On Abortion Rights, the Truth is an Affirmative Defense
Wednesday April 25, 2007
Background: Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
As I wrote earlier this week, I don't believe that the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling itself poses a threat to Roe v. Wade. But the reaction to it is unquestionably a threat to abortion rights.
I've just finished reading an interview with Mississippi lieutenant governor candidate Charlie Ross. In it, he was asked about abortion:
I think I understand why national politicians are trying to paint Gonzales v. Carhart as a major landmark ruling against Roe: Because it dovetails nicely with the progressive movement's political goals heading into 2008. If Alito and Roberts are portrayed as being anti-Roe instead of pro-Roe, then voters might be less likely to put a conservative Republican in the White House. If Hillary Clinton votes for the futile Freedom of Choice Act, then pro-choice voters might be willing to overlook her distressing past support for parental notification laws. And then there's the potential effect on Giuliani: If pro-choicers can take him out of the Republican primaries by stirring up the abortion issue among social conservatives, then a Democratic victory in the presidential election is much more likely.
But activism isn't just about getting the right people elected. It's about actually changing the culture. Personally, I want to see a Republican Party that is willing to nominate pro-choicers like Giuliani. I want to see Bush's handpicked Supreme Court appointees known as pro-Roe justices, assuming that's what they are. Yes, it might mean fewer Democrats win--but if it also means that the Religious Right loses its influence in mainstream politics, then that's a small price to pay. The Democratic Party can take care of itself--and quite often does so by selling out women's rights.
Civil libertarians should never let themselves be co-opted by cynical politicians. That's how movements lose their power to change the larger culture. When we bend the truth a little bit to accommodate the needs of politicians, we put the integrity of the pro-choice movement at risk. We lose our power to persuade others. And we embolden activists on the other side, who are more than happy to celebrate any victories that we insist on handing them--and to use those victories as an excuse to propose more legislation.
Spin may win elections, but only honesty can change the culture. I'm out here blogging about Gonzales v. Carhart despite the fact that my remarks will be interpreted by some as evidence that I'm just one more man who doesn't really care about women's rights, and despite the likelihood that I'm working against the political goals of the predominantly pro-choice Democratic Party. Why? Because I believe in the right of a woman to choose. And if I'm going to take my belief to the rest of the culture in order to try to protect that right, I have to tell the truth. That's how minds are changed--and in the long run, that's how policies are changed, too.
See also:
As I wrote earlier this week, I don't believe that the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling itself poses a threat to Roe v. Wade. But the reaction to it is unquestionably a threat to abortion rights.
I've just finished reading an interview with Mississippi lieutenant governor candidate Charlie Ross. In it, he was asked about abortion:
... We passed a bill this year that says abortion is illegal except in the instance of it threatening the life of the mother or of incest, but we said it’s not effective until Roe v. Wade is overturned. I think we should take that clause out about Roe v. Wade, and if Mississippi has to be the test case, then Mississippi has to be the test case ...But not if South Dakota gets there first:
Do you think the federal court would uphold the state’s decision if we decided to put some teeth in our anti-abortion law?
There’s a new court in Washington. That new court just upheld the new law banning partial birth-abortion, and we’ll see.
In South Dakota, where a sweeping ban on abortions was defeated in a referendum last November, anti-abortion activist Leslie Unruh was elated by the ruling.In some ways, fighting a state-level ban in court would actually be beneficial for the pro-choice movement in that it would force the Court to show its cards--and the potential 7-2 majority in favor of Roe. But the legal fight, however futile it may be for the state, would consume considerable resources--and have a chilling local effect on women's rights. That's why I've logged time in the Capitol trying to fight these bans and will continue to do so, even though I'm quite certain they won't hold up in Court: Because even if they're unenforceable, they're harmful to women.
"I'm running and jumping in the air," she said. "I'm going to tell people, 'This should give you energy. Make sure you get to your capital and introduce some bills.'"
I think I understand why national politicians are trying to paint Gonzales v. Carhart as a major landmark ruling against Roe: Because it dovetails nicely with the progressive movement's political goals heading into 2008. If Alito and Roberts are portrayed as being anti-Roe instead of pro-Roe, then voters might be less likely to put a conservative Republican in the White House. If Hillary Clinton votes for the futile Freedom of Choice Act, then pro-choice voters might be willing to overlook her distressing past support for parental notification laws. And then there's the potential effect on Giuliani: If pro-choicers can take him out of the Republican primaries by stirring up the abortion issue among social conservatives, then a Democratic victory in the presidential election is much more likely.
But activism isn't just about getting the right people elected. It's about actually changing the culture. Personally, I want to see a Republican Party that is willing to nominate pro-choicers like Giuliani. I want to see Bush's handpicked Supreme Court appointees known as pro-Roe justices, assuming that's what they are. Yes, it might mean fewer Democrats win--but if it also means that the Religious Right loses its influence in mainstream politics, then that's a small price to pay. The Democratic Party can take care of itself--and quite often does so by selling out women's rights.
Civil libertarians should never let themselves be co-opted by cynical politicians. That's how movements lose their power to change the larger culture. When we bend the truth a little bit to accommodate the needs of politicians, we put the integrity of the pro-choice movement at risk. We lose our power to persuade others. And we embolden activists on the other side, who are more than happy to celebrate any victories that we insist on handing them--and to use those victories as an excuse to propose more legislation.
Spin may win elections, but only honesty can change the culture. I'm out here blogging about Gonzales v. Carhart despite the fact that my remarks will be interpreted by some as evidence that I'm just one more man who doesn't really care about women's rights, and despite the likelihood that I'm working against the political goals of the predominantly pro-choice Democratic Party. Why? Because I believe in the right of a woman to choose. And if I'm going to take my belief to the rest of the culture in order to try to protect that right, I have to tell the truth. That's how minds are changed--and in the long run, that's how policies are changed, too.
See also:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment