For the paleocon/anti-war conservative response to my post on pro-lifers, Obama and '08, try Larison here, Jim Antle here, and Dan McCarthy (by implication) here. Obviously, if you agree with McCarthy that the intervention in Iraq represents a graver evil than the post-Roe abortion regime - and, more importantly, that the continuation of that intervention only compounds the initial evil of the war - the case for voting against McCain, whether for Obama or for a third party candidate, is more or less airtight. The weaker, but to my mind more plausible case that would justify a pro-lifer casting a protest vote against McCain on foreign policy grounds is the one that Antle and Larison put forward - namely, that there's little reason to think that the Senator from Arizona will put an anti-Roe Justice on the Court, so a vote for McCain isn't really a vote against abortion anyway. I think they are mistaken on this point, just as I think that Larison is mistaken when he suggests that Roberts and Alito would vote to uphold Roe, and I suspect that pro-lifers who choose this election cycle to give up on the GOP would end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But of course there's no way to know for certain, which is the difficulty that pro-lifers have found themselves in ever since January of 1973 - stuck basing their political judgments on suppositions about what judicial appointees might do once they've been placed beyond any sort of accountability.
« I Am Jeffrey Robbins | Main | The Worst Iraq Movie In The World » Abortion And Iraq01 Apr 2008 02:48 pm Comments (45)
Culturally, America isn't ready for over turning Roe and as such no president will go down that messy road. 
If you think that Obama is a lesser evil than McCain, you should vote for Obama, not a third party candidate--there won't be a third party candidate with a realistic chance to win this year. If the point of voting is to try to affect the outcome as your post implies, any vote for a nonviable candidate is wasted. Of course, you can throw a safe protest vote if you live in an uncompetitive state like Utah or Massachusetts.
Interesting wrinkle about the abortion debate coming out of my hometown, Erie, PA, today. Apparently Hillary Clinton is speaking at Mercyhurst College. It's a Catholic school, run by the Sisters of Mercy, not the local diocese. But the local Bishop, Donald Trautman, has strongly protested Hillary being allowed to set foot on the campus, and is now refusing to go to Mercyhurst's graduation this year as a result (news link in signature). The whole thing is causing something of an uproar in Erie in general and the local Catholic community in particular.
Why focus on Hillary and abortion when more attention should be paid to the omissions in the Clinton Library Files, such as these amusing ones: http://ladycatherinebedamned.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-was-in-clinton-library-redactions.html
I think Fitz is completely wrong. Roe makes things much, much easier for pro-lifers, because it allows them to advocate, at least in principle, extremely restrictive abortion laws (i.e., with no exceptions, only an exception for the life (and not health) of the woman, or only exceptions for rape, incest, or the life (and not health) of the woman) without paying a political penalty, because voters feel secure that such laws will not see the light of day. Overturn Roe, and suddenly pro-lifers will have to deal with the real-world implications of the policies they advocate (unless one supposes a world where Roe is overturned but abortions continue to be so widely available that anyone who wants one can get one-- an argument I have seen some pro-lifers make but which doesn't exactly seem to me to be a serious argument against abortion rights). It's really, really easy, to pick just one example, to advocate against health exceptions (because they allegedly are too easy to circumvent) when there aren't actual women suffering actual harm to their health because they are forced to carry a health-threatening pregnancy to term. Roe was the savior of the pro-life movement. It allowed them to stand in enduring opposition to something that would happen anyway, with even many who disagreed with them expressing admiration for their steadfast principles. If Roe is overturned, life is going to get very difficult for pro-lifers very quickly.
It certainly bears repeating. Circa 1973 and before abortion was routinely banned across the United States as a matter of popular will. It took Judicial Fiat to impose unrestricted abortion on the country. If pro-abortion advocates were so certain of their position morally & politically they would advocate overturning Roe. It is important to note that the United States has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. This is the case even when compared to abortion laws in western Europe. This is demonstrated when one contrasts the differences between the American solution and the European style solution. The American version resulted from the Supreme Court deciding the issue while the European solutions were formed by their legislatures. The exact circumstances that a overturn of Roe would garner if it enfranchised the democratic process rather than continued to rule by Judicial fiat. America - No regulation of abortion permitted for the interest of preserving the life of the fetus until viability at 18- 24 weeks (i.e. 6 months) Europe - All of the western countries reviewed allowed regulation in the interest of the fetus beginning around 10-12 weeks. Sweden latest at 18 weeks America - No waiting period permitted, even 24 hours is interference with women's freedom of choice. Europe -Brief waiting period before request for for abortion and the procedure. America - No alternatives to abortion will be given to women as part of abortion process. Europe - Women will be informed about alternatives to abortion, including #1. adoption. #2. maternal assistance provided if the women chooses to bear the child. Europe - Does not have a large private, profit- making abortion industry Abortion procedures are carefully regulated. One of the regulations is a limit to the percent of abortion procedures at any given site. America - The courts speak about a "constitutional right" to abortion. The U.S. is the only country that states its a "right" to have an abortion. The values advocated are #1. individual privacy. #2. woman's sovereignty over her body Europe - Statutes start by stating an affirmation of sanctity of human life, but state an abortion is freely available in "distress" (France), or "hardship" (German) in early pregnancy. The values advocated are #1. respect for human life #2. compassion for women in vulnerable circumstances http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm
