« Bush Cabinet | Main | Charity, Justice, and Legitimacy »
Which Is It?
My friends in the choice movement keep assuring me that the pro-choice position is overwhelmingly popular, and that it's overwhelmingly important that the Senate Democrats not permit an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court. Those propositions can't both be correct, though, right? If pro-choice politics are popular, then a return of the abortion issue to legislative control should be good for pro-choice politicians (i.e., the Democratic Party) and only mildly bad for abortion rights in the medium-term (since purportedly popular pro-choice views would prevail in the congress and state legislatures within a few years once the purportedly unpopular pro-lifers were kicked out). The substantive downside is that it would become impossible to procure an abortion in, say, Texas, though my understanding is that it's already extremely difficult to do so in practice, the procedure's legality notwithstanding. Roe can only be massively important if the policy it embodies is unpopular nationwide, as it was at the time the decision was handed down. Or am I missing something? Genuine question here, not an effort to poke people in the eyes.
November 6, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1379698
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Which Is It?:
» Institutions and reproductive freedom from Lawyers, Guns and Money
don't know what it is about abortion that makes people forget they ever read Madison, but it's true nevertheless. Abortion remained illegal in most states in 1973, despite the earlier shifts in public opinion against these laws, for two reasons, one ... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 6, 2004 7:01:49 PM
» Eminem Versus Country from Kalblog
There are going to be some links to older posts that I still find interesting over the next couple of days, as I rev my blog-reading back up. I find this comment from Juan Cole interesting: Eminem cannily turns the... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 7, 2004 2:41:05 PM
Comments
Two points. First, it's worth remembering that because of the many low-population red states, it's perfectly possible for a position to be substantially favored in the country as a whole, but not in a lot of states; so we're not talking just about Texas, but about a whole swath of southern and western states. It's also worth noting that difficult and illegal aren't the same; it may be difficult in Texas now, but it's not illegal, and that will have a real impact on many people's lives.
Secondly, you are asuming that there won't be any national restrictions on abortion, and that it will be handled only at the state level. As Atrios recently noted, this isn't necessarily true. Given the radicalism of the current Republicans, it's by no means out of the question to imagine them making abortion illegal at the national level. Or even if they didn't do that, they might pass other laws -- for instance, making it a crime to help someone go from a state where abortion is illegel to one where it is legal, so that groups couldn't provide bus service to women in Texas (or whereever) to get to where abortions were legal. This wouldn't make abortion illegal in the whole country, but would make the difficult v illegal distinction even sharper than it would be in any event.
Finally, it's worth noting that 'abortion' often serves as a symbol for a whole host of issues about women's place in society; when people worry about Roe, they are often talking about more than just Roe.
SF
Posted by: Stephen Frug | Nov 6, 2004 5:58:12 PM
No, you're not missing anything. Roe itself isn't all that bad, but when you combine it with all the subsequent rulings, which rendered the original trimester scheme a farce, it essentially imposed upon the country a position just short of Singer's extreme. VERY unpopular.
Consequently, about the only people you've got in the pro-abortion movement at the moment are radically pro-abortion extremists, and folks who have a wildly inflated notion of how bad it would get if abortion law were subject to the political process again.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 6, 2004 6:01:54 PM
What you're missing is that this is not a level playing field or fair game. The anti-choicers, or pro-lifers as they like to call themselves, are bullies who consistently overstep the bounds of legality. Their intended victims are almost always the poorest most vulnerable members of society, precisely the people least able to effectively lobby in the halls of Congress or prevail in court in a timely way.
Elaborate plots to trip up the anti-choicers in their own inconsistencies won't work any better than expecting the rightwing to reject Bush because of huge budget deficits and the increased danger from terrorism.
Which has something to do with your mistaken idea that Roe was massively unpopular when the decision was announced. In actuality, then as now, most people thought it was the right decision, and it literally took decades for the rightwing to whip up their hysteria about this.
As evidenced by the rightwing's lack of concern about the fact that abortions and complications actually rise in number where their prohibitionist policies rule the roost.
Being clever only works with people who are honest and willing to say "You beat me, fair and square." That is not a description of the American rightwing.
Posted by: serial catowner | Nov 6, 2004 6:05:44 PM
With apologies to Brett Bellmore, a lot of us are aware that the ultimate goal is to outlaw ALL contraception, even condoms, and, frankly, we don't want to pay the social and health costs of such a backward approach.
Readers who get the chance should check out Nelson Algren's story about ding-dong-daddyland, a condom factory in Chicago back in the 50s when condoms were illegal in Chicago. How soon we forget.
Posted by: serial catowner | Nov 6, 2004 6:09:46 PM
If the pro-choice position is popular, blocking anti-abortion judicial nominees seems like a short-term political winner. Maybe we could get longer-term political gains by letting the court overturn Roe and then setting ourselves up as the representatives of the pro-choice majority, but this might not be worth the trouble of letting a bad policy be in effect for a long time.
Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | Nov 6, 2004 6:12:23 PM
Personally I'm pro-choice and anti-Roe. It is a position that can be staked out, but it would cause massive upheaval in the Democratic base. Of course, massive upheaval might be just what we need.
Posted by: Mithras | Nov 6, 2004 6:19:27 PM
With all due respect to you, serial, the ultimate goal of the right to life movment's leadership is as you describe it. Their membership, however, consists mostly of people who have far more modest goals. When you've got the courts blocking laws that prohibit aborting babies who'd live if delivered, you don't have to be much of an extremist to think Right to Life is at least trying to push the ball in the right direction.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 6, 2004 6:19:38 PM
It is entirely consistent that the pro-choice position, which enjoys majority support nationwide, requires the efforts of a Senate minority to protect it.
There are two reasons why:
Simply put, while more Americans tend to support abortion rights, the issue is not as important, or as mobilizing a force its supports as it is for the anti-choice forces. Which lead us to...
The anti-choice forces have a disproportionate opportunity to control Congress and state legislatures not only because of the "intensity of the issue for them, but because in low turnout elections, they can be one of the few mobilized groups. Their power and the sound of their anti-choice fury is amplified by a media infrastructure that rewards conflict and confrontation over civility and enlightened discourse. Unfortunately, the Right is peddling anger and rage, and that apparently is far more compelling entertainment on cable, talk radio, and the Internet.
For more on these topics, see:
"Slippery Slope: Democratic Wavering in the Battle for Reproductive Rights"
"States' Blights: Why the Rights og Gay Couples Can't Be Left to the States"
Posted by: Jon | Nov 6, 2004 6:19:42 PM
That seems true, regarding the states.
Now, Atrios was raging the other day against liberals who question the wisdom or importance of Roe, on the basis that there's no reason why Congress couldn't just pass a nationwide ban on abortion. He's probably right on that narrow point - you could always tie it to the Commerce Clause or what have you. But it seems to me like that would produce the most massive nationwide anti-Republican backlash that you could ever imagine. Which sounds good to me.
