Melinda Henneberger's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "Why Pro Choice is A Bad Choice for the Democrats" inspired a lot of blog-protest (ours included, of course) as progressives thoughtfully articulated why she was dead wrong.

I don't usually resort to such simple statements—but Henneberger's reasoning was so off the mark that it's just easier to call it like it is—wrong. It's worthwhile to read through at least some of the responses from reproductive rights movement leaders and advocates as well as the commentary from blogland. I promise—it will help us all, individually and collectively, to nail down a reproductive rights agenda we can all support as we head into the 2008 campaign season. Because there seems to be a chasm—no, a canyon—between what we, the voters, are saying and what politicians are doing (both Democrats and Republicans).

As Jessica Arons refers to in her post this week, the Democrats must stop being afraid of articulating a more nuanced vision of reproductive justice in order that abortion can retreat as just one part of women's health and finally step down as the icon of reproductive rights in this country. Extremist, religious right conservatives created an issue out of abortion not for any "moral" reasons but because they calculatingly arrived at a perfect controversy with which they have been able to distract the American public endlessly, using an emotional argument to spin this issue out of control.

Henneberger's arguments are not based on evidence as far as I can tell but on a lovely trip she took through twenty states. I'm sure it was interesting as the basis for political punditry, but not for any real analysis of the issue. She is not right when she says that the Republicans win over swing voters on the abortion issue. The majority of Americans are not anti-choice. In fact, as Paul Waldman at TAPPED points out, only between 25-30 percent of Americans, when polled, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Republicans have been able to (falsely) claim that their stance on abortion is the one that most closely matches voters' moral vision on this issue. The truth is, most voters do believe that, in fact, reproductive rights issues should be left to the individual and not the government and that, though they are in favor of certain restrictions on abortion, they are also in favor of ensuring access to contraception and family planning including emergency contraception, as well as comprehensive sex education.

As Lynn Paltrow points out in her New York Times letter to the editor, this issue is much larger than just abortion and it is to the Democrats detriment (not to mention American women's) that they cannot articulate their advocacy for the full spectrum of women's reproductive health. If the Democrats would poke their heads out of their shells every once in awhile, they would see that what resonates with voters is a sincere perspective on how all of these issues link together under the umbrella of personal responsibility, respect, planning and prevention ... and not abortion taken out of context as a single-issue. And why is that? Because abortion has a context. Abortion means there has been a pregnancy and pregnancy (usually) involves sex and sex (often) involves birth control and birth control involves health care and in order for one to receive health care one needs economic (and physical) access. So what makes Henneberger or the Democrats think Americans can be sold on this idea that abortion is a single issue that should be tackled out of context and without a more nuanced discussion?

It is because the Republicans have sold us a bill of goods on abortion that has not been challenged in any significant way by Democrats. The Republicans have wrapped up this issue neatly and with absolutely no shades of gray. You are either for "life" or you are against it. What does this mean? It doesn't matter. You are or you aren't. And instead of the Democrats taking leadership on this issue, as Arons so deftly points out, they have chosen to remain in a reactive position, with no backbone to support their body of beliefs.

And Henneberger asks why it was that the last election was decided on the abortion issue by women (which I'm not sure is factually correct but at the very least is her perspective). If women did not vote for Kerry based on the abortion issue, it's not because the majority of American female voters are anti-choice. It's because the Democrats—Kerry at the forefront—articulated a belief system that was actually in direct opposition to what they were obviously attempting to politically align themselves. As an example, Kerry's standard line, "I personally don't agree with abortion but I support legal abortion for women" makes little sense to most women—or men for that matter. It is a stance that says to women "I don't trust you to make the right decision for yourselves, but I will support your right to make those wrong decisions." Hillary's call heard round the world, "Abortions should be safe, legal and rare" tells us that abortion should be legal, but that no one should actually have one. Those are losing propositions.

Henneberger's own definition of what it means to be pro-choice follows the strict "you're either for or against abortion" line and she cites polls to "prove" that the majority of voters in this country are not pro-choice with this definition. However, she fails to realize (or perhaps chooses to ignore) that when one takes away the sharp pro-choice vs. anti-choice dichotomy and delves deeper, a more realistic vision of what American voters believe appears. This is a country that believes deeply in the right of the individual to make the choices s/he needs to make free from government interference—even and especially around reproductive and sexual health issues.

I don't agree, and never have, that the goal—or even a goal—should be to reduce the number of abortions in this country. I think the goal should be to provide women in this country with access to comprehensive health care that meets all of their reproductive health needs—from birth to death and everything in between: pre and post natal care, childbirth choices, comprehensive and fact-based sexuality education, safe and legal abortion, contraception, family planning and much more. Instead of trying to make us believe what "women really want" from politicians, why doesn't Henneberger explore what women really need to live healthy lives and encourage voters to ask our politicians to adopt an agenda that supports the tools to get us there?