Le’ts face it: It’s not possible for Democrats in the Senate – not even if they’re 100% united, which they aren’t – to block a right-wing, anti-Roe Bush nomination to the Supreme Court.
My email and blog-reading lately has been stuffed full of calls to action – Call your senator! Donate! It’s time to get mobilized! From the LA Times:
Meanwhile, the liberal People for the American Way will “definitely be spending millions of dollars” if necessary to fight an objectionable nominee, vice president Elliot Mincberg said. The National Abortion Rights Action League transformed its website Friday so that visitors could donate time and money to a Supreme Court vacancy campaign.
I have to wonder – why? When it comes to who replaces O’Connor, we’ve already lost. The Republicans have a strong voting majority, and if necessary, they’ll use the “nuclear option” to prevent the Democrats from staging a successful filibuster. And if every single liberal in the country writes their senators, you know what? The Republicans will still have all the votes they need.
The Democrats have lost election after election after election, and when you lose that often you don’t get to choose Supreme Court justices. Nor do the Republicans have a politically realistic option of backing down; their base, so forgiving in so many ways, would never forgive a replacement for O’Connor whose opposition to Roe is less than total. Ed Kilgore has an accurate take on the situation:
This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn’t pay up, they’ll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party.
Sure, they care about other issues, from gay marriage to taxes to Iraq, but abortion is the issue that makes most Cultural Right activists get up in the morning and stuff envelopes and staff phone banks for the GOP. And for decades now, Republicans have told them they can’t do anything much about it until they can change the Supreme Court. With a pro-choice Justice stepping down, the subject can no longer be avoided. And thanks to the Souter precedent (and indeed, the O’Connor and Kennedy precedents), there’s no way Bush can finesse an appointment that’s anything less than a guaranteed vote to overturn Roe.
Some people may respond that I don’t appreciate how essential this might be. Look, I agree – it’s unbelievably essential. But just because it’s essential we win doesn’t mean we have the ability to win.
Let’s not fool ourselves – O’Connor’s replacement will be a loyal conservative, anti-Roe and predictably right-wing in all of her or his opinions. There is no way we can prevent this outcome. Knowing this, it’s hard for me to be enthusiastic about letter-writing or fund-raising based on trying to influence who replaces O’Connor. Wouldn’t it be better to reserve our energy for campaigns that aren’t completely, utterly hopeless?
P.S. Don’t take this as my saying that Roe is lost. Even with O’Connor’s vote replaced by a pro-life vote, there remains a 5-4 majority in favor of Roe (or, strictly speaking, in favor of Casey). People thought Roe was dead during Reagan, too – and that was about 20 years ago.
Links via Balloon Juice, which has an interesting list of quotes from conservatives, and Pressthink.
This is a smart post, Amp. I agree that when you control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, you are probably going to get to nominate someone whose views align with yours. If the situation was reversed and Dems controlled everything (also known as the good-old days), we would have expected nothing less than the most liberal, progressive judge as possible. To the victors go the spoils.
While once can say we want to aovid extremists, what defines extremists. People like Luttig, for instance, are far to the right but is a brilliant legal scholar. Same goes for McConnell. These guys aren’t hacks, like Bork. They are brilliant thinkers, they just don’t agree with me. If you look at the Allaiance for Justice’s “compromise conservatives” list, what is interesting is there isn’t a superstar in the whole group. Beyone Ann Clair Williams, these people aren’t known much at all.
To all the deeply pathetic morons who didn’t see a difference between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry: here it is, you dumb fucks.
Holy cow, Amp. You argue a good case but I’m not sure it’s one we want or need to hear right now. Hope you’ll rethink it over the next few weeks.
Amen, Josh.
Agreed, but if we don’t show the massive outpouring of support for a moderate, then we screw our chances of turning this appointment of a right wing radical into something for the Democrats to campaign on come 2006.
And the important fight that we are keeping our powder dry for is…?
Amanda is partially right. We certainly have no hope of winning future elections if our representatives simply lie down or walk away when massively important fights come up. This leads to a perception that Democrats are weak, have no principles because they will compromise on even the most basic and essential issues and thus can’t be trusted to dight the so0called War on Terror.
Sometimes you fight with everything you have because there is no alternative. If our attitude is “I’m staying in bed with the covers over my head because it’s just too tough out there; we can’t win” – we deserve to lose.
