« Kennan Dead | Main | Do You Think... »
The Elusive Middle
Why are Republicans always intransigently blocking efforts to find a middle ground on abortion? Seriously -- why? For some, it's because they're more interested in dogmatic efforts to turn back the entire sexual revolution than they are in reducing the number of abortions. For others -- more, I suspect -- they would just rather keep the issue as hot and burning as possible to maintain the loyalty of their grassroots. Constructive solutions would only make electoral politics harder.
March 18, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834580bc369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Elusive Middle:
» Reducing Abortions = Anathema to GOP from Polemic Propaganda
That's not a completely accurate statement. In fact, given the 53-47 vote yesterday in the Senate to reject an amendment from Senators Clinton and Schumer that would have significantly reduced the number of unplanned pregnancies in the U.S., at least a... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 18, 2005 4:25:39 PM
» Abortion from Kalblog
Matthew Yglesias: Why are Republicans always intransigently blocking efforts to find a middle ground on abortion? Seriously -- why? For some, it's because they're more interested in dogmatic efforts to turn back the entire sexual revolution than they a... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 19, 2005 2:00:57 AM
» All Ross, all the Time from Asymmetrical Information
Mr Douthat also has an excellent post pointing out that the much vaunted Democratic "compromise" on abortion isn't actually a compromise, insofar as it doesn't actually involve, y'know, Democrats giving anything up. Myself, I'm pretty sceptical of the ... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 19, 2005 12:35:06 PM
» All Ross, all the Time from Asymmetrical Information
Mr Douthat also has an excellent post pointing out that the much vaunted Democratic "compromise" on abortion isn't actually a compromise, insofar as it doesn't actually involve, y'know, Democrats giving anything up. Myself, I'm pretty sceptical of the ... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 28, 2006 11:41:12 AM
Comments
MY,
What would you consider a middle ground?
Say, outlaw abortions in the 3rd trimester except to save the mother. No culling of twins/triplets down to one, except for above. Outlaw abortions except for rape/incest? Just outlaw the partial birth abortions? How about just eliminating Row and letting the state legislatures write the law (or for that matter Congress make a national law)? Get the courts out of it nd give it back to the people through their reps (state or federal)?
Just wondering...
Posted by: buffpilot | Mar 18, 2005 2:33:31 PM
buffpilot,
"The amendment would have increased funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs, expanded health insurance coverage for birth control, and increased education about emergency contraception."
-from the provided link
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 2:37:20 PM
It has nothing to do with reducing abortions. It has everything to do with controlling women. That is why there are so many attempt to limit access to birth control.
You can't talk policy with extremists.
Posted by: Alice Marshall | Mar 18, 2005 2:41:10 PM
When I was working on the campaign in Ohio this fall, I met a gentleman who had left the presidency of the local RIght to Life after he realized that they wouldn't compromise at all, and that they were, as he put it "Just another wing of the Republican party."
He remained fervently pro-life, but decided that it wasn't something for the federal government to be involved in. We had a few very interesting discussions.
Posted by: Brew | Mar 18, 2005 2:44:28 PM
Mr. Yglesias,
Abortion is not the only issue here, as in this bill. Public morality is also an issue.
To extend the Catholic argument I have been having in an earlier thread, the promotion of contraception is also a problem, and forbidden.
Some other conservatives may have a different issue with this, but that is mine.
I really should get a Jesuit to work on this stuff, you have in me a poor specimen of a Catholic.
Posted by: luisalegria | Mar 18, 2005 2:44:59 PM
Alice: are efforts to limit access to condoms (opposition of condom giveaways, say) attempts to control men?
(I also have to say that I'm with buffpilot in failing to see the proposal in question as a "middle ground" in the Abortion debate. I mean, unless you buy into the far right's absurd caricature of the left as wanting to maximize the number of abortions that happen, exactly what compromises is the pro-choice side offering in this proposal?)