Posted by: JP | Nov 6, 2004 6:20:05 PM
I don't think I buy the intensity-of-preference argument, Jon. I know a lot of pro-choice women with pretty intense views. It might seem like they're less intense right now, but that's just because they're sitting on a lead playing defense right now. Pro-life mobilization happened because of the backlash to Roe. A similar overreach by the pro-lifers would likely produce a similar backlash in the opposite direction.
Posted by: JP | Nov 6, 2004 6:23:18 PM
Your flaw here is the assumption that legislative politics are majoritarian. In fact, determined minorities often prevail over diffuse majorities (as I'm sure you know.) Abortion remained legal in the vast majority of states even though these laws were unpopular.
Having said that, overturning Roe would be bad for the Republican Party at the Presidential level. But this doesn't mean that states wouldn't pass abortion legislation, and nor does it mean that a Congress keavily skewed toward Red States because of the malapportioned Senate and H of R gerrmymandering wouldn't pass federal abortion legislation.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 6, 2004 6:23:26 PM
Before Roe, the populace was against abortion. A few years after Roe, when the world had not stopped spinning, public opinion shifted in favor of the legality of Roe.
I contend that if Roe were overturned and abortion made illegal, it would not affect the vast majority of Americans and in a few years public opinion would once again shift against abortion as the natural tendency of people is to support the status quo so long as nothing is obviously wrong.
While the majority of Americans profess some sort of preference that abortion be legal, much of that support is weak, while anti-abortion thinkers tend to have strong support for their political stance.
Posted by: Anthony | Nov 6, 2004 6:25:05 PM
Brett--you countinue to assert that decisions subsequent to Roe expanded the right to abortion. This assertion is completely false. Have you ever considered reading Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld all of the abortion regulations under review except one?
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 6, 2004 6:25:18 PM
Roe is the means.
Getting rid of Griswold is the end.
Because if Griswold goes, they get to run the table.
Any homosexuality, 'deviant' straight sex, sex outside of marriage, the whole nine yards.
All would then fall safely within the police power of the state.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Nov 6, 2004 6:40:02 PM
Gee, I thought Roe meant that all women in the US had the right to control their body. Why would giving up a constitutional right be a good thing?
Posted by: Pudentilla | Nov 6, 2004 6:42:06 PM
Roe established a trimester system under which first trimester abortions would be essentially unregulated, second somewhat regulated, and third trimester could be banned except in the case of medical necessity. The subsequent decisions I'm refering to are the ones that defined "medical necessity" to include being upset about not being allowed to get an abortion.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 6, 2004 6:46:13 PM
Well, as we just saw in the last election, the fundamentalists are a minority (certainly most people who voted R were not fundamentalists), but a highly dsciplined, motivated minority. They wield political power disproportionate to their numbers. They will be able to push statutes through legslatures regardless of the views of the majority of the public. Don't tell me, for example, that a majority of Texans really thought that heterosexual oral sex ought to be criminal, before the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence.
It's also hard for me to see how a new Supreme Court majority could overrule Roe while leaving Lawrence (sexual prvacy) and Griswold (contraceptives) intact.
Posted by: rea | Nov 6, 2004 6:47:48 PM
The main problem with the overturning of Roe is how it's overturned. If a new hard-core conservative Supreme Court declared that fetuses had constitutional rights, and therefore Roe v Wade is unconstitutionial, it would then NOT allow states to pass laws taking away the rights of fetuses by allowing women to abort them. Therefore, it would be a de facto nationwide ban on abortion.
Posted by: Bender Rodriguez | Nov 6, 2004 6:51:42 PM
Brett Bellmore | November 6, 2004 06:46 PM
>The subsequent decisions I'm refering to are the ones that defined "medical necessity" to include being upset about not being allowed to get an abortion.
I'm sure you have specific decisions in mind. If so, provide at least the captions--we can find the actual opinions on Findlaw. I do have to say that your track record in reporting the holdings of various Supreme Court decisions over the years leaves something to be desired.
Posted by: raj | Nov 6, 2004 6:56:49 PM
Roe is a joke and is completely indefensible as constitutional doctrine. I have no moral objections to abortion, but I think Roe is an abomination. It has nothing to do with a constitutional right for women to control their own bodies. If anyone believed that, we would have a constitutional right to drug use and prostitution. I might support a constitutional doctrine like that (it conforms to my own policy preferences, and it's at least consistent), but singling out abortion for constitutional protection is absurd.
Anyone who thinks that banning abortion would lead to banning other contraception is crazy, and has absolutely no understanding of pro-lifers. There is no chance whatsoever of that ever happening. I'm also pretty confident that national anti-abortion legislation isn't much of a risk. A Supreme Court conservative enough to overrule Roe would be too conservative to allow such an extreme stretch of the commerce clause.
Anthony: You're timeline is a little confused. Public opinion had started to shift toward tolerating abortion for several years before Roe. It wasn't caused by Roe.
Posted by: Xavier | Nov 6, 2004 6:57:38 PM
I doubt you're going to see that, in as much as it would logically require charging abortion patients with murder under existing law, and there's not the political support for it.
More likely by far is that the Supreme court would simply declare that abortion was a medical procedure like any other, with no special constitutional status.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 6, 2004 6:59:06 PM
o many people who support the right to abortion do not vote on the issue. This is also why the vast majority of the population supports gun-control yet it's almost impossible to pass reasonable gun-control legislation. it often requires a concerted effort at all levels of government to make representatives follow the public's wishes on such issues.
o state elections get far less attention either from voters or from the media. historically, this has played into the hands of the right who have systematically floated stealth candidates in state and local governments.
o state elections are far more subject to fraud and corruption because of the reduced scrutiny they receive.
all of this has up to now benefitted the right in their determination to see their ideology enforced. of course, in the few recent situations where a state government has taken up a left-wing position (on wetlands, gay rights, death penalty, HMO liability, whatever) the right-wingers at the federal level have thrown states rights straight out the window and imposed their ideology from above.
as others have commented here, the entire program represents an assault on the poor; in many states where abortion is legal, and the majority support some right to abortion, it is virtually impossible for a poor person to get an abortion, and they cannot afford the travel to another state for the purpose. at least one state legislature (I forget which, neighboring Illinois) is considering a law to criminalize helping someone cross into a neighboring state for the purpose of getting an abortion.
state legislatures can also tend to overrepresent rural voters (who are in turn disproportionately right-wing) - witness the ability of rural constituencies to chronically obstruct state spending on public transport that might benefit cities.
leaving this to the states is a way to guarantee that vast numbers of poor people will have their legal right to choose taken away, either by law, intimidation, economic pressure, or a combination.
it is wrong, and politically unsafe, for it to be decided by the Supreme Court, but for the moment it's all we've got and many women's lives depend upon it. in that sense, it is an absolute good.
as to why the majority polling in favor of some right to abortion does not translate into the feasibility of a constitutional amendment protecting it - I don't have an answer for that. Anyone?
Posted by: aa | Nov 6, 2004 6:59:36 PM
I don't believe that most Americans think that fetuses deserve rights at conception. Otherwise, in vitro fertilization would be under attack by the pro-life lobby, and they're staying well away from this issue. (As an aside, I saw an article about the situation in Italy, when IVF clinics now have to live by rules that give rights to the fetus at conception, and this has had a big impact on success rates for IVF.) On the other hand, I think a lot of people are disturbed by late term abortions. So if the right-to-life lobby manages to ban all abortions, and not just late- or even middle-term ones, we may be in for a big backlash.
