So-called "liberal" evangelical clergyman Jim Wallis wanted to push "abortion reduction" into the Democratic Party Platform. Democrats for Life wanted to extend health care coverage to fetuses (among other measures, including an abortion reduction plank). Neither prevailed. Instead, the proposed 2008 platform sheds 2004's "safe, legal and rare" language in favor of a far more expansive position in support of abortion access: "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 Dems also sign on for "affordable family planning," "comprehensive age-appropriate sex education," and, surprisingly, given the scantly-opposed Hyde Amendment, support abortion access regardless of a woman's ability to pay for abortion care.

Cheering already? There's more. Reproductive health care is included in the section entitled "Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans," affording women's health advocates a measure of cautious optimism that reproductive health care coverage might be included in the mainstream progressive fight for comprehensive health reform. That section also demonstrates the Democrats' sensitivity to the extent to which ideology has replaced science as the determinant of women's health care standards in the Bush administration:

We oppose the current Administration's consistent attempts to undermine a woman's ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care, including birth control...We will never put ideology above women's health.

A whole section on "Opportunity for Women" talks about fighting sex discrimination in pay, in math and science, and in the workplace, and states an "unprecedented" opposition to sexism itself. And this year the platform explicitly includes a commitment to repealing the global gag rule and restoring funding for UNFPA. The 2004 platform argued for none of those.

Whose Common Ground?

Some Democratic Party evangelicals -- including Jim Wallis himself -- characterize the proposed platform's stance on abortion as a step toward "some sorely needed common ground." But three of the four of the specifically reproductive health-related planks I mentioned -- support for Roe and for family planning, and acknowledging economic barriers to abortion access -- characterize the 2004 platform, too. Wallis is right that it all sounds different now -- but not because Dems are hesitant about the moral dimensions of women's reproductive autonomy. If anything, the opposite is true.

Let's closely read the sections on choice in the 2004 and 2008 sections. In '04, the platform stated, "We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right [to choose]. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." Sure, accessible and affordable family planning can and does help reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy (a fact acknowledged in the 2008 platform - "We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions"), but the '08 platform proclaims its support for family planning independent of what effect it might have on the abortion rate. This year, Dems support "access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education" because both "empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives."

And what about those adoption incentives? No mention of those in '08. Significantly, the adoption rate doesn't have any affect on the rate of abortion, as the '04 platform implies it does. (In fact, only a miniscule number of women bear children with the intent to relinquish.) Suggesting that adoption incentives might offset the need for abortion is politically appealing but factually untrue.

The practical distinctions between the '04 and '08 platforms may not be vast. But there's a world of difference between supporting access to family planning because it expands women's reproductive self-determination - as we see in the '08 language - and because it can reduce the abortion rate - what '04 supports. An advocate for the latter doesn't care whether family planning is voluntary or coercive, and pays little attention to whether a woman is using contraceptives in the context of her sexual health education and empowerment and overall access to health care. The 2008 document correctly emphasizes, first, reducing unintended pregnancy - not abortion alone. Crucially, the '08 platform also supports the rights of low-income women who do wish to parent to take care of their own children, instead of suggesting that abortion or adoption are poor women's only options:

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Abortion Is a Moral Choice

Jim Wallis may be content, but evangelical author Tony Campolo threw down the gauntlet: he wants Obama to proclaim that "abortion is a moral matter" at this weekend's Saddleback Civil Forum. Writes the TrailBlazers blog:

Evangelical author Tony Campolo, a member of the Democratic platform-writing committee, said he wants to see Barack Obama talk about reducing abortions this weekend when he and John McCain appear together at Saddleback Church in Southern California. Campolo said dealing with economic problems that prompt some women to get abortions is important. But he wants Obama also to say abortion is a moral matter -- and that any efforts that reduce it are merited.

Obama, try saying this: abortion is a moral matter. Why? Because access to safe abortion "is a measure of the value of women's lives." Writes Linda Hirshman, "It is time to revive the moral argument for protecting a woman's right to choose." For Hirshman, as for many feminists and religious people, the choice to terminate a pregnancy can be just as morally sacrosanct as the choice to sustain one. For the first time in many years of party platforms, the Democratic Party may be on its way to recognizing that.