“Safe, Legal, and Rare”: What Does Bill Clinton’s “Rare” Mean in the Post-Roe Era?
It’s with a great lack of enthusiasm that I quote U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and a recent twitter post he posted on May 11, 2022:
“Democrats have gone from their stances on abortion being “safe, legal, and rare” to wanting to codify infanticide in a span of 30 years.”
I first heard of this political stance of “safe, legal, and rare” when watching the Senate Judiciary hearing on July 12, 2022— the goal being to talk about the legal ramifications of the recent Dobbs decision. This is where the Senator used the same line of thinking in order to show in his view the moderate, to now radical stance, that the Democratic party has taken on the topic of abortion.
“Safe, legal, and rare” according to Anna North from Vox “was likely meant to appeal to people who supported the right to an abortion in principle but still felt morally conflicted about the procedure.” And it entirely was. The phrase was meant to appease the pro-choice camp while acknowledging the pro-life camps sentiment that culturally and normatively, abortion should be infrequent. Despite your political view, this was a genius political move by President Clinton during his time.
My goal is not to state my personal claim on the topic of abortion but rather to look at this political stance of “safe, legal, and rare”. I believe that this political stance is interesting in terms of its utilization and how it came to be accepted by the Democratic Party and ultimately wider culture. I am not a political scientist, law professor, nor sitting or running congressional member, but I am a citizen. I am a college student and a thinker, and I think exploring this political stance is interesting, given the political climate of 2022 and also given the fact that a lot of students and people are not aware of this history.
So, let’s talk about it: “Safe, Legal, and Rare”. Where did it originate and why? It originated from and is coined by President Bill Clinton in 1992 and is said to be the phrase that was “an inspired way to bring together a range of abortion supporters under a now-abandoned umbrella” according to Caitlin Flanagan who wrote the article Losing the Rare in ‘Safe, Legal, and Rare’. Prior to 1992, the country was led by eight years of Ronald Regan, who as California’s governor in 1967 passed the Therapeutic Abortion Act —which legalized abortion in the case of rape or incest and for the protection of the mental and physical harm of women— to as president announced that abortion was “a wound on the nation’s soul.” And then following Regan, there was four years of George H.W. Bush; this only caused the Democratic party to desire a candidate completely opposite of the two previous candidates and their stance on abortion.
But being the previous governor of Arkansas, President Clinton was “pretty slippery” on his stance of abortion according to his longtime aid Betsey Wright. In 1986 he wrote a letter to the Arkansas Right of Life Committee stating, “I am opposed to abortion …We should not spend money on abortion because so many people think abortion is wrong.” But three years later in 1989, according to a NARAL report, Clinton “refused to state a position on abortion.” During this period, the Democratic party as a whole seemed to struggle with a political stance, in large part it was a result of recapturing the country after the Regan-Bush era:
“Mindful of the Catholic vote, worried about the South, and not wanting to freak out the old folk, Democrats tripped over themselves trying to appear both for and against abortion. While Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis all supported legal abortion, they also expressed their personal distaste for the procedure—unthinkable for a Democratic candidate today.”
Thus, in this climate President Clinton birthed “Safe, Legal, Rare.” The first two phrases are quite evident in that this political stance was pro-choice; the prioritization of women’s health and choice is of utmost importance within this stance and is noted as something that is protected both legally with great quality. Normatively, legal, and unsafe abortions should never coincide. But the trigger word is rare. What was the strategy behind rare?“It operates the way a joke does: two beats of certainty, and then an explosion of reversal . . . Bill Clinton located language that made it possible to be completely for legal abortion and against legal abortion” Flanagan notes. But I question whether President Clinton’s stance was against legal abortion. The two words certainly indicate the support of pro-choice but then the third, at best, makes you question his normative and cultural certainty of the first two.
Interestingly, Flanagan acknowledges that as a country, “We wanted something, but we didn’t want to face a full accounting of it—and when that is your moral crisis, your superhero is Bill Clinton.”
Planned Parenthood’s previous president, Dr. Leana Wen, was removed from office in 2019 due to being deemed not aggressive enough on her political stance on abortion. After watching Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential debate in 2019, Dr. Wen tweeted:
“I don’t agree with @TulsiGabbard on a lot, but do appreciate that she brought up the third rail for Democrats: that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” We should reduce the need for abortions by investing in prevention.”