How sophisticated, how “post-modern”, what wonderful world-weary ennui: We must be realistic and understand we can’t possibly win, so why fight? Maybe the Radical Right is right about us.
In March 2001, the common wisdon was Semators don’t filibuster judicial nominees. March 2005, we were 10 judicial filibiusters down the road, with Pickering, Kuhl and Estrada out of the picture. Yes, the strategy has had to change. Doesn’t mean we take our marbles and walk out.
We are far from just lying down and letting them run over us. Too much is at stake.
I agree completely, Josh. It was always about the Supreme Court, if nothing else.
Interesting point, Amanda. Being vocal at this time may not do much to change what happens with the Court, but it would remind people that we are out here. I’m not sure we need to pour all our time and energy into a fruitless campaign to stop the inevitable, but we also don’t need to sit by silently, sending the message that we passively accept what is going on.
The thing is, the GOP can’t get elected on the strength of the wacko right alone. They need the votes of moderates, too—national-security conscious moms, poor white Christians, libertarians, economic conservatives.
I think you’re right, we’re not going to win this on the strength of Harry Reid alone. Their rabid base is bigger than our rabid base. We need the moderate GOP to play the moderation hand. Is there any way we can force this issue? I can think of a few.
*Can we declare a truce with some of the centrists? “Dear Sens. Chafee/Snow/Collins. We, as moderate Democrats dedicated to a moderate SCOTUS, would vote for your reelection if you will block extremist nominees.” Maybe even contribute money. A hard pill to swallow: is it necessary? Could it have an effect?
* Alternatively, can we *attack* the moderates by painting them as in-bed with the wackos? I’m picturing a TV ad interspersing quotes from Janice Rogers, paintings of the Spanish Inquisition, and shots of Lincoln Chafee smiling and nodding. If they’re going to vote for wackos, let’s take away their reputation for moderation.
* Can we drive a wedge in between the libertarians and the theocrats? Maybe talking up Griswold vs. Connecticut would help.
* Can we get the *pro-environment* Right—many Christians, Ducks Unlimited, the NRA perhaps, anti-Yucca Mountain Nevadans, etc.—to demand an environmental litmus test? That would limit Bush’s choices of “original intent” wackos.
“To all the deeply pathetic morons who didn’t see a difference between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry: here it is, you dumb fucks.”
To all the deeply pathetic Democrats like Gore, Kerry, etc., who helped create the current Supreme Court, by refusing to fight against the nomination of Right-wing Justices when they had the power to, here it is, you dumb fucks.
Oh, and Josh. Fuck you, too.
So, Josh, you were thinking “hey, here’s a nice calm thread on Alas. I better try my best to turn it into a flamewar by being as insulting as possible, because it’s completely impossible for me to disagree with progressives without also treating them like shit.” Right?
The truth is, everyone saw differences. The argument was over whether the differences was large enough to justify abandoning other important progressive issues, in which Bush and Gore (or Kerry) were substantially similar; or whether a different strategy was called for.
Only with a condom, dearie. I don’t know where you’ve been.
Abortion will decline within a generation for two main reasons. Women who have abortions are aborting future supporters (voters) of the right to have an abortion. The aborted females who most likely would decide to have an abortion in the future, will not be around to do so. Both reasons are based on the idea that “liberal” women would raise liberal children and on the natural laws of eradicating bad genes from the overall human gene pool.
A sick irony indeed.
First;
Running towards the middle is not the answer Ben. No, no and no. Robbing one hand to pay the other only creates a short-run win, and better to fight it out and have that objection noted, rather than giving in yet again.
Giving in and compromising is what has gotten us here, so either we lose with a fight or we lose while compromising away all the values that we collectively as liberals and progressives (not democrats, socialists and greens individually, but all of us collectively that fall on the liberal side of the fence) hold dear. We aren’t moderates, we are liberals – we are progressives. And further more, a GREAT MANY OF US ARE WOMEN.
Now, for a little pick-me up. If nothing else, any real danger to Roe v. Wade will push the socially moderate Republican’s towards the middle more. My parents are both Republicans. Both are also pro-choice (not terribly fond of abortion as a proceedure but recognizing it is a woman’s right to choose). Their republican stance is one of less federalism, so decisions that create more federalism such as this, where civil rights are getting hurt does in fact not help the Republican party as much as some might like to think. In fact, it alienates part of their base, which is the non-federalist portion of the conservatives. So soon enough, they will likely face more frustration in their party for yielding to a special interest group. I’m not sure how profound the upset will be, but it’s naive to think that liberals and progressives have no allies on this issue without us having to sell out our own beliefs to cement a mutual stance.