Nice job, Ross-- Bacevich's argument (and those of Larison, Antle, et al.) rest on questionable assumptions, about McCain, but also about the war. First, one could argue that interventionism is more inevitable than the persistence of Roe v. Wade-- simply reflect on our history of interventionism all over the world, a history that Bacevich mapped out in two recent books, as a template for policies we will likely continue to pursue. If there's no chance we'll overturn Roe at this crucial, pivotal point when we have a chance to tip the balance on the Court, there's far less of a chance of the election of one somewhat isolationist-sounding candidate (Obama) changing a foreign policy that has prevailed for over a century. But more to the point you make regarding compounding the Iraq quagmire, I want to ask Bacevich and Larison how they can argue that pulling out of Iraq now after we've totally de-stabilized the region would truly be a. in our interest, and b. just? Are they completely oblivious to the reality and depth of our oil dependence? And how do they expect these civilians to fight the likes of al-Sadr without our assistance? This is a mess WE created, and the only fair way to deal with it is to shoulder the burden. They don't seem to address what to me is a very poignant argument-- that if we do not fight these extremists abroad, we will end up fighting them or their progeny here at home, and it won't be our military experts but our civilians on the streets of our congested cities (deja vu, anyone?). Also, re: tg's post: This claim is unfounded, and in fact, refuted by the not-exactly-right-leaning PBS: It's not a "messy road." We do not live in a society that proudly boasts of its abortion industry-- in fact, women find it difficult to find an abortion doctor, as the frontline program indicates. In this regard, the Court is out of synch with public opinion-- overturning Roe would be a legal corrective that matches public sentiment.
It certainly bears repeating. Circa 1973 and before abortion was routinely banned across the United States as a matter of popular will. Why does that bear repeating? Overturning Roe isn't going to repeal all the attitudinal changes since 1973, nor is it going to repeal the media's inevitable interest in the practical effects of abortion bans. All it is going to do is insert illegal abortion into the current political climate. If pro-abortion advocates were so certain of their position morally & politically they would advocate overturning Roe. That's like saying that if pro-free speech advocates were so certain of their position morally and politically they would advocate repealing the First Amendment. It's a complete non-sequitur. Why would a pro-choicer want to repeal a decision that makes it more difficult to ban abortion? As for Europe vs. America, if your point is that Roe has resulted in a somewhat more liberalized abortion regime than in Western Europe, sure it has. But other than Ireland, nobody in Western Europe is even seriously considering banning abortion in the first trimester. Also, some of your statements are flat wrong. Planned Parenthood v. Casey UPHELD a 24 hour waiting period statute AND an informed consent statute. Further, the reason there isn't a huge private abortion industry in most of Western Europe is because the procedure is STATE FUNDED. It is totally hypocritical for pro-lifers who have vehemently opposed such state funding here to then complain that the abortion clinics are private. Similarly, it is also hypocritical to talk about the Western European "hardship" statutes, when pro-lifers OPPOSE mental health exceptions in American abortion laws because they claim they can be easily circumvented. If mental health statutes here are to be avoided because they can be easily circumvented, then you can't point to European statutes containing the same language as models. MD: You are living a cloistered life if you think the American public is going to approve of the El Salvador-style ban that pro-life groups would seek to impose, at least in some states, in the wake of an overturn of Roe. The dumbest assumption any political actor can make is that the great and good American people agrees with him or her when they don't.
My guess would be that a) Alito would vote to overturn Roe b) Roberts would vote to uphold Roe c) McCain, unsure of how Roberts would vote, would receive strong advice to not put a potential fifth anti-Roe vote on the Court for fear of alienating millions of pro-life voters who still vote Republican d) McCain, though not the most Machiavellian of politicians, doesn't have such strong convictions on this issue that he wouldn't heed such advice and therefore, a McCain Presidency would still leave you with only three votes to overturn Roe.
Although, I should add that there's a slight chance that Kennedy may have changed his mind since Planned Parenthood (see his impassioned dissent in Hill v. Colorado).
McCain has flip-flopped so many times that it's simply impossible to trust him on anything anymore. So pro-life conservatives thinking he'll put an anti-Roe Justice on the Supreme Court are just kidding themselves.
Dilan, As a point of information, while Russia isn't in Western Europe, I have heard that they are considering abolishing their very liberal abortion license. (Russia of course has the advantage of being a semi-authoritarian state where the central government could choose to abolish abortion by decree....in this country, unfortunately, as you point out we need to work on convincing the populace first.) Poland and Ireland of course have very restrictive laws against abortion; they don't have much need to further 'restrict' abortion since the procedure is in most cases illegal.
Here's some further information on Russia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3093152.stm The new law restricts second-trimester abortions, only, but this is a good first. Russia is lucky indeed to have a government with some cojones. I dearly hope that this can be the beginning of a rapprochement between the Russian church and state which were driven apart during the Bolshevik era.
