Poll: Should Democrats offer compromise restrictions on abortions to win elections? [View all]
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by uppityperson (a host of the Pro-Choice group).
Why should Democrats compromise on abortion?
1. There is limited demand for abortions after mid-terms. Less than 2% are done after mid-term and they are mostly medically required (i.e. almost never elected). So there is room to offer limitations with minimal impact to availability as long as there are caveats for medical needs.
2. Anti-abortion is a single voting issue for a large voting block. Some 60% of GOP voters rank abortion as important. Yet only 1/2 of these voters want a total ban on abortions. So there is room to a talk compromise that would flip some voters. From my personal observation, quite a few pro-life voters, most of whom are religious, would vote Democrat if not for this issue.
3. The GOP leadership treats abortion as red meat issue, they will never really compromise. So Democrats can offer the compromise knowing we will never have to deliver. But if we campaign as compromising, I believe we can peel off a few points.
4. The Anti-Abortion movement falsely paints abortions with grotesque imagery of late term procedures. By offering modest late term restrictions, Democrats can actually reverse this tactic against them.
I propose a policy brand of "The Abortion Restrictions Compromise" that would limit elective abortion after mid-term but making exceptions for medical need. The medical need would be a determined by the doctor (vs a judge). I suggest Democratic candidates declaring their support for this policy would gain voters vs an unrestricted abortion position. I believe this will play well in modestly conservative regions or any close election.
My fellow Democrats, your thoughts?
= new reply since forum marked as read