And finally, some quotes for you all, that I’ve often used as .sig files on the net, as a reminder of why the ‘fight’ is just as important as the win.
Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.
– Theodore Roosevelt
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.”
– Theodore Roosevelt
“Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.”
– MLK, Jr.
I read a liberal, pro-choice article that argued that Roe should be overturned, and the question turned back to the States, on the ground that Roe had polarized and hence strengthened the Radical Right by going too far, by advancing ahead of popular opinion. I wish I could find it now, that article.
Polls show that whereas most Americans support the right to abortion under some circumstances, they don’t support an unlimited right to abortion by anyone at any time for any reason. People who do support that are maybe as rare as people who would prohibit it under all circumstances whatever.
We need a national discussion on this issue, and we’re not getting it, all we’re getting is people screaming at each other.
At any rate, Amp is right. The Democrats have managed to lose election after election, not just the presidency, but in congress too. They didn’t even put up a meaningful opposition to this lunatic war in Iraq – I listened to the “debates” and thought, “Where the heck is the opposition party?? Do we have an opposition party??”
We need an opposition party with a real vision, a positive alternative that they can articulate and are willing and able to implement. I live in California, and 9 out of 10 of the bumper stickers I saw said DEFEAT BUSH.
Not ELECT KERRY BECAUSE HE’S GREAT. That doesn’t fly, folks. They need to do better.
Only with a condom, dearie. I don’t know where you’ve been.
Try pulling it down over your head. See if that helps you out with what Shrub’s daddy was wont to call “The Vision Thing.”
Better yet, practice spreading the blame around with an eye toward giving they that had the most power and who did the least with it their proper serving of grief and vitriol. Unless, of course, you enjoy bullying and scapegoating more than dialogue. In which case, I’d say you have more in common with those buffoons who think that banning same-sex marriage is going to save America than you are wont to admit.
BadGene that argument is laughably lame. Do you not know that being pro-choice has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics? Do you not know how many “pro-life” women will have abortions when it’s them or their daughters who are threatened? Provided they have the cash to go somewhere they can get one, lots. I used to be both a fundamentalist and in the pro-life movement, I know of what I speak.
Your argument vastly oversimplifies genetics, personal choices, and politics. Not to mention the fact that many pro-choice women never have the need to have abortions themselves, or if they do, go on to have children later.
In fact this idea is so absurd I would not have bothered to reply to this, but I have seen it floated around the conservative blogosphere, and thought it best to not let it go further here.
Susan wrote:
We need an opposition party with a real vision, a positive alternative that they can articulate and are willing and able to implement.
Good. Let’s start one. At the very least, I’d like to see as many mentions in the liberal-left blogosphere regarding IRV and proportional representation as I do mentions of nipples airbrushed out of nighttime TV melodramas. :/
See the cartoon at:
http://www.pa.uky.edu/~shlosman/anim/nevergiveup.jpg
Mentally insert the word DEMO on the frog and GOP on the stork, and then stop with the “Chicken Little” already!
Our elected representatives are career politicians –on BOTH sides of the aisle. Politics is the art of compromise. It’s a ‘no brainer’ that some form of compromise will be reached. After all, they have to look out for #1 don’t they?
Will the choice make extreme liberals happy? No.
Will the choice make extreme conservatives happy? No.
Will moderate people breath a sigh of relief that Congress can now get on to other equally important business? Very Likely.
At the time it started, opposition to the war in Iraq was political suicide. If more Democratic congresspeople ahd opposed the war, more of thm would have lost.
I actualy lay some (not all) blame on the actual Democratic voters. For the most part, the left has been apathetic, and under represented in the polls, whereas evangelicals and hard line war mongering right wingers are well organized.
the cynical side of me says that it’s because hate and fear make better motivators than peace and tolerance.
A lot of liberals and moderates I know ended up voting either Green because they thought threre was no difference between the two (which in CA, where I was was unimportant, because it was a given for the Dems) or for Bush because of war issues. No one I know of actualy liked Kerry as a candidate, whereas lots of Republicans love Bush.
I think the modern day Democrats, I mean, the actual votes, are too fractious to acctualy field a candidate who’ll be as popular with us as Bush is with the conservatives and republicans. And most libertarians are just money-tarians, so they’ll vote Bush because he’s in bed with big buisness, and for some idtiotic reason, money-tarians think that helps them.
