Aborting Abortion
It's quite likely that you are as surprised as I am to find me posting here. Fantastiko's own Nan has kindly asked me to join the team, becoming the ONLY contributor whose politics fall to the right hand side of our political spectrum. I'm excited about the opportunity, and I look forward to some fantastic(o) debate.
For those of you coming here from my own blog, Still Life With Bombast, welcome, and I hope that you enjoy the new forum, but be sure to keep checking Still Life for more trivial and more personal material. For those who haven't been there, be sure to take a gander - especially if you enjoy rotund teenagers lip-synching Romanian pop-songs...you gotta love the internet.
But introductions aside, let's roll up our sleeves and jump right in, shall we? (apologies for the length - I have to introduce myself AND make an impression, don't I?)
This morning, I believe I may have taken my first step toward earning my "Washington DC Talking Head Pundit" union card. Granted, it wasn't a television appearance, but nonetheless, I was a panelist discussing "Public Opinion and 2005's Hot Button Social Issues." It was a story unto itself, and perhaps I'll offer my criticism of the chattering class some other time. Rather, I wanted to reflect upon my own reflections on abortion, which, inevitably, was a hot topic this morning.
The left seems to think that some sort of social war is brewing over abortion rights, set to boil over once a Supreme Court justice retires. In a worst case scenario, the delicately balanced court tips away from Roe v Wade and outlaws abortion. I have long said that Roe v Wade has become such an ingrained part of our political culture that the possibility of its repeal is slim to none. But now, I'm more sure of that then ever before...
Why? First two stories, each from opposite sides of the aisle, but both arriving at similar conclusions: 1) Only a week ago, Hillary Clinton reaches out to pro-lifers seeking a "common ground" on abortion, stating that abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice for women." She paints herself, and presumably other Democrats (particularly from Red states) as being morally oppossed to abortion, but understanding the roles of freedom and choice. 2) In recent interviews (meaning over the last few months), President Bush, when asked about abortion, reaffirms his own pro-life stance but jokes that he would probably lose this vote inside of his own family 3 to 1.
Now consider where the public stands. When asked whether abortion is murder, vast majorities (around 70%) believe that it indeed is. But, in other polls, similar numbers value the right of women to choose. We are not a pro-life/pro-choice country. Most of the electorate lies somewhere in that nuanced middle, yet the most vociferous of the abortion lobbyists (on both sides) choose to ignore this. More numbers: 61% of Americans want President Bush to nominate a justice that will uphold Roe v Wade. 15% of respondents said it was acceptable for a Senator to base his or her vote on the nominee solely on the nominee's position on abortion. By contrast, 72 percent said this was unacceptable.
In the end, I think that we are more likely to see expansion of fittingly middle of the road policy solutions such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental and spousal notification, and mandatory counseling on alternatives to abortion. So when there is an opening on the Court, don't believe the hype. Roe v Wade is here to stay, and it would do the Right well to "abort" now before they find themselves in a fight they will not win.
-Alex
posted by WAL @ 12:21 PM
4 Comments:
Alex,
Quick question, I was under the impression that if Roe vs Wade was overturned abortion would not become illegal rather it would go to the individual states to make it illegal or legal. Just looking to understand the issue better
Thanks
Brian
Good point. In fact, it's a point that is lost quite often in the debate. People like to think that overturning Roe v. Wade would automatically outlaw abortion - it wouldn't (some call this the dirty little secret of the pro-choice lobby). It would go back to the states and I would say that my public opinion analysis holds true there as well. Of course, there are "red" states where they could easily get them on the books (in fact, I think that some may still have anti-abortion laws that they have kept in "hibernation" for such a day). But the optimist in me likes to think that both national and international attention (for the negative) would haunt the state and force them to reconsider such a ban - similar to Virginia's decision to drop their law that would fine people with low-riding pants. Of course, this is optimism - states have done far worse before. Let's hope that we don't have a chance to find out how they would act.
Alex,
First of all, welcome! Now we have the Bozzolo-Lundry/Lundry-Bozzolo clan (what’s the deal with that? Which is it going to be? Just Lundry? Just Bozzolo?) fully represented here and all is right in the world. I think this is going to be a great thing. I’m excited to see where the conversations will go with you aboard.
Ah, abortion! You don’t waste any time, do you? I have to admit that I’ve always felt a bit left out of this debate. As your post illustrates, much of the debate has been dominated by both extreme ends of the political spectrum and, like many people, I’ve never felt completely at ease with either extreme. Therefore, nothing I say here will be very useful to this discussion. I’ll try anyway…
I’ll admit, I’m a knee-jerk pro-choice man. I’m unconvinced by the pro-life/anti-abortion argument and I’m naturally more inclined to see clarity in the health and civil rights arguments above the gray, murky waters where pro-life arguments reside (it seems to me that their argument rests on an arbitrary definition and misleading value of human life). While I’m not entirely sure when life begins, it’s interesting to me how some pro-life activists blindly argue against abortion but then have little problem advocating wars that kill children.
I think that it’s a shame that this has become a partisan issue. One side seems to focus on the religious drive behind pro-life arguments, while the other seems to concentrate on individual civil liberties, sexism, poverty and personal health issues, leading to a chaotic discussion where we’re all talking in different languages. The problem seems to be compounded by a steadfast loyalty to the cultural enclaves or political interests that drive both sides of the arguments. I think that many liberals see this Roe v. Wade as a sort of last line of defense—if this is breached, liberals are in REAL trouble. I understand this fear. I also understand that the right-wing of the spectrum understands this too, which makes me even more defensive.
Personally, in the end, abortion is not about abortion at all. I think it’s about winning control of who gets to decide, because we want to make sure that our team is in control.
While I know that there are substantial groups of people who care deeply about this issue, I feel like the issue isn’t being given proper attention because of the two extremes. The issue SHOULDN’T be about giving up control to someone from another cultural or political interest. And the issue can’t be resolved if the parties involved are talking in different languages. It should be discussed using common languages and it should be about the issue itself, which gets lost when we allow the microphone to be shared between the two loud extremes.
I came across this stat that surprised me.
In an article appearing in the September 1980 issue of The Progressive entitled, “Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life,” Mary Meehan wrote:
"...only 58 percent of Americans are aware that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion during the entire nine months of pregnancy, and not just during the first trimester."
I wonder if that number has increased since the 1980s.
Post a Comment
<< Home