The Iraq war will end one day, and even John McCain wants to stay there only if Americans are not being killed. The abortion-license, unless Roe is overturned, is forever. It is foolish to assume John McCain can or will pick a Justice who in the first intance is committed to overturning Roe. But it is a dead cert positive fact that no Democrat will appoint anyone who could even conceive of doing such a thing no matter what the facts or arguments were before him. Do not forget that the Court in the 70's came close to saying Congress could not prohibit federal funds to go to abortion. Democratic judges will push the law in that direction. Law has a logic to it. Republican appointed Justices are more likely, because more likely to believe textualism or originalism are the proper approach if we are to have a Constitutional Republic, to cut back the judge created abortion license. Democratic Justices, believing that they are fonts of contempory views (and all their friends are pro-abortion) will continue to enforce and expand the abortion license. There are no guarantees in this world but it is an impossibility that any Democratic nominee will vote to either cut-back or overturn Roe. Anyone who cares about that issue is kidding themselves if they vote for anyone but John McCain. So clear is this to anyone who follow the Supreme Court that such moves as Dough Kmiec to support Obama seems like an abandonment of reason rather than an informed judgment about the Presidency.
Hector writes: "Here's some further information on Russia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3093152.stm The new law restricts second-trimester abortions, only, but this is a good first. Russia is lucky indeed to have a government with some cojones. I dearly hope that this can be the beginning of a rapprochement between the Russian church and state which were driven apart during the Bolshevik era. " The abortion issue turns you into a functional moron, Hector. The Putinistas aren't cutting back on abortion because they care about the fetus - they're doing it because they want more Russians. But once again you express admiration and longing for a government of autocrats. You're a disturbing young man. RU-486 for everyone!
As a point of information, while Russia isn't in Western Europe, I have heard that they are considering abolishing their very liberal abortion license. (Russia of course has the advantage of being a semi-authoritarian state where the central government could choose to abolish abortion by decree....in this country, unfortunately, as you point out we need to work on convincing the populace first.) Poland and Ireland of course have very restrictive laws against abortion; they don't have much need to further 'restrict' abortion since the procedure is in most cases illegal. Hector, I was precise. I said Western Europe except Ireland.
Dilan to Hector: "I said Western Europe except Ireland." The Irish are closer to abortion facilities than many in the US are, since England is a quick ferry ride away. The ever-loosening Catholic grip on old Eire will be even more feeble in a decade or so. It's not so long ago you needed a prescription to get condoms there. The medieval wackaloons are fighting a losing battle.
The sad fact for pro-lifers and their supposed Republican allies is that overturning Roe v Wade is not likely to reduce the frequency of abortions. It will certainly reduce the frequency of safe, legal abortions but women will continue to seek ways to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html The best thing that can ever happen to the Democratic party is for a right wing SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade. Abortions rates will remain relatively level and the GOP won't have the issue to fool people into voting against their economic self interest anymore.
The sad fact for pro-lifers and their supposed Republican allies is that overturning Roe v Wade is not likely to reduce the frequency of abortions. As a pro-choicer, I think this argument is too cute by half. A serious abortion ban would reduce abortions somewhat. Now, I am not sure it would reduce them more than a plan that keeps abortion legal but includes a full-throated governmental effort to reduce unplanned pregnancy, but I think it would reduce them. Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption, after all. Some people would decide not to get abortions because they didn't want to break the law, or they were afraid of the safety of an illegal abortion, or they were priced out of the market, or they couldn't find a provider or couldn't find one they could get to. The problems, of course, are the externalities created by a ban on abortion, including: (1) unsafe illegal procedures; (2) domestic violence, shaming, and other harm as a result of women being unable to conceal unplanned pregnancies; (3) suicides; (4) health effects from women having to carry dangerous pregancies to term; (5) widespread lawbreaking by ordinary Americans; (6) the possible involvement of organized crime in the provsision of illegal abortions; and most importantly (7) the grave harm done to the lives, livelihood, and equality of women who are forced to take pregnancies to term. But if you ban anything, you make it harder to get. And if you make something harder to get, it's going to reduce its instance, at least somewhat. The real question is whether this is the best way to reduce the abortion rate. And the valid point within this argument is that for a lot of pro-lifes, the symbolism of making it illegal (and thus placing the government on the side of their religious belief rather than on the side of what they see as grave evil) is more important than whether criminalizing abortion really is the most effective way to reduce the abortion rate.
Moe, Restrictions on abortion aren't the only reason I admire the Putin government. I admire them first and foremost because they have made it clear they aren't going to take $%^ from the West in the name of 'free markets', 'liberal democracy', NATO or anything else. Would that more countries could do the same thing. They have also done their part to place the oil industry and other natural resources at the service of the Russian people and not foreign companies. And yes, I don't argue with the goal of having more Russians. As for the autocracy, that appears to be the form of government that is most suited to Russia's situation. The West needs to learn to deal with it.
"Culturally, America isn't ready for over turning Roe and as such no president will go down that messy road." Piffle. Overturning Roe means Americans would get to vote, nothing more and nothing less. Most Americans favor more restrictions on abortion than are currently in place. Most Americans, having been lied to by the media for 35 years, don't know how incredibly radical Roe and Doe actually are. If Roe were overturned, people would get to vote -- and maybe have a national debate where both sides are heard, which has got to scare Big Abortion to death. If that's a "messy road" that we're not "ready" for, then all the talk about alleged dictatorial ambitions of the current president had better cease, because it simply means American are not ready for democracy. I think "not ready" is just another of the euphemisms spawned by Big Abortion's liars and lawers. It translates to: "not ready to agree with me." The people really not "ready" for overturning Roe are those who favor a right to stab unborn babies in the back of the head with scissors, who currently can rely on the courts and on the media to hide their deceit, their laughably bad arguments and the blood on their hands from public scrutiny.
Dilan, I never said that outlawing abortions would have no effect on the rate. Only that the effect would be negligible. If you look at the study I linked to, you will see that countries that outlaw abortion don't have appreciably lower rates of abortion than those who allow it legally. I happen to be pro-choice but anti-abortion. I want there to be fewer or even no abortions. I don't think, however, that government regulation is the answer. Churches, families, communities, schools, etc. should work together to teach comprehensive sex education, instill our children with self respect and respect for others and provide a better frame work to ease the adoption process and to provide healthcare, daycare and other assistance to mothers who choose to cary their baby to term. Overturning RvW or making abortion illegal will not appreciably reduce the rate of abortion. It will only increase the rate of illegal and unsafe abortions and cause the other social ills you mentioned.
Hector replies: "As for the autocracy, that appears to be the form of government that is most suited to Russia's situation. The West needs to learn to deal with it." Russia is welcome to their own government, Hector - I just don't want autocracy here. We've come closer than I could have expected during the last torture-loving 7 years, which makes me think that what Bush saw when he looked in Putin's eyes was just his own reflection. RU-486 for everyone!
Max Kolbe hyperventilates: "The people really not "ready" for overturning Roe are those who favor a right to stab unborn babies in the back of the head with scissors, who currently can rely on the courts and on the media to hide their deceit, their laughably bad arguments and the blood on their hands from public scrutiny." If all abortions were banned outside of, say, 8 weeks gestation, would it satisfy the Max Kolbes of the world in any way? Of course not. All of this garbage about "stabbing in the back of the head with scissors" doesn't mean much coming from Republicans who consider the deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on fraudulent grounds to be scarcely worth mentioning. They just want to move on to Iran so they can tack on another 2 million or so. "Pro-lifers" is a code term for people who want their victims to be sentient and breathing. Now I'm off to donate to Planned Parenthood in Max Kolbe's name. RU-486 for everyone!
I opposed the Iraq War back when Democrats were voting for it, smart guy. And the answer is, no, just limiting America's holocaust to killing really super tiny babies will not satisfy me, but it would be progress. If "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis" have been killed that's, well, less than a year's worth of Planned Barrenhood's grisly work. But it's your soul.
Max Kolbe replies: "And the answer is, no, just limiting America's holocaust to killing really super tiny babies will not satisfy me, but it would be progress. If "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis" have been killed that's, well, less than a year's worth of Planned Barrenhood's grisly work. But it's your soul." I'm glad you mentioned the "soul," Max. Now I know for a fact that your opposition to abortion is based on gobbledygook rather than on reason. Fortunately I live in a secular democracy rather than a theological hellhole. Conclusions based on nothing but biblical babble don't tend to carry the day here anymore. Overturn Roe v. Wade and the blue states will still have legal abortions, and volunteers will shuttle women from the Buybull Belt to civilization when needed. And there will always be de facto legal abortions for the rich - heck, even Dumbya Bush got one for his girlfriend before Roe v. Wade. I'd suggest that anti-abortion zealots should join in the effort to make contraception free, reliable, and safe for all, but I know most lifers are opposed to such efforts because they're backwards thumpers, so I won't waste my time. (I said MOST, Hector, so don't bother responding!) Though the lifer dream may be to add the War On Pregnant Women to the silly War On Drugs and the dimwitted War On Terra those of us who are rational realize the limitations of government in such areas.
I'm glad you mentioned the "soul," Max. Now I know for a fact that your opposition to abortion is based on gobbledygook rather than on reason. Since your prognostications on my political affiliation and my position on the war worked out so well, you thought you'd just try it again, huh? Why am I not surprised that you fare no better here. Strike three. I was smart enough to refute pro-abortion sophistry long before I saw through atheist sophistry and can easily do so without reference to any theology except "thou shalt not kill." BTW, "Max Kolbe" -- taken from St. Maximilian Kolbe, the patron saint of the pro-life movement -- should have been a clue.
On the other hand, why I am bothering to engage someone whose logic consists primarily of name calling in the form of particularly stale puns (something he has the gall to label "reason") could rightly call my prudence into question. Have fun in 7th grade, Moe.