So liberals, and even moderate Dems do end up voting against a single conservative candidate. And lots of us get disgusted with it.
But look, here’s the something that a Kerry presidency would have avoided. To the people who declared there’s no difference, I ask: is Roe V. Wade being gone, and Roe V. Wade not being gone the same thing?
It sure looks different to me, and I’m not even a woman. A Kerry presidency would have replaced O’Connor with someone in favor of keeping Roe V. Wade. A Bush presidency is going to overturn it if it gets the chance.
If I could go back in time, and show people who said there’s no difference betwen Bush and $Democrat, recent events, and they could still tell me there’s no difference, I’d have to say that the term “dumb fucks” would apply pretty well.
Democrats need to press this story because Americans like to screw. We need to make sure that the American people know that we are going to fight for their right to fuck indiscriminately. One of two things can come of this:
1: Rove actually appoints an anti-Roe Justice. This would be bad for the Republicans as it will piss off all the people already pissed by Terry Schiavo and would fire up our own base because as I said: Americans like screwing.
This probably will not happen. Rove knows how much Americans like screwing. Which leaves us at:
2: Rove appoints a pro-screwing Justice. This could be made bad for Republicans if we hype up how much is riding on this appointment. If we broadcast real loud that Roe could be reversed and it isn’t, that will disappoint a large segment of the christianist right, probably pushing them into political apathy. This is especially true if we talk about how the Republicans are only paying lip service to christianist religiosity in order to facilitate their klepto-capitalist agenda and then they appoint a “pro-business”? moderate.
“…A Kerry presidency would have replaced O’Connor with someone in favor of keeping Roe V. Wade. A Bush presidency is going to overturn it if it gets the chance…”
Before he was embarassed into backing down, Kerry fudged badly on the issue of Roe V. Wade, saying that he wouldn’t be averse to appointing a pro-life judge. You also assume that Kerry would not have been led around by the nose by the Republican Right, which was emboldened under Clinton and hardly broke a sweat torpedoing even the handful of chickenshit liberal motions he made toward his constituents. (Anyone remember Lani Guinier ?) If anything, Kerry (and the current faux man-on-a-white-horse, Dean) are even more right-wing than Clinton was. If only because they have even more lattitude to get away with it.
If I could go back in time, and show people who said there’s no difference betwen Bush and $Democrat, recent events, and they could still tell me there’s no difference, I’d have to say that the term “dumb fucks”? would apply pretty well.
The question, which you would acknowledge if you weren’t hell-bent on behaving like a bullying, obnoxious asshole, is not whether there is a difference, but whether the differences justify continuing to prop up a bunch of elites that play with us like pawns on chessboard– with all the genuine interest in our fate that the player-to-pawn relationship implies. I say, “No,” I still wouldn’t vote for Gore, because Gore and the rest of DLC are a bunch of pandering, insulated, overprivileged scumbuckets. Happy, Jasper ?
If one dualistic model (“no difference”) is bad, than replacing it with another dualistic model (“many differences, only a few insignifigant similarities”) doesn’t really accomplish all that much. As Amp pointed out, the real question is how crucial the differences are, and what the priorities of voters should be. You think that the Supremes are worth any sacrifice we have to make, and even if someone like me points out that a major reason that we have so many Righties on the Court is because Democrats put them there, you are scarcely stirred. You would rather scream at a tiny sliver of the electorate than go scream at Kerry and Gore. That’s pretty damn cowardly, Josh.
Just a small example: We all remember the Summers flap, right ? How many liberals and Lefties who commented on it even remembered that Summers used to work for that champion of women’s rights, Bill Clinton ? How many who remembered this thought it was worth remarking upon ? It’s easy to blame Bush somehow because Summers is an asshole, but he had a long career of being one. It was far longer than the length of Bush’s term, and it was with the official blessing of the party that’s supposed to defend women (and those other “special interests” that are crucial to the Democrats when scutwork is needed and pushed back into the scullery hole the rest of the time) from the policies perpetrated by the current and future Justices.
And we wonder why guys like Kos shoot their mouths off the way they do and get away with it. It’s not a coincidence that they do. If a party can be said to have a “shadow platform” totally at odds with the official story they feed us to keep us in line, they embody it perfectly. So did Gore when he confirmed Right Wing justices, and so do far too many heavy-hitters in the Democratic Party.