Posted by: Peter S. | Nov 6, 2004 7:00:59 PM
"Why would giving up a constitutional right be a good thing?"
Matthew probably sees Constitutional Rights as having only instrumental value.
An important question is what kind of judge would it be that would overturn Roe v Wade? Davis above alludes to Griswald (Lawrence? make me laugh), but three or four Scalias and contempt for stare decisis and we are in a world of trouble.
What these people would really like is a return to a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. Hell, they'd probably like to gut the 13th and 14th.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 6, 2004 7:02:45 PM
The problem is that an anti-Roe majority on the court would not declare that abortion is not protected, it would declare that abortion is murder, and therefore illegal. Even if it only declared it not-protected, the federal government could institute a nationwide ban
Posted by: Simon | Nov 6, 2004 7:05:38 PM
Consequently, about the only people you've got in the pro-abortion movement at the moment are radically pro-abortion extremists, and folks who have a wildly inflated notion of how bad it would get if abortion law were subject to the political process again.
...
With all due respect to you, serial, the ultimate goal of the right to life movment's leadership is as you describe it. Their membership, however, consists mostly of people who have far more modest goals.
So basically, the pro-choice movement is to be derided for its leadership of "pro-abortion extremists", while we should cut the pro-life/anti-choice movement some slack because only their leaders are extremists?
I can't say that we should really take anyone who refers to a "pro-abortion" movement seriously anyway... I have yet to meet anyone who thinks abortions are something everyone should have a chance to experience. It'd be great if everyone was sensible enough to use birth control consistently, and if it never, ever failed (and keep in mind the first sign of BC failure is usually a pregnancy), but unfortunately we haven't reached that point yet.
Posted by: latts | Nov 6, 2004 7:16:33 PM
Brett--if (as I assume) you're talking about Stenberg v. Carhart, the doctrine that regulations or bans on late-trimester abotions must have an exemption for the life or health of the mother is straight out of Roe. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not an expansion of the doctrine at all. Bans on D&E abortions would be constitutional if they included these examptions. (Congress didn't do so, of course, because it wants the bans to be struck down, which is much more politically profitable than actually changing the status quo.)
Anyway, the simple fact is that the USSC's abortion doctrine has become more, not less, tolerant of abortion regulation since 1973, your constant assertions otherwise notwithstanding.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 6, 2004 7:18:45 PM
You've pretty much got it, Scott, though I was thinking about Doe v. Bolton. The Court established a supposed trimester criteria which would allow prohibition of abortion in the last three months baring medical necessity. But once you include mental health in medical necessity, and give the doctor complete discretion in the matter, you've got doctors prescribing abortion for women late in pregnancy based on the fact that they'd be upset if they didn't get one. The trimester scheme which was meant to sound so reasonable was rendered a scam.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 6, 2004 7:28:24 PM
I believe that the overturn of Roe v Wade would turn out to be absolute disaster for the Republican party. However, abortion would become illegal in some places, and it would end up costing some women their lives. I want to win, but not that way.
Being anti-abortion is a winner for the Republicans when most people think they will not succeed, since it get them some easy votes. Otherwise, it hurts them. The stratege is to hold the line and convince people that Republicans are very close to succeeding.
On third-trimester abortions, Democrats should drive home the point that the Republicans would rather see a woman die, than allow one to save her life.
Posted by: david1234 | Nov 6, 2004 7:29:59 PM
Roe can only be massively important if the policy it embodies is unpopular nationwide, as it was at the time the decision was handed down.
I would suggest that the reason why the ban on abortion was unpopular at the time of the first hearing of _Roe_ was entirely due to people having firsthand experience with the practical consequences of the ban.
Having to go down to the morgue to ID the body of a sister or daughter or friend who was dead on a cold stainless trolley as a result of a botched illegal abortion was the sort of experience which changed people's attitudes sharply.
Prohibition was repealed because the electorate got a taste of its full spectrum of unpleasant sequelae; I suspect that a reversal of _Roe_ would lead to a similar, legislatively driven, return of abortion rights after a decade or so.
Posted by: marquer | Nov 6, 2004 7:33:31 PM
Aren't birth control pills effectively abortificients, in that fertilized eggs are prevented from implanting and developing?
If abortion is illegal, is the pill illegal? If not, why not?
Back to barrier methods of protection only?
And if abortion is merely a medical procedure, with no special protection, then it is legal, but states can attempt to make it illegal, correct? Then we can expect to get a supreme court ruling on the legality of state's laws making abortion illegal. Is this the expected path?
Posted by: David Glynn | Nov 6, 2004 7:39:06 PM
The key to understanding American attitudes to Abortion is to abandon the idea that Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life is a binary position, either inherently or in how people think about this issue.
First off, a majority of Americans think that some degree of access to abortions is necessary in order to allow women reproductive freedom.
But at the same time, a majority of Americans think abortion is morally wrong and want to limit or abolish abortion.
This sort of situation is quite common in American politics, because most people don't have rigidly ideological political positions. The same phenomenon can be found with regard to the revenue/spending issue (a majority of Americans would like lower taxes. A majority also wants various forms of expanded government spending for whatever helps them.)
Many Americans are basically torn between a sense of the necessity of abortion for women to be free to play a role equal to men in society and the feeling that abortion is morally wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to venture that probably this group outweighs both the 'Abortion for everyone' and 'Abortion for no one' camps.
The ideological rigidity of both the most fervent Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people tends to irritate those in this middle segment, because neither group sees any room for compromise on the issue.
Of course, there is not an even distribution of Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, and Middle View people across the country; some states tilt Pro-Choice, others tilt Pro-Life.
Let's imagine the Republicans overturn Roe v. Wade, but don't manage to pass a Pro-Life Amendment. The result is likely to be that the blue states will retain legal abortion and the red states will mostly ban it, because different parts of the country have different views on it.
Ultimately, I expect that this would not kill the Republican party, because the areas with the most avid support for Pro-Choice positions are the areas where the Republican party is already withering to a permanent minority.
The middle, who are not fervently pro choice or pro life would likely be satisfied to be able to regulate abortion as they like in their localities and probably would not react with outrage.
Now, if the Republicans passed an actual Pro-Life amendment or if the Supreme Court said Abortion is itself unconstitutional, then the middle would likely swing Pro-Choice and you might well have a very nasty backlash for the Republicans.
In conclusion--
Republicans try a national abortion ban, likely to provoke the middle on the issue to swing Pro-choice
Republicans only repeal Roe v. Wade, thus allowing localities to make their own choice, unlikely to hurt Republicans significantly.
That's my view, based on my own experience as a fairly Pro-Life person in Texas and Maryland.
Posted by: John Biles | Nov 6, 2004 8:19:32 PM
In fact, I would go so far as to venture that probably this group outweighs both the 'Abortion for everyone' and 'Abortion for no one' camps.
Abortions for some! Miniature American flags for others!