Max Kolbe replies: "I was smart enough to refute pro-abortion sophistry long before I saw through atheist sophistry and can easily do so without reference to any theology except "thou shalt not kill."" But you mentioned the soul, Max. In the absence of any rational reason for thinking such a thing exists, "soul" is simply theological jargon. "BTW, "Max Kolbe" -- taken from St. Maximilian Kolbe, the patron saint of the pro-life movement -- should have been a clue." It wasn't. I've heard of Kolbe, but I didn't know he'd been adopted by the Silver Feet gang. He's also supposed to be a patron saint (one of the funniest Catholic traditions) of prisoners, so I suppose Catholic women who get abortions and get jailed under your proposed lifer autocracy can have his name tattooed on their arms. Oh, the irony! Now how about it, Max - wanna sgn on to my plan to make contraception free and decrease the number of abortions? Or do you still think that would lead folks to H-E-double-toothpicks?
In the absence of any rational reason for thinking such a thing exists, "soul" is simply theological jargon. Begged questions are not arguments, genius, and I did not use the word soul in any argument against abortion, but in simple warning to you about your free choice -- oh, the irony, a materialist who "thinks" he has free will -- to give money to an organization dedicated to killing babies. But here I am actually engaging you like you are capable of reason. I think my previous assessment was an insult to seventh graders everywhere.
Max Kolbe replies: "On the other hand, why I am bothering to engage someone whose logic consists primarily of name calling in the form of particularly stale puns (something he has the gall to label "reason") could rightly call my prudence into question. Have fun in 7th grade, Moe." You're engaging with me because you're named after a saint without having any saintly virtues, Max. You're a self-righteous movement conservative who wants the aura of sanctity without ever - and I mean EVER - sacrificing anything yourself. You get off on telling other people what to do, and on supporting government policies that will FORCE them to behave as you wish them to. I don't. Good luck at your 1st Holy Communion, Max. I hope you get the Wii you've been waiting for at the party afterwards.
Max Kolbe digs deeper into his well of stupidity: "Begged questions are not arguments, genius, and I did not use the word soul in any argument against abortion, but in simple warning to you about your free choice -- oh, the irony, a materialist who "thinks" he has free will -- to give money to an organization dedicated to killing babies." The "warning" there is an argument that by giving to Planned Parenthood I'm endangering my "soul," Maxie. You can claim it's no argument, and in a way you're right, since there's no factual basis for it, but you plainly think such a danger exists. If you think Planned Parenthood is actually murdering babies and you're not doing anything to stop it I suggest that you're either a coward or you're insane. If you really believed it you'd do something about it - just as you would if your neighbor were strangling her 3 year old on her front lawn. Or would you just wave at her?
Oh finally-- someone with the wit, and more importantly, the patience, to give Moe a run for his money! For this you should be sainted (again), dear Kolbe!!!
Learn to read, Wile E.* The begged question is your "argument" that there's no rational basis upon which to think a soul exists -- what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. You had accused me of using theology in arguing against abortion. I pointed out that my use of the term "soul" did not occur in an argument about abortion. In fact, it didn't occur in an argument at all. But apparently you cannot distinguish between an argument and a mere friendly warning. So be it. You are free to disregard it, and to think it is of no consequence. Working to try to change an unjust law is not doing nothing, but I don't expect you to understand the nuances of real ethics, as opposed to whatever variety of consequentialism, utilitarianism or relativism you espouse. There are, of course, diminishing returns to engaging people who do nothing but spew sophistry and name-calling, and so I will leave you the last word.
Max Kolbe again: "You had accused me of using theology in arguing against abortion. I pointed out that my use of the term "soul" did not occur in an argument about abortion. In fact, it didn't occur in an argument at all. But apparently you cannot distinguish between an argument and a mere friendly warning. So be it. You are free to disregard it, and to think it is of no consequence. Working to try to change an unjust law is not doing nothing, but I don't expect you to understand the nuances of real ethics, as opposed to whatever variety of consequentialism, utilitarianism or relativism you espouse. There are, of course, diminishing returns to engaging people who do nothing but spew sophistry and name-calling, and so I will leave you the last word." I love it when cons leave in a snit bitching about "name-calling" after having used ye olde "7th grade" sort of tactics. Another day, another wingnut hypocrite! And "spew sophistry," even! Holy Foreskin, Batman, must they all use the same cliches when they're trying to avoid actual argument? OF COURSE your use of soul took place in the context of disagreement, chuckles - you were saying giving money to Planned Parenthood places the "soul" in danger. Pretend all you want to, but that sort of silliness is central to the abortion "debate," and you know it. And there is no rational reason to think there are souls, any more than there is to think ghosts are real. I do like your heroic stance in "working" to end what you view as a Baby Holocaust, though. Maximilian Kolbe would be hugely impressed, I'm sure, by your balls-to-the-wall approach to ending the "Great Evil." After all, Kolbe just offered to die in place of another, but you've spent a few minutes today arguing with an atheist! Go Team!
Max Reagan (the real wingnut saint) says: "Probably because atheism is a product of that strange and terrible intersection of pride and palpable ignorance." Yes, I should be humble enough to think I'm working on behalf of the Creator of the Universe and enlightened enough to think I know both where said universe came from and where it's going. Plus I should think naughty bits are naughty and that Jesus never used his naughtily, because thinking otherwise is strange and terrible.
