Choice in Pennsylvania

By Carter Bundy

Here in the Philadelphia suburbs, Hillary – and Democrats generally – are on a roll. Bucks and Montgomery counties, once Republican strongholds, are now represented by Democrats in Congress. In the area where I’m currently working, one representative supports Hillary, the other Barack.

To a large degree, this is part of a natural shaking out of party affiliation following the 60s. Lyndon Johnson predicted that Democrats would lose the South for at least three generations following his signing of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

The North rises

The South’s transformation started with Nixon’s Southern Strategy and peaked with the Republican Revolution of 1994, led by Southerners.

My favorite is serial adulterer Newt Gingrich. He pushed a divorce at his first wife’s hospital bedside as she battled cancer, and married another woman a few months after he finalized that divorce.

Not satisfied he’d done enough to carry the mantle of family values, he later, as a married man again, had an affair with an intern. While trying to impeach the president. You stay classy, Newt.

Anyway, that kind of leadership didn’t go over so well in the North, and helped drive the North’s Democratic resurgence.

Like the whisky priest in Graham Greene’s “The Power and the Glory,” hypocritical religious louts like Newt can’t kill Christianity (actually, Greene’s whisky priest is a far more likeable character, but the religious hypocrisy is a common thread).

Though Pennsylvania’s political map colors may have changed, its religion hasn’t. That brings up the one thing that has separated Pennsylvania Democrats from other states’ voters I’ve seen: abortion.

Democratic dancing

My union doesn’t take a stand on abortion, nor does it take a stand on guns. We focus on issues that relate directly to our members’ – and workers’ – well-being.

But you can’t be involved in politics and avoid questions like abortion forever. It’s not sufficient, in my opinion, to simply say, “vote with your wallet, not your religion,” because that’s not a battle we’re going to win most of the time.

Too often, faced with religious voters, supporters of pro-choice candidates seem scared to say “I’m pro-choice” or “my candidate is pro-choice.” They look like they’re dodging the issue, instead of defending the position.

Truth is, any medical procedure is potentially harmful to the health of the person undertaking it. Often, but not always decisively, religion comes into play. The fewer times that decision has to be made, the better.

Those of us who are pro-choice need to show voters that we’re serious about reducing abortions, making them rare in addition to safe and legal.

Framing choice

Respectful and open talk about abortion isn’t going to win over every pro-lifer, but we’re silly to dance around the issue, deluding ourselves that pro-life voters won’t figure out or care that Hillary and Barack are both pro-choice. Better to get in front of the issue and have input in the voters’ decision-making.

A few days ago one of our members in Doylestown, wearing a sizeable crucifix, said, “I really like Hillary, except I’m pro-life.” I said Hillary had worked diligently to get more funding for foster homes and to streamline domestic adoption procedures, and had worked with Republicans to do so. Strong prospects for legal, quick adoption reduce abortions.

Also, abortion rates generally fall when the economy is good for everyone, not just a handful of folks. In good economic times, unplanned pregnancies don’t generate the same levels of apprehension about the ability to care for a child.

Finally, I added that Hillary’s always been a champion of responsible, age-appropriate sex education and contraceptive availability.

That’s a solid set of policies to reduce abortion if you believe that it should be something decided by a woman and her doctor, not by the government.

The Doylestown woman is going to vote for Hillary. Another guy at a door said he simply can’t vote for any pro-choice candidate. A third member – a Navy vet to boot – thanked us for our candor and is now leaning towards Hillary instead of McCain. Hopefully that transfers over to Barack (who shares Hillary’s positions) if he wins the nomination.

There are plenty of pro-life, otherwise liberal Pennsylvania voters who can live with a candidate who believes in protecting the option of safe, legal and rare abortions. Especially as an alternative to intrusive government and back-alley tragedies.

Controversy du jour

Obama’s comment at the now (in)famous San Francisco fundraiser was newsworthy, but it’s about run its course. He’s right that tough economic times can lead to scapegoating, anger and even bitterness. Fair enough.

But when commentators like fellow Haussamen columnist Jim Kadlecek (whose work I generally love and think is spot-on) say that Barack is in trouble for “telling the absolute truth” about the reasons for clinging to religion or guns, respectfully, they’re simply off the mark.

Good times, bad times

As several older union members have noted, Pennsylvania workers were just as religious when their unions and manufacturing base gave them the best blue-collar wages and benefits on the planet.

And guns? The state virtually shuts down at the beginning of hunting season in times good and bad. Obama made a mistake. A significant one. He overstated a point that had some elements of truth by tying in unrelated issues.

Blue-collar workers with economic stress like hunting and church. They like them in good times, too. Correlation is not causation. Time to move on.

Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.