Posted by: kodos | Nov 6, 2004 8:29:08 PM
Brett--Bolton came down on the same day as Roe, so if that's what you mean it was the quickest doctrinal evilution in history.
It's true that health exemptions are generally vague--but all but the most draconian abortion statutes (which even Rehnquist concedes are unconstitutional) have them, and they're crucial for putting a legal veneer on the de facto policy that most pro-lifers want (i.e. abortion that is illegal, but not so illegal that if the daughter of a prominent citizen gets knocked up she can't get a safe, legal abortion from the family ob-gyn.) But since abortion statutes are enfocred that way in practice no matter how they're written, it doesn't really matter how you phrase it (and this is why Roe was correctly decided. I would be inclined to constitutionally uphold--despite my belief that it's terrible public policy--abortion legislation that was consistently based on the premise of protecting fetal life and was therefore rigorously enforced against all women and doctors. Of course, since the odds of a legal regime like this being implemented are about the same as Alan Keyes getting the Democratic nomination in '08, it's bascially moot.)
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 6, 2004 8:29:39 PM
There's actually a very good book on this, by a doyen of the political web: William Saletan's Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War (link below). IIRC Saletan shows that state initiatives/ referenda in the 1980s and 1990s, even in southern states, could not be won by proposals to completely ban abortion without exceptions, but a certain range of additional "conservative" (i.e. respectful of family authority) restrictions could be approved (e.g. requiring parental approval). Very nicely written too. If MY has pull in the world of internet political commentary, he shd get Saletan to write a full response to his question!
For my own part, I think overturning Roe would lance the boil of Christian Right mobilisation at the national level. As a result of Roe, and the mobilisation it has given the Republican party, the US inter alia has cut taxes for the rich again and again, radically politicised appointments to the judiciary compared to earlier times, shattered the post-WW2 international order and invaded Iraq, and taken on crazy view of the Israel-Palestine conflict (We shall not give up Jacob's Tomb!). None of these issues would mobilise the Christian Right by itself, but all have been fundamentally affected by its mobilisation. Demobilise the nuts, and take the gains on other issues.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520243366/qid=1099790429/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9961006-9668603?v=glance&s=books
Posted by: Otto | Nov 6, 2004 8:34:25 PM
Otto, I have to say, I think you have a good point. I've begun to rethink Roe after Gore v. Bush. In Gore, the SCt ventured into a political Q, somewhere it had no business going. In a sense, the SCt did the same in Roe. If the SCt reverses Roe, which I think likely once O'Connor, Rehnquist and Stevens (the 3 most likely departures) are replaced, they will simply hold that there is no penumbral privacy right that permits abortion and that said permissions must be granted or denied legislatively.
Once that happens, the cover is blown off all the right winger legislators who will now have to #### or get off the pot they've been clanging so mightily for so many years to rally their winger supporters.
It may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
Posted by: moe99 | Nov 6, 2004 8:57:12 PM
Xavier,
While the public was shifting in favor of abortion, it was still generally against abortion until after Roe. The weak middle prefers the status quo unless things appear FUBAR'ed.
I remain convinced that an overturning of Roe would not make a practical difference in the lives of many people and that the "don't rock the boat" crowd would accept that new status quo because it fits the range of what they are willing to accept.
The left should not try to fool itself that, even if the majority of people support the legalization of abortion in some cases, abortion is an issue that will cause people to draw a line in the sand against the a Christian conservative ideology.
Posted by: Anthony | Nov 6, 2004 9:03:50 PM
The silent majority is pro-choice. They also support Democrats. Republicans beware. This is 1964, with the roles reversed.
Posted by: Richard Nixon | Nov 6, 2004 9:10:33 PM
> here is no chance whatsoever of that
> ever happening.
After the 2004 election, I would be really really careful about making that statement, personally.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 6, 2004 9:15:37 PM
I suspect the pro-choice position has majority support in America, despite the recent election results. What remains unpopular is the mechanism by which a national policy was imposed on the states, e.g. Roe v. Wade. Honest jurists sympathetic to the pro-choice position admit that Roe is deeply flawed. All this pap about penumbras is just so much sophistry. Dishonest pro-choice jurists treat Roe as if it had the importance and the moral authority of Brown v. Board of Education. It doesn't.
If Roe were overturned, abortion would not be outlawed overnight; rather, it would be a matter for states to regulate. Would that be so bad?
Overturning Roe would have immediate repercussions and might even cause a drop in support for Republicans, but it could eliminate abortion as a national political issue. That would be, in a sense, a blessing for both national political parties.
If the Court wanted to signal that it was returning to judicial restraint after abandoning it decades ago, it might continue narrowing Roe's reach, bit by bit, decision by decision. A sudden reversal would cause huge shock waves.
Posted by: Matthew Vadum | Nov 6, 2004 9:51:25 PM
Whoops...I meant to write: i.e. Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Matthew Vadum | Nov 6, 2004 9:53:01 PM
I concur with Matthew Vadum. I support the right to abortion, but Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous piece of jurisprudence.
Posted by: Glenn Bridgman | Nov 6, 2004 10:16:16 PM
Bellmore is full of shit, of course.
But for a good summary of where the legal position of abortion stands these days, as opposed to the political position, I'd urge people to read the current edition of Harper's, which describes, in detail, the kind of abortions that Ashcroft's team was arguing for while trying to defend the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. It also notes the truism that, in most cases, the silent exception in abortion law among pro-lifers is 'when it involves me or my family'.
But it also points out that the principles laid out by Roe are anomalous in the developed world, and makes interesting comparisons with other countries in which abortion law is more or less settled -- and in which there are far fewer abortions, in spite of their legality. (Of course, that has something to do with not desiring 17th-century-style sex education.)
Posted by: ahem | Nov 6, 2004 10:18:28 PM
Call me cynical, but have you ever noticed how the anti-choice crowd connects unwanted pregnancy with adoption? You know, the buying and selling of infants--preferably juicy white babies, I suspect.
For example, recently elected Senator Jim DeMint, that jackass from South Carolina, touts his anti-abortion/adoption platform here: http://jimdemint.com/demint_contents/record/prolife.pdf
So here's an idea: In cases where a woman might be inclined to keep a baby but simply can't due to economics, she and her child would remain together, and a nice family (preferably Republican)would put their money where their "morals" are--that is, "adopt" the child anonymously (in reality contribute to a pool), sending money throughout the life of the child till, say, age 25, when his/her education is completed (longer for grad school, of course).
Once "adoptive" families sign on they could not opt out or default. It would be a permanent financial obligation, even if the "adoptive parents" divorce.
Such a plan wouldn't be "welfare," since the government wouldn't be involved, and the child could forgo the psychological baggage of having been adopted; maternal guilt would be a non-issue.
Meanwhile, well-meaning "adoptive parents" taking part in this program would have done their Christian duty without the stench that accompanies the buying and selling children.
So ... if abortion is made illegal, we also make adoption--that is, the buying and selling of children--illegal. And we leave it up to "faith-based" programs to provide.