Dilan Esper writes: "Roe was the savior of the pro-life movement. It allowed them to stand in enduring opposition to something that would happen anyway, with even many who disagreed with them expressing admiration for their steadfast principles. If Roe is overturned, life is going to get very difficult for pro-lifers very quickly." Dilan Esper has written a lot of dumb things about abortion, but he may have outdone himself here. Roe v. Wade did not save the pro-life movement, it created one. Most people opposed abortion before 1973, but few could have guessed the extent to which the Supreme Court would go to invent a constitutional right to abortion on demand out of thin air. At the time, the decision was criticized by the Catholic Church and legal scholars, but most Protestant churches were not that energized. As it became clear over time how radical Roe really was, the movement grew to the shape it is today. And to suggest that we would be where we are today--with abortion on demand throughout the entire pregnancy imposed on the entire country--even without Roe, is utter foolishness. Let me provide something Dilan never does: evidence. In the years leading up to Roe, most states were turning aside challenges to their abortion laws. Here's Russell Hittinger from the October, 1994 issue of First Things: "In 1967, 'reform' measures, usually concerning therapeutic exceptions, were turned aside in Arizona, Georgia, New York, Indiana, North Dakota, New Mexico [and] Nebraska...In 1969, such bills failed to emerge from committe in Iowa, Minnesota, and were defeated outright in Nevada and Illinois. In 1970, exceptions based on therapeutic reasons were defeated in Vermont and Massachusetts. In 1971, on the eve of Roe v. Wade, repeal bills were voted down in Montana, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, Ohio, and North Dakota. In 1972, even as Roe was under consideration by the Supreme Court, the Massachusetts House by a landslide vote of 178 to 46 passed a measure that would have bestowed the full legal rights of children on fetuses from the moment of conception. At the same time, the supreme courts of South Dakota and Missouri upheld their states' anti-abortion laws. It was surely telling that during the very month that Justice Blackmun finished the draft of his Roe opinion, 61 perecent of the voters in Michigan and 77 percent in North Dakota by referenda voted down repeal." Even in the states that had changed their laws, the changes went nowhere near what Roe imposed on the country. And Dilan's repeated assertions that a reversal of Roe would bring unfavorable consequences for pro-lifers read as a strained attempt to convince himself that such would be the case. Pro-lifers would rejoice on the day the Supreme Court allowed them to attempt to restrict abortion through the democratic process. Dilan continues: "You are living a cloistered life if you think the American public is going to approve of the El Salvador-style ban that pro-life groups would seek to impose, at least in some states, in the wake of an overturn of Roe." See here Dilan, in this thing called democracy, if the American public dislikes a particular attempt in restricting abortion, then they can vote the responsible politicians out of office. Do you think the American public has appreciated having abortion on demand through the entire pregnancy forced on them? Did Americans appreciate having the Supreme Court pretend that there was a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion? "The dumbest assumption any political actor can make is that the great and good American people agrees with him or her when they don't." Do you think the great and good American people agree with Barack Obama that those who survive abortions have no legal protection? You write as if only the pro-life side would be the ones tempted to legislate extreme views on the populace, when it has been the pro-choice side that has been doing this for decades through judicial fiat. And your last quote is particularly amusing given your own tendency to misjudge the popularity of abortion. When I quoted two studies from pro-choice organizations that showed that a majority of women would favor restrictions on the vast majority of abortions, you responded (after flatly stating that it didn't matter what their views were) by suggesting that these American women were similar to women in Africa who defend female genital mutilation. Nope, no goggles there!
See here Dilan, in this thing called democracy, if the American public dislikes a particular attempt in restricting abortion, then they can vote the responsible politicians out of office. torourke, you need to read my posts more carefully before making personal attacks. That was exactly my point-- a lot of pro-lifers are going to get voted out of office if Roe is overturned. Do you think the great and good American people agree with Barack Obama that those who survive abortions have no legal protection? I don't think very many of the American people have any opinion on this issue, because the "Born Alive" stuff hasn't taken hold like "partial birth" did. But taking your broader point, no I don't think the American people are as pro-choice as most Democratic politicians are. But that doesn't derogate from my point, which is that some of the American people, like pro-life politicians, are given the luxury by Roe of being able to oppose abortion in a broader range of circumstances because Roe prevents such opinions from having any adverse consequences. Overturn Roe and suddenly those consequences will become very clear. The rest of your post, about pre-1973 political conditions, is answered above. If pro-lifers think that overturning Roe will bring back the cultural attitudes and political conditions of the late 1960's and early 1970's, they are delusional. Rather, you are going to be trying to restrict abortion in a climate where many people have become used to the right and have ordered their lives accordingly, and where more people have modern attitudes about sexuality and gender relations and fewer people live by traditional norms. Plus, the media is going to cover the adverse effects of abortion bans in a way that they never did before.
