Editor's note. Part Two takes a look at the abortion-friendly American Psychological Association which is going to "update" its factsheet on abortion and mental health complications.

Those who've read TN&V faithfully remember that as far back as the immediate aftermath of pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry's 2004 loss to pro-life President George Bush, Democrats knew they had to recalibrate their rhetorical position on abortion, an issue that had hurt them badly. After a number of dry runs, a two-pronged strategy has emerged.

First, they went back to the future. They've attempted to enlarge what it means to be "pro-life."

If this sounds familiar, it ought to. For decades pro-abortionists have attempted to subsume/neutralize the abortion issue by making it just one among many issues. This time around they are getting more help than usual from religious "progressives."

Second, they insist that even on abortion itself, they are pro-life. The difference is, they say, that they are in favor of what might be called "soft power." That is, more emphasis on persuasion and incentives than on legislation.

Some very well-meaning people are entranced. Others, who ought to know better, are intrigued. Still others, knowing this is all speed and no altitude, are exuberant. What say we to this?

Let's look at it through the prism of the Democrats new language on abortion, part of the platform that will be adopted at the National Democratic Convention later this month in Denver. We talked about the relevant passages in a preliminary way earlier this week. [http://nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Aug08/nv081108.html].

According to a Washington Post blog, "Left-leaning opponents of abortion rights" love the new language. [Proving yet again that headline writers often misread copy, the headline read, "Conservative Dems Hail Party Platform's New Abortion Plank." The last thing any of those quoted in the story would do is describe themselves as "conservative."]

And, as seekers after "common ground," they would likely firmly resist the label "opponents of abortion rights." They believe they have perfect pitch (or the perfect pitch) on the issue, backing proposals they say will reduce the number of abortions performed but without "criminalizing abortion." For the sake of discussion, let's assume their motives are sincere.

What's odd about all this is how much credit these people are willing to extend to the Democratic Party in exchange for so little in return. The platform added this sentence: "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."

Who could disagree? And what does it say that it took the Democrats 35 years to finally grudgingly concede what everyone this side of Communist China already embraced?

What is far more significant is the opening sentence: "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."

Gone is the third leg of the Clinton formulation: abortion is still to be "safe and legal" but no longer "rare." This always rankled pro-abortionists who, like Linda Hirshman (writing at Slate.com) angrily dismiss the old three-part formulation as a "self-destructive cycle." Abortion is not a "necessary evil," she writes disdainfully, but operates like a turbo-jet engine propelling women "seeking the flourishing life prospects."

The national Democratic Party, like its soon-to-be presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, offers rhetorical crumbs with one hand and attempts to snatch back every commonsense limitation on abortion enacted in the past three decades with the other.

The impact of the "Freedom of Choice Act," co-authored by Barack Obama, is not only to encase the principles of Roe in protective legislative armor and make partial-birth abortion legal again. It is also to take a poll axe to parental notification laws, limitations on the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions, informed consent laws--anything and everything you can think of. To borrow from Buzz Lightyear, it is Roe v. Wade "to infinity, and beyond."

And, as many perceptive observers have pointed out, even if you could convince yourself the additional language means something--a huge stretch--it all depends on the presidential nominee. What do we know about the junior senator from Illinois?

First and foremost, that Barack Obama is one smooth operator.

He could well read something off a teleprompter that sounded reassuring. He could even allow someone whom the press will dub "pro-life" to speak at the convention. He could even choose a "pro-life" Vice President, unlikely as that is.

But verbal nods mean nothing, especially coming from Sen. Obama, a man who occupies a space on the far end of the pro-abortion continuum. And the various possible vice presidential candidates described by the ever-helpful press as "pro-life" simply aren't.

But if they aren't pro-lifers they are as slick as Sen. Obama, which serves his purposes and those of the "mainstream media," which is desperate to turn the abortion issue into a positive for Obama. That can only happen if the public is snookered into believing Sen. Obama and the national Democratic Party have changed in any meaningful sense one iota.

They haven't, and it is our job to make sure no one--not even those whose eyes have glazed over and brains have locked in place--believes otherwise.

Please send any comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com

Part Two -- The APA and Abortion: The Sequel