What an interesting take by a previous Planned Parenthood president! The argument that “we should reduce the need for abortions by investing in prevention” connects to the normative and cultural essence of rare in President Clinton’s 1992 stance. In addition, Dr. Wen states:
“Pro-choice & progressive movements will lose unless we allow more people to join who do not agree 100% with the most extreme ideology.”
Rare arguably began to decline within the Democratic party when the Hillary Clinton began to hop on the ship— not helping the “Hillary Ruins Everything” sentiment I suppose. “I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare,” she announced in 2008, “and when I say ‘rare,’ I mean rare!” However, some argue that stating that abortions should be rare, actually constitutes a stigma that is judgmental and inherently whispering of a sort of negative connotation. Flanagan pushes back against Dr. Wen’s views by seeming to advocate for young feminists and how they feel towards losing supporters, “Young feminists living in the age of dwindling access to abortion aren’t interested in a mantra that implies there is something shameful about the procedure, even if it has kept many people in the pro-choice tent.” This is interesting because the two women are arguing over the cloud of President Clintons “rare” in 1992, which debatably was not intended to be a stigma or pass judgement but perhaps was to challenge culture and the normative standard.
As stated by Anna North, “The disagreement between Wen and other activists, and among Gabbard and other candidates, is a reminder that even among people who generally support abortion rights, there are a lot of differences in approach and priorities.” I do not think that this gets talked about enough; the very nuances in the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp are ironically extreme and vital. Pro-choice does not look one way and neither does pro-life. President Clinton’s stance was significant in that it created a third camp out of a topic that was restricted to two vastly different sides.
Tracy Weitz when discussing the notion of “rare” in her piece, “Rethinking the Mantra that Abortion Should be Safe, Legal and Rare” states, “It is probably true that most women do not proactively desire to have an abortion in their lives. However, acknowledging women’s individual desires to avoid an unintended pregnancy is qualitatively different from a social goal of making abortion rare on the aggregate” (Weitz, 163). She supports this claim but firstly stating that making abortions culturally and normatively rare “creates an immediately normative judgment about abortion. . . that there are conditions for which abortions should and should not occur” (Weitz, 163). There’s a lot to say here but I think the most important thing to point out is the fact that the author makes a valid point— in no way shape or form should a women feel condemned or judged for making a personal decision. Mainly because a majority of women who have abortions internally deal with the decision, but I think creating a culture in which protection and abstinence is prioritized, coupled with adequate resources within necessary areas, is not a negative or judgmental by any means. If these things are created in love, respect, wisdom, and understanding then I think “rare” could be what Clinton envisioned for it, although he may not have adequately manifested it.
Another critique of “rare” according to Weitz is that the call for abortion to be “rare” legitimizes efforts to restrict its use (Weitz, 165). She uses the constitutionality of the Webster and Casey Supreme court cases that established state-based restrictions in the form of “undue burden”. Under “undue burden” states could demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental
involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements. Although the intention by conservatives were valid in their view, there were many flaws (in some cases there was misinformation or blatant judgement) that could have been done with more wisdom and love. State law makers like Frank Hoffman, a Republican from Louisiana, blatantly stated that they were going to make abortions hard to get —which I do not think was wise— and should have ensured that the “rare” aspect was creating a culture in which protection and abstinence is prioritized, coupled with adequate resources within necessary areas free from judgement.
Weitz concludes her article against “rare” by noting the following:
“The linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it is both harmful and ineffective as a strategy to securing rights” (Weitz, 168).
This is a great point and certainly a valid opinion; ultimately “safe, legal, and rare” was a political strategy conceived by Clinton in a time when abortion as a topic was forefront on the political scene. He himself stated it was difficult. But maybe, just maybe, this political stance that is deemed as both affirming and devaluing— had it been better explained and possessed greater understanding for the need of love and wisdom— actually encompassed uniting principles; uniting principles that the entire country still will not have been satisfied with but, nevertheless, could have created a better normative climate.
I want to acknowledge that this is an extremely complex topic. I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject and my goal is not to take a personal side on the topic at hand; I believe that aggressively striving to convert others to your view on this topic is unfruitful; I do believe that a willingness to be understanding, and an effort to not be ignorant, could really produce a normative culture and conscious equal in power to the very laws. By briefly examining President Clinton’s political stance of “safe, legal, and rare” I think we as a country struck a chord that could have perhaps provided a better space of understanding on both sides of the isle, and more importantly, both sides of the heart.
I encourage you to watch the following video as I believe it beautifully reveals the heart of the mother towards her children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYDmuFh4e1s
“We must hew out of this mountain of despair a stone of hope”
– Martin Luther King Jr.