torourke presents: "Here's Russell Hittinger from the October, 1994 issue of First Things: "In 1967, 'reform' measures, usually concerning therapeutic exceptions, were turned aside in Arizona, Georgia, New York, Indiana, North Dakota, New Mexico [and] Nebraska...In 1969, such bills failed to emerge from committe in Iowa, Minnesota, and were defeated outright in Nevada and Illinois. In 1970, exceptions based on therapeutic reasons were defeated in Vermont and Massachusetts. In 1971, on the eve of Roe v. Wade, repeal bills were voted down in Montana, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, Ohio, and North Dakota. In 1972, even as Roe was under consideration by the Supreme Court, the Massachusetts House by a landslide vote of 178 to 46 passed a measure that would have bestowed the full legal rights of children on fetuses from the moment of conception. At the same time, the supreme courts of South Dakota and Missouri upheld their states' anti-abortion laws. It was surely telling that during the very month that Justice Blackmun finished the draft of his Roe opinion, 61 perecent of the voters in Michigan and 77 percent in North Dakota by referenda voted down repeal."" Anyone wishing to read a more sober, balanced, and fair assessment of pre-Roe abortion laws can look here: But of course lifers are utterly unable to look at this issue with anything approaching fairness or balance. You'll never hear one mention, for instance, that one of the most liberal abortion laws pre-Roe was signed into law by... Saint Reagan! For some reason this has escaped their attention.
Dilan responds: "torourke, you need to read my posts more carefully before making personal attacks. That was exactly my point-- a lot of pro-lifers are going to get voted out of office if Roe is overturned." How do you know this? What evidence do you have? Will pro-life legislators be any more out of tune with the will of the people in their states than pro-choice legislators? It could just as easily mean that pro-choice legislators would have to either tack to the center or get booted out of office, especially if pro-life legislators move incrementally by banning second and third trimester abortions and highlighting the extremism of people like Obama in the state senate. I personally don't know how it would turn out, as I think both sides might be tempted to overreach. But you continually assert what will happen should Roe be overturned, when the fact is you have no clue how it would shake out. And all of your warnings to pro-lifers are a bit disingenuous given that you oppose having this democratic process happen at all. I can stand seeing my side lose in a free and fair debate and vote. How about you? "I don't think very many of the American people have any opinion on this issue, because the "Born Alive" stuff hasn't taken hold like "partial birth" did." I think you're right on this, but assuming Obama wins the nomination, I think Americans are going to find out more about his stance in the Illinois senate during the general election, and it will not help him. "But taking your broader point, no I don't think the American people are as pro-choice as most Democratic politicians are. Okay, I think there is some truth to this (and, as an example, I would be interested to know what the political fallout of the failed South Dakota measure was) but should Roe be overturned, both sides are going to need to know where their constituents stand on the matter, and again I don't see why only the pro-lifers would be the ones who would need to adjust their positions. How many pro-choice legislators will oppose laws that ban second and third trimester abortions? Furthermore, the use of the term "luxury" and the phrase "savior of the pro-life movement" with respect to what Roe has meant to those who oppose abortion is, um, a bit of a stretch. "The rest of your post, about pre-1973 political conditions, is answered above. If pro-lifers think that overturning Roe will bring back the cultural attitudes and political conditions of the late 1960's and early 1970's, they are delusional. Rather, you are going to be trying to restrict abortion in a climate where many people have become used to the right and have ordered their lives accordingly, and where more people have modern attitudes about sexuality and gender relations and fewer people live by traditional norms. Plus, the media is going to cover the adverse effects of abortion bans in a way that they never did before." I'm not under any illusions about the cultural impact of Roe, and I doubt many other pro-lifers are either. But if anything, this would encourage pro-life legislators to take the incremental approach should Roe be overturned. Start with banning the easy ones, and then if the culture builds up over time where more restrictions are possible, then go from there. And I also have no illusions about how the media would respond. They are in the tank for Planned Parenthood enough as it is, and no pro-lifer expects that to change should Roe be overturned.
Ah yes, if there is anyone on this board who can bring a sober, balanced, and fair perspective to this issue, or any other issue, it's Moe, and don't let the fact that he has had usernames banned from two different forums persuade you to think otherwise. As it is, the website that he provides is a step up from the ones he usually does. I'm thinking in particular about the one he once provided on the topic of the history of priestly celibacy, which hilariously included the year when Marx published the Communist Manifesto. That was some scholarly stuff there. But even Moe's more serious link does not refute anything Hittinger wrote, nor does it contradict (or even balance) anything I wrote. I acknowledged that some states had changed their abortion laws, but that they went nowhere near what Roe imposed. The link Moe provides says as much, but without going into much detail as to how narrow and contentious these reforms were. The graph at the bottom simply shows which states had reformed their laws without stating what those reforms were. The link suffers from other flaws, as much of the information in it is simply wrong, beginning with the statement that abortion was "generally permitted" during the colonial period. The lack of footnotes, except for the graphs, should be a clue, as the author provides either no evidence or evidence that is simply laughable on its face for most of her claims. I will address Moe's favorite obsession though in acknowledging that Ronald Reagan signed the law that liberalized California's abortion policy, a decision he later regretted. I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, and I'm also not sure how this supports Moe's assertion that pro-lifers can't approach the issue of the status of abortion before Roe with fairness or balance. I guess you need a degree from Harvard Law to follow that one.
