On abortion, Gabbard sees something other Dems don’t

Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard recently made some comments that give me a glimmer of hope for a turn in our abortion politics. Interviewer Dave Rubin, describing himself as “begrudgingly pro-choice,” explained that he seems to be evolving on the issue of abortion in the wake of the extremismwe’ve been seeing recently, especially in regard to children born alive after a botched abortion. He noted that Gabbard hashad an evolution of her own, having once described herself as pro-life. Gabbard explained that her military deployment to Iraq changed her perspective. She becamemore libertarian on the issue. “Government really shouldn’t be in that place of dictating to awomanthe choice that she should make.” She then went on to say: “I would not make that choice. . . . But a womanshouldhave the right to choose.”

On the surface, that’s a pretty standard Democrat position, akin to the declaration by Mario Cuomo, the late former New York governor, that he personally opposed to abortion. What good is private opposition in the face of the death of innocent life, the pitting of a mother against her child, the trail of misery that is legal abortion, with all the cultural pressures in favor of abortion?

But these days, it may just be a brave thing to say that youwould not make that choice yourself. It may just be a courageous thing to have regret and sadness in your voice, as a Democrat. And then Gabbard did do something that matters, that’s a step toward some real leadership in her party. She drewa line in the sand, identifying the third trimester as a “cutoff point.” “Unless a woman’s life, or severe health consequences, is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

When considering Gabbard’s remarks, it’s important to bear in mind that we’re a long way away fromMario Cuomo. His son, as governor of NewYork, has derided pro-life citizens, and he campaigned a long time for the abortion-expansion legislation that he signed into law and celebrated in bright pink lights on the Freedom Tour this year. It’s also beenawhile since Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” position on abortion. Gabbard, in the interview with Rubin, mistakenly attributed it to Hillary Clinton. But Hillary Clinton wouldn’t go there. I was waiting for that moment during the 2016 presidential election. I kept thinking, Surely this woman is going to tone down her extremismon abortion, surely she is going to make a play for pro-life people whowere aching for analternative to Donald Trump. But she never did. Instead, in the debates, she doubled down on her extreme position.

In Congress, Gabbard has chosen not to co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Hyde Amendment, a longtime banonfederal funding of abortion that Joe Biden has chosen to abandon— hewon’t even stand up to radicals in his party. Gabbard also didn’t join in on legislation that would override state restrictions on abortion.

If Tulsi Gabbardfeels called to be a reasonable voice onabortionin theDemocratic party, I don’t envy her. Partypowers arenot apt to be kind to her. Planned Parenthood is the ideology of theparty. But Planned Parenthood is having some trouble of its own right now. As a newPlanned Parenthood president, amedical doctor, couldn’t even hold out even ninemonths, the length of a pregnancy, before being forced out— deemedapoor fit for the organization apparently because she wanted to downplay the abortion extremismin its rhetoric. If ever there wereamomentbegging for someone— andawomanwouldbe anatural— to step up to theplate and lead in that party, it’s now.

Many American who describe themselves as pro-choice do not like or prefer abortion, they simplywant to knowthatapregnantwoman withsevere challenges orwithout resources will have options. Some choices for her involve pregnancy assistance of many kinds, including thepossibility of adoption— things that wedon’t talk aboutwhilewe are screaming at one another over abortion. If youlisten to the sound of her voice in that interview, Gabbardseems to want somethingbetter for America, she seems to know that America is better thanour currentabortionpolitics. Peopleof good will should encourage her to use her the spotlight that her primary campaignaffords her to be a trailblazer for more life-giving politics.

One of the most reasonable voices in the Democratic party is Michael Wear, who worked in President Barack Obama’s faithbased office. Earlier this year, he wrote an article for TheAtlantic, “The Abortion Debate Needs Moral Lament.” In it, he observed:

Our politicians spend so much time with people who agree with them, using talking points cleared by or provided by entrenched advocacy groups and pursuing electoral strategies more reliant on base turnout than persuasion, that it has become difficult to tell if they have simply forgotten how to speak with people who hold a different viewpoint or if they simply do not care. So many of these controversies would be avoided if politicians were more familiar with different perspectives on abortion, and the arguments and sensitivities that undergird them.

Gabbard sounds like someone who understands, in part because she might have misgivings about the state of the Democratic party when it comes to abortion. She doesn’t have to declare herself pro-life again tomorrow — though there should be competition for the pro-life vote! — but she could propose some common-ground initiatives. She could talk about clearing obstacles for women and families. And people who consider themselves pro-life should encourage and welcome this. It would be good for the life of America.