Josh writes: I actualy lay some (not all) blame on the actual Democratic voters. For the most part, the left has been apathetic, and under represented in the polls, whereas evangelicals and hard line war mongering right wingers are well organized.
We right-wingers also have more of the facts at our command, we make more cogent arguments, and we’re on the right side.
We’ve been arguing for personal liberty, freedom, democracy, and religious freedom in the Middle East. That used to be a liberal argument but isn’t anymore. Liberals and progressives have allowed themselves to be trapped arguing in favor of Saddam (or of nothing at all). That d0esn’t win elections.
George Bush stood for something. John Kerry stood for nothing. Guess who wins such an election 9 out of 10 times?
the cynical side of me says that it’s because hate and fear make better motivators than peace and tolerance.
Evangelical Christians are highly motivated by peace and tolerance. They’d like to have peace and not be blown up by Islamofascists. They’d like tolerance, including of themselves by the Left.
I’m not sure I agree with Josh. I don’t know who Bush will seek to appoint, and I don’t know who Kerry would have sought to appoint. It’s not like Breyer was a big win. Except for his dissent on copyright extension, he’s been undistinguished. O’Connor, on the other hand, was a national treasure, and that was Reagan. Sure, I fear the worst – someone like Gonzales or Ashcroft. But let’s see what happens. Even those two could have hidden strengths – sometimes people grow into the job.
I’m not sure I agree with Amp. Sure, beating any Bush nominee would be a longshot. Let me suggest a strategy. Whoever Bush names, yell like hell – that they aren’t conservative enough. You need to peel off about 6 GOP votes, and have the D’s stick together. It also helps if you can substantiate something like tax fraud, mopery dopery and popery. Of course, before Borking the first choice, it’s a good idea to know who’s next in line.
Sadly, Amp is right. What will screaming get you when they have the votes? (Who is going to listen to screaming anyway?) I really liked what Kim and Susan had to say.
The Dems. Sell out to often for fear of losing altogether. The left would do better by staying on message and telling our story and why it will benefit the majority of the population and protect the minorities that need to be represented. A steady drumbeat on issues of equality, representation, peace, environment, education, economy, (that’s right, all that money that went to bombs could go to housing etc, which produces more jobs? Can you eat a bomb?) Healthcare ought to be enough alone.
By standing up and by the issues that matter and will enhance many more lives then war and tax breaks for the wealthy, the choice becomes clear. I had to vote for Dennis Kucinich, he is not ashamed or unwilling to stand up for left issues without selling out. I could not vote for Kerry, alsis39, makes the point very well why. (At least thats what I heard..)
The left needs to get into the fight, however we have to be consistent and on our message and not worry about the critics, it is hard to see us if we always seem to be moving or defending ourselves after being baited by issues such as Roe. It always seems to boil down to that and that distracts folks from all the other issues that matter to them.
We will survive GW, (unfortunately not all of us, stinking war.) How about getting on message, and getting the votes? Justices will continue to retire, we need to be ready. Blessings. (Also, what is with the bad language and fighting? I thought we are people for peace?)
Was there any difference between Bush and Kerry? Yes. But not enough. We had a pro-war, pro-life, pro-“traditional-marriage” conservative wingnut and a pro-war, pro-life, pro-“traditional-marriage” vaguely liberal flip-flopper. Both were dependent on big corporations for much of their campaign funding (in exchange, basically, for legislation in their favor), and both spent the debates displaying their ability to answer a question without answering the question.
Moreover, the Democrats spent huge amounts of effort interfering with Nader’s ballot access, and I deeply resent the idea many of them spewed, that he “steals” votes—my vote doesn’t “belong” to the Democratic Party, it belongs to me, and the Democrats’ continuing slide to the right means they are not worth my vote, especially when there’s a strongly pro-choice, pro-gender-equality, pro-gay-marriage, anti-war candidate on the ballot.
This is not the case with all Democratic politicians, but too often they please their more moderate voters while expecting liberals to support them anyway—this is why they hate the idea of a left-wing third-party candidate: if liberals had a better choice they would stop voting for candidates who marginalize their issues.
In Ralph Nader’s first bid for president, he said that he was “standing” for president rather than “running.” That is, he wasn’t trying to be elected, but was simply offering an alternative to the type of candidates many people were disgusted with. He was someone to vote for if you didn’t think the other candidates were worth voting for. The idea was, and is, competition: the presence of quality third-party candidates would force the two-party duopoly to start running quality candidates, instead of the voters being required to settle for the poor choices they put out because there’s no other option. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party thrives (or at least survives, recently) because of that lack of another option, and that’s not fair to liberal voters.
If you want my vote, give me someone worth voting for. It’s that simple. (Why don’t the Democrats nominate someone like Nader next election instead of some lackluster Republican Lite cardboard cutout like Kerry?) The whole political game suffers from a terminal case of poor standards. People like Nader are the cure.
Getting back to the matter at hand, suppose Kerry was President, and nominated a pro-choice Justice. Guess who controls the Senate? That’s right, the Republicans, who could refuse to confirm a pro-choice Justice all the way to the next election.
Alsis39—you said it! Awesome.
Josh Jasper—quit acting like a troll. Your last post (before The Jew, in case you posted again while I was typing this) is an improvement over the ones before, but before that you’re a jackass. And fuck someone else; I’m not interested.
Kyra: You’re right. I asked Amp to delete my posts. My point is the same, but my language was uncalled for.
To be clear, I’m not pissed at Grenn Party voters, but I am upset that there’s the idea still floating around that Kerry was no differnt than Bush. This dosen’t mean I liked Kerry, but he wouldn’t have appointed someone who’d have overturned Roe V. Wade, and no amount of Republican fillibustering could have changed that. Plus, there are enough sort-of pro choice Republicans to get a pro choice justice passed.
Steve White,
Your generalities do not persuade or support your argument.
To be against war is not an endorsement of tyrants. Evangelical Christian, and Co-founder of The Salvation Army (His wife was the Theologian), William Booth said over 100 years ago, “all war is of the devil, no matter how it is gilded…”? I agree with him. (And the Roman Catholic’s, Buddhists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. and a lot of non-religious folks that see war as evil.)
Freedom means having the right to choose if you want to be an Islamic Fundamentalist or governed by an oligarchy, not simply a Western Democracy. Freedom means that you can use and sell your resources to anyone you please. (Like oil, the real motivator behind this.) The fight for women’s rights in the rest of the world would sound far more believable were they practiced better here at home.
The cogent arguments are frequently less arguments then rhetoric that create fear and anger. This does nothing to generate a healthy discussion, but polarizes people and squashes debate. If we in the Church followed our calling more closely poverty would be far less of an issue, women would have equal rights in all things, and the Islamic people would have no reason to be threatened by us.
As for the peace and tolerance of Evangelical Christians; for a Christian, tolerance is not considered a virtue. We are to love all people especially our enemies, not tolerate them. Tolerance implies something less then love, like I don’t like you, but I will ignore your activity, this is not love. Sadly I have heard as much hateful derision of political opponents from Evangelicals as I have from non believers, Christians should know better. Blessings.
Democrats need to press this story because Americans like to screw. We need to make sure that the American people know that we are going to fight for their right to fuck indiscriminately.
Can I just say that TheJew is 100% correct? To me, it’s just a matter of countering the “dirty sluts” frame the anti-choicers promote and framing abortion and especially birth control as something that affects everyone. Birth control is threatened and I intend to hammer at that the second Bush nominates someone who is, like Scalia and Thomas, adamantly opposed to the very idea of privacy rights and I implore everyone else to do so. That person may get appointed, but this is a prime moment to educate the American public that the right to privacy is about more than the right of teenage sluts to get away with screwing by avoiding the supposed just punishment of pregnancy.
We need to make sure that the American people know that we are going to fight for their right to fuck indiscriminately.
Yes, this is a winning strategy. People are concerned that the leftish side of the political sphere is too prudish and sex-negative; “we need Supreme Court justices who will endorse a culture of indiscriminate promiscuity” is just the message to put the left wing back into the American mainstream.
I mean, Jesus. Is Karl Rove mind-controlling all you guys? I know the orbital mind control lasers are powerful, but this just seems ridiculous.
The freakish thing is that Gonzales is the choice I hate the least.
We need to make sure that the American people know that we are going to fight for their right to fuck indiscriminately.
I understand why this might seem like a good strategy, and I certainly think it’s a right I ought to have.
But what’s true is that even if abortion rights are severely restricted, the people with the resources to do so will always get them if they want them. And I don’t mean just very-wealthy people. I myself am not wealthy, but I live in a large city in a predominantly Blue state and so my ability to get an abortion is unlikely to vanish entirely. Worst comes to worst, I live within three hours of the Canadian border, and I can get a few days off work and drive my car to Vancouver and get what I need. That’s not something everyone can do.