torourke replies: "I will address Moe's favorite obsession though in acknowledging that Ronald Reagan signed the law that liberalized California's abortion policy, a decision he later regretted. I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, and I'm also not sure how this supports Moe's assertion that pro-lifers can't approach the issue of the status of abortion before Roe with fairness or balance. I guess you need a degree from Harvard Law to follow that one." No, you just need to be able to read, chuckles. You presented a brief quote from an "authority" which grossly misrepresented the truth about abortion law pre-Roe. The snippet said nothing about the FACT that some states were moving towards a Roe-style legalization much more quickly than you are willing to admit. As one example, your carefully-excised bit mentioned the failure of reform in New York in 1967, without mentioning that this reform passed in 1970. The misimpression this leaves would be obvious to any rational, honest observer, but apparently not to you. But then honesty is no longer a virtue among movement conservatives, if indeed it ever was one.
I've been offline the last few days, and have returned to take one last stab at Moe's flailings: "No, you just need to be able to read, chuckles. You presented a brief quote from an "authority" which grossly misrepresented the truth about abortion law pre-Roe. Having realized that his original "arguments" went nowhere, including the complete non-sequitur regarding Reagan, Moe opts for the bait and switch tactic to save face. He originally charged me, and by extension all pro-lifers, with not being able to approach the issue of pre-Roe abortion legislation with fairness and balance, despite the fact that I explicitly acknowledged that some states had in fact liberalized their abortion laws. Moe supported his assertion with a link to a "The snippet said nothing about the FACT that some states were moving towards a Roe-style legalization much more quickly than you are willing to admit. As one example, your carefully-excised bit mentioned the failure of reform in New York in 1967, without mentioning that this reform passed in 1970. The misimpression this leaves would be obvious to any rational, honest observer, but apparently not to you." Hittinger's article, in the paragraph after the one I quoted, mentioned that the states of New York and Hawaii repealed their laws in 1970 while Colorado and a few other states had reformed their laws, which is why I wrote that--for the fourth time now--some states had indeed liberalized their laws on abortion while not approaching the abortion on demand that Roe imposed on the country. The evidence clearly shows that a majority of states were voting to protect the unborn pre-Roe. Even in New York the tide of opinion was shifting back toward restricting abortion just before Roe was handed down. But Moe never acknowledges the mountain of evidence against his position, preferring to hide behind shoddy articles, logical fallacies, and charges of dishonesty. It's a bit rich to be accused of dishonesty by someone who repeatedly lies about why he had a username banned by a forum, but when you lack reasoned arguments backed up by evidence, the low road is the only one left. Oh, and for an insight into how Moe's side has been misrepresenting the status of abortion law pre-Roe, just google Ramesh Ponnuru and aborting history.
torourke replies: "But Moe never acknowledges the mountain of evidence against his position, preferring to hide behind shoddy articles, logical fallacies, and charges of dishonesty. It's a bit rich to be accused of dishonesty by someone who repeatedly lies about why he had a username banned by a forum, but when you lack reasoned arguments backed up by evidence, the low road is the only one left." I have never lied about why I was banned from Wikipedia, chuckles. "Trolling" was the term used by one administrator to refer to my vociferous objection to my username being banned. They then later banned me when I continued that objection under the name TortureIsWrong. I know that must seem hard for a born lackey and authority freak like you to accept. Meanwhile your continuing argument is simply stupid. Much of the US was moving toward liberalizing abortion laws pre-Roe. You purposely downplayed this fact in your initial post, and I called you on it. Don't let it upset you. Now go back to stalking abortion providers or whatever it is you do with your spare time.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"But of course there's no way to know for certain, which is the difficulty that pro-lifers have found themselves in ever since January of 1973 - stuck basing their political judgments on suppositions about what judicial appointees might do once they've been placed beyond any sort of accountability."
Yes: there is no way to know for certain. The variables include.
#1. The true reliability of the pro-life nominee
#2. The political make-up of the Senate at the time of nomination.
#3. The political fortunes & zeal of the President at the time of nomination
#4. The true reliability of the nominee both at the time of nomination and any possible case before the court.
But this is the heinous undemocratic nature of the raw judicial power exercised in Roe. It is to take any democratic action away from the people (absent a constitutional amendment) and give supreme power to the Supremes.
The case for judicial restraint, checks & balances on power, and democratic freedom needs constant vigilance.
This applies to Roe as well as a multitude of issues.
Those upset about Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq need to imagine a world were the only possible way to leave required them to get a constitutional amendment to do so.
Compound this over 40 years were the stars need to aligned just right in order to achieve (uncertain) nomination of a Judicial elite who hold uncertain prospects of ever reaching the desired outcome.
Even if they did rule to get out of Iraq, then the question would still go to the voters and a campaign for withdraw would be necessary.
(Plus - No resolution to go to war would have ever been originally submitted to congress for ratification)
This is precisely the tyranny the pro-life movement has been valiantly struggling under.
Posted by Fitz | April 1, 2008 3:03 PM