Posted by: Blue Iris | Nov 6, 2004 10:51:01 PM
The Unconstitutional Roe Vs. Wade decision aborted the Tenth Amendment and Bill of Rights.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 6, 2004 11:12:50 PM
Hey guys,
I know what boys like
I know what guys want
I know what boys like
I've got what boys like
I know what boys like
I know what guys want
I see them looking
I make them want me
I like to tease them
They want to touch me
I never let them
I know what boys like
I know what guys want
I know what boys like, boys
like, boys like me
But you, you're special
I might let you
You're so much different
I might let you
Mmmmm would you like that
I might let you
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 6, 2004 11:16:32 PM
Having said that, overturning Roe would be bad for the Republican Party at the Presidential level.
Precisely the opposite is true.
Think about it. Bush was reelected, but only by the narrowest of margins (I think you have to go back to Woodrow Wilson to find a lower margin). In other words, getting 270 electoral votes is hard (as it is for the Dems, too).
Now, we know the reason for this: about half the country (in population tems) deems conservative Republicans unsuitable for the White House. (and we just found out what the other half thinks of liberal Democrats).
But because pro-life voters have little or no way to express their political preference except in presidential contests (they sure can't express it in state elections because of Roe), such voters are present in large numbers in GOP primaries. Thus, only pro-life candidates can get the GOP nomination to run for the White House. Many a GOP-leaning voter simply cannot vote for, say, a Guiliani or Tom Ridge (even if the candidate has lots of attributes and policy positions they find agreeable) because it would mean a violation of conscience.
So, long story short, if abortion were once again primarily an issue for the states (because of the overturning of Roe), millions of Republican voters would likely be "freed" to vote for more moderate Republicans (who would at least have some chance of getting the nomination, whereas they have absolutely no chance whatsoever right now). It's not that in such circumstances abortion would never come up, but even GOP politicians who personally have no problem with abortion, and who personally believe favor abortion rights, would be able to simply answer the inevitable questions by saying "Being a firm believer in federalism, I support our current approach delegating abortion law to the states. Next question."
Now, getting back to the electoral math; in a post-Roe world, the possibility of nominating, say, a Guiliani or Colin Powell or Mitt Romney increases significantly (from near zero to a much higher number). And a moderate Republican would find it much easier to triangulate than a right-winger. Dubya might not have been competitive in New York or Illinois, but Arnold Schwarzenegger most certainly would be (side note to Democrats: couldn't you take some comfort in knowing that, even if certain Republican politicians got politically stronger as a result of dumping Roe, at least there's a better chance your next Republican president might be a Manhattanite?).
Now, the obvious corollary to this is that in a post-Roe world, the Democrats would find themselves a lot more competitive in the Red States; as a usual GOP voter, I'd gladly pay that price for a return to a less emotionally-charged, more constructive form of national politics. I think in general our political life would become a lot less depressingly predictable and colorless.
So, the net/net is both parties would derive certain benefits from a post-Roe landscape, and thus neither would be weakened or strenthened relative to the other. It's just that during presidential elections, instead of the occassional passing reference to policy as they busily go about the business of calling each other monsters, candidates might actually have some substantive discussions on, oh, I dunno, foreign policy, trade, the economy, education...
In my book that wouldn't be a completely bad thing.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Nov 6, 2004 11:36:34 PM
There are those on the right who oppose birth control, absolutely. Why do the moderates deny this? Some women have been denied birth control pills by pharmacists due to their moral opposition to the use of the pill!
Also, how are all you who think Roe v. Wade is a bad decision (although you support choice) so sure? In my judgment, this is an old right-wing talking point. Have you read Roe? Have you read research by those who think the decision was not bad, as well as by those who think it was? Do you think Griswold is bad as well? Does the Constitution not protect our right to raise our children on our own, even though it is not enumerated specifically? Does it not protect the right to have children if one chooses? Surely, the privacy of the home and one's body is assumed as a right even if not specifically stated anywhere. And abortion was not traditionally illegal before the quickening (around 16 weeks). Read the history of abortion in Roe v. Wade itself. It's very enlightening if you have never read it.
I'm so sick of the "activist judges" bull and the constant attack on the wonderful Supreme Courts of the not-so-recent-anymore past. We should all cease to believe these lies, in the post 2004 election era. We've been letting the right wing control our discourse with their vitriol and their lies. I for one will do this no longer. I will now become the liberal equivalent of the narrow-tie wearing young republican men of my college (class of 1988) youth. I urge all of you to also become constant gadflies and except none--NONE--of their control of the discourse with their unproven assertions.
Posted by: Lisa | Nov 6, 2004 11:39:39 PM
A question I have is why abortion has become such a concerning issue for Christians in the last half century, when it was hardly an issue for the previous nineteen hundred years?
Up until the 19th century the Catholic Church did not consider abortion a serious sin. In fact, even while many Christian theologians believed that abortion was evil, early abortions were considered permissible under certain circumstances, and Augustine and Aquinas argued that life did not really start until a viable fetus was formed. Even when abortion was given a universal condemnation by the Church it was not originally considered as serious a sin as, say, adultery.
For an act that has been happening since the beginning of time, Christ saw fit not to mention it in the New Testament. If it is such a terrible evil, why not? And is there some underlying psycho-social reason that it came to the forefront in the twentieth century?
And lest anyone care to flame me to a crisp for asking these questions, I will just say that I believe in respecting life and believe that abortion should be avoided if at all possible, but I don't for a moment believe either a human life or a higher soul begins at the moment of conception. To my mind that is a contrivance of the last thirty years designed to make a complex issue simpler and a better sell to a populace seeking to understand it.
Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 6, 2004 11:56:54 PM
To be honest, I'm not that hip on the Roe decision. Conservatives have a point when they say let people vote on it. That in mind, I do think that the first thing conservatives would do if the right to choose was federalized would be to move to outlaw it altogether. At the same time, with a conservative enough court, even if the Reps felt a backlash for outlawing abortion and Dems gained a majority, a law reintroduced law allowing abortion would doubtless be overturned by the Court. And, it would be for the same reason Simon indicates, the court "would declare that abortion is murder, and therefore illegal."
Fetal rights would rule the day. Backlash or not, conservatives win.
Posted by: KC | Nov 7, 2004 12:20:22 AM
Lisa: One can agree with the objective but disagree with the means by which it was achieved.
Roe v. Wade is an abomination, and yes, I have read it. For anyone who wants background info. it may be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade. The decision itself may be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
The Roe decision is bizarre and logic-defying. For example, Justice Rehnquist properly noted in his dissent at the time that "The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment." Justice White denounced Roe as "an exercise of raw judicial power" and wrote in his dissent that he could "find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers." The Court thought the right should exist so it created it out of thin air. That's not the way things are supposed to be done in America. We have legislatures to make laws.
Posted by: Matthew Vadum | Nov 7, 2004 12:23:03 AM
You can get an abortion in Texas in the cities. That's where most people live so it's wash.
In a number of states there are almost no clinics, so abortion has been de facto outlawed.
If Roe v. Wade goes down, it won't change that either way. I agree that the R's will attempt to pass a law outlawing abortion nationwide, just like the partial-birth abortion ban. They can't pass an amendment, there is not near enough support.