The people who are going to be most hurt by this are the poor and the very young. (At least, the very young whose parents don’t support/don’t know about their daughter’s desire for an abortion.) Of course, all women will be hurt by the fact that rolling back abortion rights signals more govermental control over women’s bodies. But the people pushing to abolish Roe v Wade will still be able to fuck indiscriminately, because believe me, if a rich man’s wife or daughter or girlfriend-on-the-side wants an abortion, she’ll get one. As long as he says it’s all right, that is.
It’s ironic that people see Gonzalez as palatable. He may believe torture is okay, he may believe it is okay for the government to voilate privacy for the sake of terrorism, but we can live with that because he is lukewarm on abortion and affirmative action.
This is what is wrong with this whole judicial struggle. Abortion has hijacked the entire national conversation . . . again. We are willing to back someone who backs torture becuase he satisfies the abortion litmus test.
Are you willing to abandon reproductive rights because someone fails the torture litmus test? Which right would you rather loose? The right for prisoners in Gitmo not to be tortured, or the right of women to have reproductive choice?
Not that it matters, we’re loosing both anyway.
Plus, I have no reason to think that the other candidates wouldn’t also back goverment-sanctioned torture and violations of privacy.
It’s just frustrating that we can’t have a national conversation about the judiciary without it turning into a conversation over the privacy right to abort a fetus. I think we deserve better and need better, that’s all.
It’s just frustrating that we can’t have a national conversation about the judiciary without it turning into a conversation over the privacy right to abort a fetus.
That is indeed frustrating. It’s one of the unfortunate side effects of the Supreme Court federalizing an issue that was being handled perfectly adequately by the states.
If there had been no Roe, right now I would wager that:
* abortion would be more available overall in states containing a majority of the population
* the religious right would be considerably weaker, if it even existed as a political entity
* the judiciary would not be nearly as politicized
* more Americans would feel represented in the judicial process.
With a Federal solution, this last point is simply unachievable. There is no national policy on abortion that leads to both pro-choicers and pro-lifers being happy with the judicial regime. A federalist policy, on the other hand, would make it almost trivially easy for those people for whom abortion is a key issue to be in a place where the abortion law represents what they want to see.
Federalism is the only way for our diverse country to be able to stick together. If leftists (and wingers) continue to insist on one-size-fits-all national policies, this country will tear itself apart. It’s like having a large and fractious family; put them in a two-bedroom tenement and there’s going to be a murder. Put them in a big suburban rambler with some outbuildings and ten acres out back, and everybody can get along just fine.
Well, Robert, when you re write history to suit, of course the religious right ends up weaker in your vision, because that’s how you see things. Of course, no one knows what might have happened if Roe V. Wade never passed. Perhaps we’d have had a constitutional ammendment protecting choice, and it might have passed. Or we might have had a constitutional ammendment banning it on a federal level.
Bush, given the power, *would* ban it on a federal level just like he’d ban same sex marriage.
Bush, given the power, *would* ban it on a federal level just like he’d ban same sex marriage.
Well, sure. Bush is not a libertarian purist (or even much of a fellow traveller), and he’s walked into a situation where willy nilly, abortion is a federal issue. What’s he supposed to do, pretend the issue isn’t on the table?
And since it is in on the table, he wants to move the issue in the direction favored by his supporters and his base. That’s democracy, pretty much. They voted for him wanting him to do X, and he got elected, and he’s trying to do X. Just like your guy (whomever your guy may have been) would have tried to do Z, at your behest.
Sometimes democracy sucks, which is why I ought to be king. ;)
GW is no different then the late George Wallace, they say what is politically expedient for them. You have to play to your power base, and for two elections GW has mobilized the wing for him by hitting those hot buttons. GW knows there will be no amendment banning same sex marriages, he has said as much if you were listening 3 years ago. It does real well to keep the right agitated and not focusing on the failures in the Administration, and it sure enough keeps the left occupied and off message. (That is anything other than choice and SSM.)
I agree with resipsa, (both posts) choice is far less threatened than other issues, yet that seems to be the one that gets the attention, and the continued litany by the left only gives credence to the right to push that much harder. The issue of abortions pails in comparison to poverty, healthcare, ignorance, violence, peace, parity for wages and opportunities, racial issues and women’s rights just to hit on the easy picks. Why do we let them bait us to keeping it to a narrow debate over something that just ain’t going away, and allows them to look like they are doing something? Blessings.
