Woman's Right to Know Act."
In addition to waiting 24 hours for an abortion, the law would require that a woman be given written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer abortion alternatives. A doctor would be required to inform a woman seeking an abortion about the medical risks of the procedure and the probable gestational age of the fetus.
_______________
In our 12-27-04 post we noted that:
"As we reach out to religious voters, we should quit arguing the legality of abortion, and rather shift the theme to abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare.' And just as we want to see fewer abortions, we want our children to learn good values -- at home, in school, at Sunday school and at church with their parents."
How are we to react to this proposed legislation? First, consider it fait accompli, in some form or another, however the leadership wants it to go down.
Should we get steamrolled opposing it? Consider a couple of the comments that were in the ajc article:
According to a Ms. Mary Scott King, 91, of Decatur who believes the law would be an unnecessary roadblock to a personal decision:
"I think a woman can make up her own mind without having to wait," said King, who took part in the poll. "Of course, I'm thinking of a woman who knows what she wants and knows her own business and is mature. Now if you ask me about a 15-year-old girl, that's different. A minor should have to report to her parents."
Becky Rafter, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Georgia, said that abortions — like other medical procedures — require medical consultations and the scheduling of appointments that already give a woman ample time to think about the decision.
"No one walks in and has a surgical medical procedure; that just doesn't happen," she said. "And so why are we singling out abortion to be the one medical procedure to have all these caveats?"
Come on Ms. Rafter, you know why this is being singled out. It is not just any other medical procedure. And it is a member of the Republican trinity of sacred issues. And as another person who was polled said:
"I would hope that within that 24-hour period, that the person contemplating doing this act would do a lot of praying and think really hard about what they are doing."
One thing for sure. As Democrats comprising the minority Party and also actively asserting our identity as part of the middle (and this is what it is; it is not just being Republican light as some might urge; we are a Party of moderation), we are going to have to pick our battles.
At the same time we must be willing to stand for something lest we fall for anything. My suggestion. If we want our Democratic legislator to oppose this measure, let's give him or her a basis for opposing it. Letters; e-mails; some demonstrations.
It must be protrayed for what it is, an interference with a woman's right to decide, not as a political issue. Can this burden be carried in light on the above comment by Ms. King? If not, we need to pick another battle.
Were I legislator inclined to vote against the provision, very early I would make a statement along the following line that I suggested on the issue of abortion in the above-noted 12-27-04 post:
"Any person who has considered an abortion for herself or a member of his or her family has already done a lot of praying, soul searching and thinking about the matter. We belittle such person's intelligence to suggest that after all such prayer and soul searching, we as politicians want to help that person in a difficult decision by posing one more hurdle in what is -- of all things -- a most personal and private decision. At the end of the day, it is such person's decision, such person's choice, and definitely not mine as a politician unless it happened to be my wife or daughter."
After making this public announcement, step back and let the constituents show they approve, and hope the Republicans are perceived as overreaching in their agenda.
Bottom line, as Mr. Shipp noted in the article that was the subject of my response to him, we must not say we are pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.
(Although not relevant to the topic at hand, I recently read that 89 percent of all abortions are first-trimester abortions.)
About 60 percent of 501 likely voters questioned said they "strongly" or "somewhat" support a waiting period. Only 33 percent said they "strongly" or "somewhat" oppose a waiting period. The rest said they were not sure.
The survey was conducted by the pollster Zogby International.
Abortion probably will be among the highest-profile issues of the Georgia legislative session, which begins a week from today, Monday, January 10.
(For those new to world of state politics, let me suggest a great way to follow the General Assembly. Lawmakers is a half-hour of live coverage of the Georgia General Assembly every day the Assembly is in session.
The weeknightly series comes on at 7 P.M., and as far as I know, will begin Monday, January 10. It is a quality production.)
In the past, anti-abortion Republicans have been thwarted in their efforts to push a measure known as the "Woman's Right to Know Act."
In addition to waiting 24 hours for an abortion, the law would require that a woman be given written information on fetal development, fetal pain and agencies that offer abortion alternatives. A doctor would be required to inform a woman seeking an abortion about the medical risks of the procedure and the probable gestational age of the fetus.
_______________
In our 12-27-04 post we noted that:
"As we reach out to religious voters, we should quit arguing the legality of abortion, and rather shift the theme to abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare.' And just as we want to see fewer abortions, we want our children to learn good values -- at home, in school, at Sunday school and at church with their parents."
How are we to react to this proposed legislation? First, consider it fait accompli, in some form or another, however the leadership wants it to go down.
Should we get steamrolled opposing it? Consider a couple of the comments that were in the ajc article:
According to a Ms. Mary Scott King, 91, of Decatur who believes the law would be an unnecessary roadblock to a personal decision:
"I think a woman can make up her own mind without having to wait," said King, who took part in the poll. "Of course, I'm thinking of a woman who knows what she wants and knows her own business and is mature. Now if you ask me about a 15-year-old girl, that's different. A minor should have to report to her parents."
Becky Rafter, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Georgia, said that abortions — like other medical procedures — require medical consultations and the scheduling of appointments that already give a woman ample time to think about the decision.
"No one walks in and has a surgical medical procedure; that just doesn't happen," she said. "And so why are we singling out abortion to be the one medical procedure to have all these caveats?"
Come on Ms. Rafter, you know why this is being singled out. It is not just any other medical procedure. And it is a member of the Republican trinity of sacred issues. And as another person who was polled said:
"I would hope that within that 24-hour period, that the person contemplating doing this act would do a lot of praying and think really hard about what they are doing."
One thing for sure. As Democrats comprising the minority Party and also actively asserting our identity as part of the middle (and this is what it is; it is not just being Republican light as some might urge; we are a Party of moderation), we are going to have to pick our battles.
At the same time we must be willing to stand for something lest we fall for anything. My suggestion. If we want our Democratic legislator to oppose this measure, let's give him or her a basis for opposing it. Letters; e-mails; some demonstrations.
It must be protrayed for what it is, an interference with a woman's right to decide, not as a political issue. Can this burden be carried in light on the above comment by Ms. King? If not, we need to pick another battle.
Were I legislator inclined to vote against the provision, very early I would make a statement along the following line that I suggested on the issue of abortion in the above-noted 12-27-04 post:
"Any person who has considered an abortion for herself or a member of his or her family has already done a lot of praying, soul searching and thinking about the matter. We belittle such person's intelligence to suggest that after all such prayer and soul searching, we as politicians want to help that person in a difficult decision by posing one more hurdle in what is -- of all things -- a most personal and private decision. At the end of the day, it is such person's decision, such person's choice, and definitely not mine as a politician unless it happened to be my wife or daughter."
After making this public announcement, step back and let the constituents show they approve, and hope the Republicans are perceived as overreaching in their agenda.
Bottom line, as Mr. Shipp noted in the article that was the subject of my response to him, we must not say we are pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.
(Although not relevant to the topic at hand, I recently read that 89 percent of all abortions are first-trimester abortions.)
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home