Posted by: Jeff R. | Mar 18, 2005 2:47:38 PM
coach,
Couldn't get the link to work. Had to guess. It works for me now. Thanks.
Doesn't change my question.
My answer is throw it to the state legislatures and have them fight it out, where there is accountability (ie next election) to the voters. Not perfect but would lower the noise level on the subject and put it in the right part of the government.
Posted by: buffpilot | Mar 18, 2005 2:48:43 PM
Conservatism today has only two unwavering tenets:
1. Transfer of money from poor to rich, for the elites.
2. Anti-abortion for the masses
There is NO other policy that is not transgressed.
Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 2:53:43 PM
buffpilot,
personally, I wouldn't mind it in the legislatures, but the Federal government should have the ability to legislate it, imho.
The proper policy, also imho, would be for abortion policy to be left to the discretion of the woman and her doctors -- i.e. a federal law imposing that policy.
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 2:58:00 PM
I hate to sound like a contrarian, but pro-abortion advocates also engage in the same type of behavior, (whether or not they are reflexive opposite of the dogmatic anti-abortion side, that's how they act). And part of it stems with the way that abortion was originally marketed at middle class america, as a choice (who doesnt like choices?!), and now there's a backlash against that.
Cynthia Gorney has a good sum up of the current state of the abortion fight, in November's Harper's titled "Gambling with Abortion"
Posted by: azad | Mar 18, 2005 2:58:33 PM
The middle ground that just happens to be what you believe. If the current electoral politics doesn't show that you are not in the middle, then nothing will I guess.
Posted by: Chad | Mar 18, 2005 2:58:34 PM
Every abortion kills a future serf. It's unacceptable.
Posted by: abb1 | Mar 18, 2005 2:59:26 PM
Perhaps there is middle ground on botched partial birth abortions. If the child pops out alive (oops!) would banning the killing of the young one (baby or lump of cells as your politics dictates) be acceptable?
Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 3:06:22 PM
Chad,
I think the post is pretty clearly declaring that MY believes that most of the people running on a anti-abortion stance are more interested in keeping abortions around as a political tool, rather than implementing policy that would reduce those abortions, thus undercutting its political saliency.
The assumption is that both sides, theoretically, want fewer abortions. There are empirical studies of policies that attempt to do that. One would think that if the political were not at odds with the theoretical, those policies that reduced abortion would be the middle ground.
Personally, I am not so sure the (R)s are as much hypocritical, as they are just wrongheaded in general in their approach to policy --> basically, principle trumps empiricism for them, where in my mind principle is more a mental short cut for thinking about emprical results.
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 3:06:56 PM
"Every abortion kills a future serf. It's unacceptable."
A terse and beautiful condensation of the purposes of sexual mores between feudalistic aristocratic societies and capitalist democratic societies. The BOPNews people have discussed the economic rationale for the Republican social agenda.
abb1 my hero
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 18, 2005 3:07:05 PM
As Democratic as I may be, I think this certainly is not an example of "democrats offering compromise". And it is in general Republicans wanting half-measures and being unable to get them, not Democrats. Not that democrats are refusing to offer, but as long as prochoice advocates only use Roe v Wade for their legitimacy, compromise doesn't make any sense - and isn't even possible. I imagine the SCOTUS would have to strike down limitations even if they were endorsed by NARAL.
Now why do Republicans continue to push for ineffective faith based sex ed instead of actual preventitive measures, and then complain every life created and then killed is a tragedy before God? Well that's a more reasonable question.
Posted by: Tony Vila | Mar 18, 2005 3:09:40 PM
I'm pro-choice, but, in response to my's ?
If someone honestly believes that abortion is murder, then there can be no middle ground. To those who take this view, calling for compromise on abortion is similar to calling for the pre-civil rights era government to negotiate with hate groups to lower the number of lynchings rather than prosecuting the offenders.
Posted by: flip | Mar 18, 2005 3:10:50 PM
"The assumption is that both sides, theoretically, want fewer abortions."