If it comes down to the states, the bulk of the population WILL have access to abortion. And the rest will fight it out at the state houses.
If the D's act to preemptively embrace federalism on that and other social issues, they can break the Republican majority, and probably take the southwest.
Otherwise...
ash
['War, war, and more war.']
Posted by: ash | Nov 7, 2004 12:52:20 AM
Cranky--I'm confident that my statement is true. If anything defines Bushism, it's the unwillingness of the powerful to make sacrifices.
Lisa--Roe is a correct decision supported by a weak opinion. It's a logical application of well-settled privacy law. (Also, the idea that "penumbras" represent direputable legal reasoning is just complete and utter nonsense. The concept that rights imply other rights as buffer zones is banal, and can be seen in many of the USSC's greatest decisions--most notably McCulloch v. Maryland. Rights whose existence nobody disputes--including the freedom of association--are penumbural. And, of course, the power of judicial review is itself penumbral; it's nowhere stated as such in the Constitution.)
At any rate, while Roe isn't a very good opinion, in this it's hardly unusual. Compared to Bush v. Gore or Seminole Tribe v. Florida (along with any number of Rehnquist Court landmarks most people who describe Roe as an abomination never talk about), it's brilliant legal reasoning.
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | Nov 7, 2004 12:59:37 AM
Look, no legislature on the state or national level would need to take ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER. If the Supremes declare that Fetuses are persons under the 14th Amendment, DAs canjust start prosecuting women and their doctors on a straight up murder charge.
Posted by: Simon | Nov 7, 2004 1:15:03 AM
Windhorse--
Abortion is a major question today because it is legal and (debatably) more common than in times past. In the past,it was illegal and something that was largely invisible to society when it happened and thus not much thought of.
In the current age, it is often also tied to worries about sexual immorality, with the idea that its proponents basically are endorsing consequenceless extra-marital sex.
(As for Christ, see above. It was not, at the time, a major issue that needed pronouncing on.)
Posted by: John Biles | Nov 7, 2004 1:18:48 AM
Abortion is an issue that should be legislated on by those elected. The current status quo where it is effectively decided on by a group of unelected judges interpreting unclear laws is insane and all the concentration on Roe v Wade and what the supreme court will do has to a large extent led to the increased politicization of the judiciary over the last few decades. Abortion is an issue that politicians should be brave enough to deal with.
Posted by: G | Nov 7, 2004 1:55:47 AM
Well, I'm pro-choice, but I think Roe is a crappy decision that makes little sense from a logical or Constitutional perspective.
The biggest contradiction within the decision is that it declares that a fetus is not a person, yet states can start making restrictions after the 1st trimester. So if it's not a person, what are they restricting?
I do think Roe should be revisited. From a privacy perspective the Supremes had a point. But I do think we need to determine just when someone becomes a "person" and has the rights of a person from a legal perspective. And such a concept is not one that can be legislated, because it falls within the realm of natural rights, which cannot be changed. So the Supreme Court must decide this one definitively at some point.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Nov 7, 2004 2:15:14 AM
If abortion rights were legislated there would be a large chunk of the population that would only vote based upon this issue. I for one am glad that it doesn't dominate the state legislature races. I don't think pro-life and pro-choice zealots would neccessarily be the best people to sit down and work out compromises on budget or tax issues.
This is a wedge issue. It is dividing the people in our country. I would like to see politicians address issues that can bring our country together.
1) government efficiency
2) ban on gerrymandering
3) transparent elections and government
4) campaign finance reform
5) constitutional limits on deficit spending
any other ideas?
Posted by: fle | Nov 7, 2004 2:39:41 AM
Those who say that the legality of a abortion should be determined by the states are off the mark both on a philisophical level and a practical level. Roe v. Wade may be flawed but there is at least a recognition that grave matters such as the decision to terminate a preganancy should lie on the woman rather than the government be it at the state or federal level. For states to determine the legality of abortion would be discriminatory, in that some women will have more opportunites in obtaining an abortion than others simply because of geography. In other words, the right of privacy is an issue concerning individual rights not states'rights.
I know that some will answer that she can always travel to another state. What many overlook: 1. Obtaining abortions are already expensive so why make them more so by adding traveling costs. 2. Also, many women have to take time off from work just to travel to another state. 3. It overlooks the fact that there are regions (the south, in particular) where obtaining an abortion will require a woman to travel great distances to places like New York. 4. Women are forced to delay obtaining an abortion because of all of the plainning. She just can't pick up and go. 5. It is discriminatory to poor women, who may not have the time or resources to travel to another state.
Posted by: MGJ | Nov 7, 2004 4:47:15 AM
Personhood should be determined by viability. It is absurd to say that fetuses have the same rights as those who are already born. To say that a fetus is the same as those born, elides the fact that the life and health of the a woman should not be sacrifced for the fetus.
Posted by: MGJ | Nov 7, 2004 5:00:35 AM
MGJ, we live in the United States, and in the United States, we have this thing called the constitution, and in the constitution is this concept called federalism. It would be good for you to acknowledge this.
Posted by: Glenn Bridgman | Nov 7, 2004 5:08:41 AM
I don't really understand this "moderate restrictions on medically unnecessary late-term abortions" stuff. Something like 90% of abortions are in the first trimester anyway. Those that happen in the 3rd semester are usually medically necessary anyway. It seems to me that if we judiciously put limited restrictions on abortion -- you can't get an abortion if you're past the 1st or 2nd trimester AND the abortion isn't necessary to your life and health -- we'd basically ban abortions that almost never happen in the first place.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Nov 7, 2004 5:51:01 AM
If the anti-abortion crowd was actively engaged in efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies, such as comprehensive sex-ed, handing out free condoms and facilitating access to the morning-after pill, then I could take them much more seriously. Alas, they're not, in fact they tend to actively oppose such measures, leading me to the conclusion that this is mostly about sex.
Posted by: novakant | Nov 7, 2004 6:59:24 AM
Anybody who thinks the anti-choice crowd won't try to ban condoms just hasn't been paying attention. That "abstinence" education that is probably already in a school near you tells kids condoms don't work and they shouldn't use them.
My county has 'red-state values' and our teen pregnancy rate is one of the highest in the state.
Posted by: serial catowner | Nov 7, 2004 9:23:20 AM
It's easy for the GOP to get lots of people whipped up about abortion because it impacts only a few. They just have to flatter people into thinking being anti-abortion makes them moral paragons. But, as correctly pointed out above, banning abortion means birth control pills have to go, then lots of people will not be so sure.
Posted by: ESaund | Nov 7, 2004 9:47:30 AM
"I don't really understand this "moderate restrictions on medically unnecessary late-term abortions" stuff. Something like 90% of abortions are in the first trimester anyway. Those that happen in the 3rd semester are usually medically necessary anyway. ... we'd basically ban abortions that almost never happen in the first place."
Julian, first, we don't actually KNOW what percentage of third trimester abortions are genuinely medically necessary. The records quite deliberately aren't kept. We HAVE been assured by one prominent abortionist, Ron Fitzsimmons, of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, that it's a lot more than the abortion industry says it is, that he's lied publicly about it himself, and is sick of it.
