You are completely right. The traditional liberal platform on abortion has always included reduction, and would have had more success in this respect if it were not for mouth-breathing troglodytes who oppose contraception, family planning, and the very mention of sex. To suggest otherwise is to give credence to the idea that those evil far-left liberals just love abortion for the hell of it because they enjoy killing babies and feasting on their remains (see http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33680 and http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32930).

So all that the Democrats' "new approach" seems to amount to is pandering to the right-wingers' knee-jerk emotional attitudes by going out of their way to tsk-tsk abortion a bit more and punctuate every discussion of it with an extra mention of how sad and awful it is. On a logical level, I wouldn't mind this if it was enough to shut up some of the opposition and didn't involve an actual change in policy. But then again, I'm not a woman dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. And if this attitude becomes the prevalent one in abortion discourse, then it's easy to imagine that many women will feel cowed into carrying unwanted pregnancies to term by the stigma coming from both sides, even the pro-choice crowd.

As feminists who have proudly and enthusiastically supported Obama for some time, we are convinced that this is exactly the approach he will take. And while this approach is as old as feminism, it will be a breath of fresh air in the party.

You know what, I probably would have agreed with you a month ago. Perhaps naively, I didn't think Obama would move so much to the "center" (really the ultra-right fascist movement) so quickly, as Greenwald documented about a week ago. I sincerely hope he doesn't continue down that line.

I appreciate that Kissling and Michelman are taking on this topic, which is of particular concern in light of Sen. Obama's comments last week in an interview with the Christian magazine Relevant.

Mr. Obama said, according to the Associated Press, that any restrictions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother." But he added,

Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.

I regret that Kissling and Michelman do not address these extremely troubling remarks of Sen. Obama's, since they seem to exemplify precisely the kind of backpedaling the authors rightly fear.

It seems that the inroads they are anticipating have already been made.

... these rights are really important to me and to my continuation as a Democrat. I

Let's see: First, the FISA "compromise" then the gun control thing, which was kind of a weird, unexpected response and now possibly abortion rights.

Er, will the way the Republican party going to win this year is by replacing key Democrats with pod people? Or, do Democrats become Republican when special interests groups throw money at them?

Because if this is the 'new' Democratic platform, they can kiss my fairly insignificant (except to me!) vote goodbye.

So the article goes on for two pages then concludes that what they are advocating is the most likely outcome anyway. Did summer vacations create the need for such mindless filler?

The reason not to make abortion reduction a part of the Democratic platform could not be more simple. It is a double edged sword. For every "values voter" who are pleased by the inclusion of the idea of abortion reduction, how many are going to be turned off by issues such as contraception that are a vital part of any strategy to reduce abortions? The potential is there to do more harm than good, even among the "values voters", with a platform built on abortion reduction.

I do not, however, think that Obama should run from the issue. He should be just as willing to criticize avoidable abortions as he was to criticize absent fathers. Perhaps at the political edges, there is some odd belief that abortion rights are more solid now than 30 years ago, but I don't think that these people are being honest about the situation. While I don't have hard numbers, I would guess that a majority of the pro-choice community falls much closer to the middle. Just because one supports a woman's right to choose does not automatically mean that you personally approve of the choice in many of the situations.

With sexual freedom comes sexual responsibility. The argument from the far left that we see here is one that longs to reject any notion of responsibility for one's choices and that is not an idea that will fly in the fly-over states that Obama wants to win in November.

While making abortion reduction a part of the platform this year would be a bad idea, making abortion reduction central to and inseparable from the pro-choice movement would do wonders to heal the red-blue divide.

things like "women voters" and "the concerns of women" when you know VERY damned well that there are millions of women out there who don't think laissez-faire abortion is a great idea?

". . . telling women that the Democrats' commitment to abortion rights is what should drive their vote, while simultaneously suggesting . . . that given the choice, having a baby is a more moral choice than abortion, will be understood for what it is: condescending and sexist."

Many voters, especially people of faith, who support the right to choose abortion are profoundly discomfited by abortion itself. One of Senator Obama's political assets is that he is demostrably more comfortable with Christian language, thought and ethics than is Senator McCain, who is a warmongering secularist with a marital history as a horndog. That asset should not be squandered by the Democratic Party worshipping/pandering at the altar of abortion über alles.

Abortion rights and the right to contraception should be vigorously defended and protected against the onslaught of the sex control brigades. That is vastly different from promoting or encouraging the practice of abortion or pretending that the choices of preserving or destroying potential human life are morally neutral, or worse, morally equivalent.