Just why would the abortion industry want fewer abortions? Livelihoods depend on a steady flow of customers.
Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 3:12:55 PM
"Just why would the abortion industry want fewer abortions? Livelihoods depend on a steady flow of customers."
Interesting how they are the ones with proposals that actually do reduce them.
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 3:15:24 PM
"Interesting how they are the ones with proposals that actually do reduce them."
Talk is cheap. Proposals never reduce or increase anything.
Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 3:22:07 PM
Re: To extend the Catholic argument I have been having in an earlier thread, the promotion of contraception is also a problem, and forbidden.
To Catholics, yes. It is not forbidden to any other major Christian church, nor to the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, or secular people. And indeed, even a majority of Catholics seem to think the Vatican is out to lunch on this one, which (IMO) is a clear signal that there’s something wrong with the doctrine since the Faithful refuse to receive it in practice.
For sure though no church has any business trying to write its unique sectarian precepts into public law for all of us. Imagine what you would think if the Baptists tried to outlaw infant baptism, if the Jews and Muslims got together and tried to outlaw pork, or if the Mormons banned coffee?
Posted by: JonF | Mar 18, 2005 3:32:06 PM
I'm worried that in 20 years, when they are regularly genetically modifying human life in other countries, we're still going to be stuck in endless and myopic so-called right to life debate.
Talk about navel gazing before the decline!
Yes, morality has a place in public discourse, but everything in public discourse has limits. Otherwise there ceases to be discourse.
Posted by: hyh | Mar 18, 2005 3:42:25 PM
Seriously folks, this should be part of larger debate about what belongs in private life and what belongs in public life. We will destroy our society (as we know it, with respect for dissent and individual liberty) if we insist on bringing everything into public life.
Posted by: hyh | Mar 18, 2005 3:47:05 PM
What are these people bitching about anyway? The number of med schools that instruct obstetricians on how to perform abortions has shrank to a handful; while medical facilities and physicians that perform abortions have become so few and far between (partly from pressure tactics ranging from incessant petty harrassment to outright terrorist attack) that it typically takes several hours for a woman not living in a major metropolitan area to reach them. This is complicated by inane laws such as were passed recently in Texas that mandate a 72-hour 'cooling off' period before an abortion can proceed. (Will the women who scraped up the money to travel to what may be a strange city cool their heels at the Hilton, or will it be the Crown Plaza?) Even worse, they must be given materials (probably lifted from a fundementalist tract) that present the usual gruesome photos of a third-trimester abortion and falsely told that this is what the procedure they are undergoing will be like. Along with this fakery, goes quackery about the supposed "dangers" of abortion, including the mythical link between breast cancer and abortion (Not even then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could find one.), grotesquely exaggerated postoperative complications (Therapeutic abortion in the United States is statistically safer than giving birth.), and false warnings that abortion can cause sterility. (Another view with about as much backing in fact as the notion of a flat Earth.) Even if Roe v. Wade is never overturned (something I doubt), it is becoming a dead letter, like a free pass to the movies for anyone bringing a great-grandparent.
My idea of a middle ground is to turn the matter back to the states. (A number of states had already liberalized their abortion laws, with more on the way, when Roe V. Wade was handed down in January 1973.) That way, if California wants abortion providers to offer 'two-fer-the-price-of-one' specials, or if Alabama insists that pregnant women bring non-viable monsters resulting from incest to term; everybody can be accomodated. But for the reasons MY states, there will probably be some foolery like the old 'Human Life Amendment' mandating that a newly fertilized zygote is an American citizen. (Considering the number of zygotes that are cast out after conception instead of becoming implanted in the uterus, God would appear to be the biggest abortionist of them all.) These people don't just want to roll back the Great Society or the New Deal; they want to roll back the Enlightenment.
Posted by: Diogenes | Mar 18, 2005 3:49:33 PM
Abdul Abulbul Amir,
That is exactly the point of this post.
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 3:51:02 PM