But the real answer to this is: Every year, only a minute fraction of the people who die are murdered... So why do we insist on having laws against murder?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 7, 2004 10:13:43 AM
I do acknowlege that we have a federalist system, but in some instances: right to privacy( e.g. anti-sodomy laws or abortion) , equal protection ( e.g. voting rights) would be better understood under the rubric of individual rights rather than states rights. It is all about self-determination which is an inalienable right that transcends time and place.
Federalism is more applicable to issues like gun control, etc but not to abortion.
Posted by: MGJ | Nov 7, 2004 12:51:13 PM
I have been on the board of a national pro choice organization for 12 years. So the best case scenario is that Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens stay and the only resignations are one of the three most consevative. We need Sandra Day O'Connor.
Kennedy is the issue. (He won't overturn Roe but he will vote for national bans masquerading as something else.) I'll tell you why later. The above is the best case scenario, believe it or not the next best case scenario is to overturn Roe. v. Wade. Because there are states like New York where the the abortion laws were repealed prior to Roe. If Roe is overturned then NY and Calif would still have abortion available.
The national danger is passing a national law which affects abortion from criminalizing the crossing state lines to get an abortion to what is staring us in the face, which is passing once more the so called "Partial Birth Abortion Act". I am sure you are astonished by this assertion, but that is because most people are so ill informed as to the exact language of the Act that they have no idea how absolultely sweeping an abortion ban it is. The language is deliberately vague and broad, it has nothing to do really with the propaganda about "about to be born" babies. The exact language outlaws all abortion procedures which go through the "birth canal" which is the same as the vaginal canal. Well, except for C-sections, EVERY , I will repeat, every abortion procedure goes through the vaginal canal. Ergo the Act could, dependent upon any new language, BAN, I repeat ban, almost all abortions nationally. With this law there would no need to do something that shocks the public like a new national law or repealing Roe.
That is why Kennedy is important because O'Connor voted against the Act in Stenberg v. Carhart, while Kennedy voted for upholding the Act. Overturning Roe directly might give the right some visceral satisfaction but it's not the best tactic.
Posted by: debra | Nov 7, 2004 1:03:30 PM
brett
I have now read all your comments. You sound like one of those people who are not afraid to be fools. Your facts are often wrong in each one of your postings. Let's go to Mr. Fitzsimmons and his organization. He was referring to in his infamous statement not to third trimester abortions but 2nd trimester abortions performed using D and E. And his organiztion was peripheral and out ot the loop.
You constantly misdate and mischaracterize Supreme Court decisions. You certainly have the arrogance of the misinformed.
link to some better info http://slate.msn.com/id/2086/
Posted by: debra | Nov 7, 2004 1:34:58 PM
Brett Bellmore:
Julian, first, we don't actually KNOW what percentage of third trimester abortions are genuinely medically necessary. The records quite deliberately aren't kept.
This statement is essentially meaningless, because "medically necessary" is such a vague and subjective standard. Medically necessary for what? To protect a woman's health? Define "health." To protect a woman's life? How great must the risk be to her life or health before the abortion qualifies as "necessary?" 10%? 50%? 90%? And who decides? The primary physician? A board of doctors? A legislature?
It is precisely because it is impossible in practise to make clear evaluations of medical "necessity" that it is impossible to say how many abortions are medically "necessary." It's not a matter of record-keeping, it's a matter of the intrinsically fuzzy nature of questions of health and risk.
Posted by: Fred | Nov 7, 2004 3:31:31 PM
It is precisely because it is impossible in practise to make clear evaluations of medical "necessity" that it is impossible to say how many abortions are medically "necessary." It's not a matter of record-keeping, it's a matter of the intrinsically fuzzy nature of questions of health and risk.
But it's questions like these that make abortion such an unsuitable matter for the extraordinarily blunt instrument of national law. At least when such regulations are formulated at the state level, they're subject to the pressure, to the fine-turning, and to the revisions, that flow from the political process.
Now, I can understand why the abortion rights movement favors a de facto standard of no state regulation at all (incorporated as constitutional law). They naturally want to declare victory, and end the war. I would want exactly the same were I in their shoes.
But this has been most unwieldy in practice. Telling voters (for instance) that they can have no say on whether or not their children undergo a medical procedure, or whether or not seven-month old fetuses may be aborted in their community -- well, such are the realities of the Roe standard, at least how it's viewed in the red states. Quite naturally, this has provoked a backlash.
Are questions about what constitute medical necessity fuzzy or difficult? Sure. Are they impossible to answer, and to embody in the law? Absolutely not. That's what the legislative process is for.
Posted by: Rocky | Nov 7, 2004 4:18:20 PM
Rocky:
But it's questions like these that make abortion such an unsuitable matter for the extraordinarily blunt instrument of national law.
No, it's questions like these that make abortion such an unsuitable matter for statutory law, period. It doesn't matter whether the legislature in question is the federal congress or a state congress. Neither is in a position to craft just and effective laws that can reliably distinguish "medically necessary" abortions from other abortions.
Telling voters (for instance) that they can have no say on whether or not their children undergo a medical procedure, or whether or not seven-month old fetuses may be aborted in their community -- well, such are the realities of the Roe standard, at least how it's viewed in the red states.
Those are different issues than "medical necessity," but they raise equally troublesome complications. What if the parent is also the fetus's father? What if the child is at risk of being harmed if her parents discover that she is pregnant? As with all other aspects of abortion, it's complicated. The Supreme Court has never ruled that Roe precludes every possible variation of a parental notification or consent law, but in practise the merit and effectiveness of such laws is highly questionable.
Are questions about what constitute medical necessity fuzzy or difficult? Sure. Are they impossible to answer, and to embody in the law? Absolutely not.
Then what is your answer? Define "health." Does it include mental health? If so, what kinds of mental health? What kinds of physical health? How serious does the risk have to be before an abortion may qualify as "medically necessary?" And who decides? You say these questions can be answered, so what are the answers? Of course, you could just arbitarily draw lines, but doesn't mean those lines are just or effective. The point is that there are no clear lines. That is why, ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is and must be left to a woman in consultation with her doctors, her family, her priest and anyone else she sees fit to consult, not to a state legislature.
Posted by: Fred | Nov 7, 2004 4:44:37 PM
Matt, just jumping in at the bottom of the thread. But a question: have you ever heard of the concept of RIGHTS?
Posted by: Rick Perlstein | Nov 7, 2004 11:54:47 PM
This whole free speech thing polls pretty well. I think we should overturn the First Amendment and take our chances in the state legislatures.
Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | Nov 8, 2004 12:03:40 AM
No one is really comfortable with the idea of abortion, especially snd/3rd trimester abortion. However, individually, women recognize that they want it available as an option. The rhetoric on both sides of this questions doesn't take into account that abortion is not really a simple choice, like butter or cream cheese on a bagel, but an in extremis decision. As far as politics go, it's not something you can get really excited about. Oh boy! I can get an abortion now! The way people can get excited about it is to frame the debate as a question of government control. There are places where the goernment should not be able to step and this is one of them.
Posted by: cathy Sullivan | Nov 8, 2004 12:23:06 PM
Windhorse:
A question I have is why abortion has become such a concerning issue for Christians in the last half century, when it was hardly an issue for the previous nineteen hundred years?
Up until the 19th century the Catholic Church did not consider abortion a serious sin. In fact, even while many Christian theologians believed that abortion was evil, early abortions were considered permissible under certain circumstances, and Augustine and Aquinas argued that life did not really start until a viable fetus was formed. Even when abortion was given a universal condemnation by the Church it was not originally considered as serious a sin as, say, adultery.
For an act that has been happening since the beginning of time, Christ saw fit not to mention it in the New Testament. If it is such a terrible evil, why not? And is there some underlying psycho-social reason that it came to the forefront in the twentieth century?
- Increased acceptance of recreational (and non-marital) sex.
- Increased female careerism.
- Increased childlessness, particularly among middle- and upper-middle-class whites.
I've long supsected that what really animates a lot of "right to life" types isn't actually concern for the lives of fetuses, but the lifeSTYLES of adults, partitularly adult women.
Social conservatives believe that if they can get abortion (and eventually contraception) outlawed, then they can put women back in the home, reduce or eliminate sexual activity among teens and unmarried adults, and otherwise de-facilitate the modern lifestyle choices that they find untenable.
Posted by: Wally Ballou | Nov 8, 2004 2:29:57 PM
Windhorse: The reason the Catholic Church has changed its stance on abortion is the advancement of medical science. Until the nineteenth century, it was believed that life didn't begin until the fourth month (the quickening), after which abortions were pretty much medically impossible anyway, since as I understand it they would almost inevitably have killed the mother, plus it would already be obvious that she was pregnant so why bother? (My understanding is that the cost and the risk of abortion prior to antibiotics was such that it was almost always undertaken for the hiding of a publicly inconvenient pregnancy, rather than, say, for economic reasons.)
Advances in medical science pinpointed conception at 1-7 days after sexual intercourse, not 3+ months later, at which point the Catholic Church revised its position on abortion--as did many civil governments.
Posted by: Jane Galt | Nov 8, 2004 4:27:56 PM
Regarding contraception:
Drug companies are going to be VERY VERY VERY unhappy if millions of women are prohibited from taking expensive monthly pills that they usually take for a decade or more.
Middle-class suburban women are going to be VERY VERY VERY unhappy to be told by the government that they must have tons of kids.
They'll try to overturn Griswold anyway. Moderate Republicans are in for a real big surprise real soon.
Posted by: Alderaan | Nov 8, 2004 4:38:36 PM
Thanks Jane! I appreciate the information.
Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 8, 2004 7:44:03 PM
Then it's a darned good thing that nobody is going to prohibit those pills, or tell those women that, now that they're the majority of the voters, isn't it?
Windhorse, he speaks of abortions from 20 weeks on. You may, if you wish, assume that he's only talking about a three week window. I didn't take it that way.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 8, 2004 8:28:32 PM
This is such an important thread that bloglines claims it is new, and has been new ever since you posted it.
Or maybe there is something wrong with your RSS generation?
Posted by: jerry | Nov 9, 2004 1:23:06 AM
So some here think Roe is an "abomination?" I think this entire discussion is an abomination.
The idea that we would entertain - indeed, for some, welcome - the loss of a protected right as part of some political gambit is a disgrace. And make no mistake, that is exactly what is being proposed.
Some here are, I'm sure, too young to remember the legal battles, the back alley deaths (while the rich could always find a friendly and discreet doctor), the symbolism of a wire coat hanger. They at least can be accused only of shallow thinking.
For others, there is no excuse.
I invite everyone to ask themselves if we would even be having this discussion if the case was Brown v. Board of Education rather than Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: LarryE | Nov 9, 2004 5:12:51 AM
No, we wouldn't. Because Brown v. Board of education wasn't about securing the right of one person to KILL ANOTHER PERSON!!! And you will never grasp abortion politics as long as you leave that part out. By comparison, the fact that Brown at least had a constitutional leg to stand on is trivial.
I swear, you people are like slave owners in the South, insisting that slavery was a property rights issue, and nothing else. You don't just miss the obvious, your position is DEPENDENT on missing the obvious. And that's why you're losing. You lost the moment they invented ultrasound, and the fetus was no longer "out of sight, out of mind". It's just taking time to play out.
Seriously. If women's bellies were transparent, the Roe court would have been lynched.
If you had a scrap of sense, you'd think this through, and chose some high ground that's actually defensible in light of current knowlege of fetal development, and the brute fact that people can now SEE babies in the womb. Because you ARE going to lose the low ground, and if you're stubborn enough, you could lose it all.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 6:08:59 AM
I have to agree with Brett's point; if people could have seen the fetus in the womans's belly, abortion after hominization would very likely be illegal for a long time now.
And Brett, you need to understand that your great frustration with people not understanding that abortion is KILLING is exactly equivalent to the frustration of people who think don't think it's OK to go into Iraq and rack up tens of thousands of casualties just for our geopolitical benefit.
And similarly, if Americans were grown up and had a media like most of the rest of the world that showed the actual images and human suffering of war, I think the Bush administration would have been symbolically lynched by now for its actions.
Brett, there aren't very many voices like yours suggesting that pro-choice forces take some "high ground" in order to maybe secure the right to early abortions while ceding the right to later ones. The entire Catholic portion of the movement believes that life begins at conception -- period -- as does much much of the rest of the pro-life movement. They are going to be as unhappy with morning-after abortifacients as they are with second-trimester abortions, and they are already dug in one hill removed in that they believe that contraception is immoral.
Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 9, 2004 9:29:58 AM
Another problem is that Dems don't use vivid enough language to defend their position. Here is what I mean:
We had a very aggressive Dem running against an established Rep. for State Rep. At a candidate's night, which was televised on local community access, one of the Rep.'s supporters asked our candidate if he backed gay marriage, late term abortions, and conceal and carry laws.
Note that on the abortion question, the issue wasn't do you support abortions, but do you support late term abortions. He answered no, but didn't take the matter further. Here is what he could have said in response:
"I don't back late term abortions, but the real issue here is why my opponent believes that women who are raped, or the victim of incest, should have to carry the baby to term. A young woman, who is the victim of incest by her uncle, shouldn't have to worry about being pregnant. A woman who is raped shouldn't have to worry about being pregnant."
We don't use such phrasing in our answers. Most Dems say something like "I don't back late term abortions unless they are to protect the health of the mother." That's a nice answer, but doesn't really invoke the emotions the way the above answer would, or some variation of that answer.
Note that my intention here isn't to get drawn into the debate over late term abortions, but rather to show that Dems need to go on the offensive about this issue. Why aren't we, for example, running ads that use the terms "rape" and "incest" and say things like, "If your daughter, mother, wife, or girlfriend is raped, we think she should have the right to an abortion, our opponents don't think they should. What do you think?"
In other words, be as vivid in our language as they are in their language.
Posted by: mrgavel | Jan 27, 2005 3:46:25 AM