If the Democrats wanted to get all Machiavellian on the Republicans’ collective asses, they’d allow a Supreme Court that would allow for federal abortion bans. Then the Republican party would be fractured between antichoice nutjobs and moderate not-quite-as-nutty-jobs, one would leave, then in the pandemonium, my army of ninja monkeys would be unleashed on an unsuspecting public leading to me, Raznor as new King of Earth!!!!
Wait – what was I talking about again? Fuck, it’s late.
I see Alas had its own 4th of July fireworks.
I’m not sure I would be sorry to see Roe go and have the issue returned to the legislature IF that meant that people would start paying more attention to local and state elections. While everyone has been so wrapped up in federal elections, legislation, and courts, state legislatures and localities have become much more conservative than their constituents. The result is legislation that does things like deny adoption to homosexuals or cuts off health care to the working poor or reduces support for education.
State and local elections can be affected by a well-organized group well out-of-proportion to its size but that kind of effort isn’t being made by liberal. At this point, I’d be for almost anything that would get some effort and money focused on getting progressives into state and local offices; not only will that change state politics but it will seed who runs for federal offices in the future. If we want to make a revolution, we need to make it happen from the bottom up.
Pingback: » Blog Archive » More music-the Woods Brothers-and some links and a ‘toon for The Day ahead
Lost causes are the mother’s milk of the blogshpere. (“Save Terri’s life!”?) I applaud Amp for not pandering to people’s cherished, but false, hopes.
That said: Is the cause lost? That is, is the nuclear option is legal? People disagree.
The Constitution permits each house of Congress to set its own rules. The Senate has established a rule providing for debates before votes, and permitting the debate to continue unless 60 Senators vote to end the debate. The Senate has also established a rule requiring 67 votes to change its rules. The “nuclear option”? involves the Senate leadership simply asserting that these Senate rules are unconstitutional and therefore may be ignored. (Alternatively, the Senate may muster a simple majority for a new rule inconsistent with the old rules, and then claim that the new rules are just as valid as the old rules.)
It is unclear to me that these arguments would hold up. Assuming one Senator could find one sympathetic district court anywhere in the US to issue an injunction, the legal fight would be on. In the meantime, the Democrats would bring the business of the Senate to a snails pace by demanding rollcall votes and coordinating parliamentary points of privilege at every turn. The “nuclear option”? may provoke a legislative “nuclear winter.”?
Perhaps more importantly, whether or not the Republicans could win in court, the maneuver would paint Senate leader Bill Frist as an antagonistic extremist and cripple his presidential aspirations. Knowing this, Frist may ultimately be unwilling to push the button.
All is not lost. So buck up (as with your checkbook….)
Josh–good point about my previous comment. The Republican majority probably couldn’t do all that much to block a Democratic president’s pro-choice nominee. The problem with one bit rudeness (your apology is noted, by the way; that can’t have been easy for you to get off the high horse) is that it’s contagious; I can normally keep to the facts or at least frame speculation as speculation. Someone pisses me off, though, and it’s all too easy to employ bad logic in order to get my point across faster, hence my previous insistance that a Democratic president would be helpless against a Republican majority. I completely forgot that pro-choice Republicans exist.
Amy–you’re absolutely right about this hitting the young and poor, and even more right about the people supporting this thing being the ones with nothing to lose by it. It’s the worst of arguments: “I don’t need this, why should you get it?” Feminism has been hassled since its beginning by women who are perfectly happy being wives and mothers who insist that anyone who isn’t fulfilled by that role has something wrong with her, or that the unhappiness they find in it should be their punishment for not being satisfied by it. Someone once told me that outlawing gay marriage wasn’t unfair because gay men had the same right straight men had to marry a woman. Others come up with bullshit like “that’s what they get for deciding to be gay.” The prolife movement is full of women who would not FEEL limited by a forced pregnancy, because it mirrors the choice they would make, and women who don’t mind abstaining from sex for a great deal of their lives (I bet they’re the ones who support the ‘only in case of rape’ restriction, or else see a chance to be holier-than-thou if they are raped (“Look at me, I’m carrying a child even though I was raped, because he’s innocent of his father’s crimes–I’m not a slut, I’m a Compassionate Conservative and a Good Mommy!”), and of course a bunch of men who won’t suffer (they don’t care enough about women to feel empathy for them the way good, pro-choice men do) and don’t care that we will–after all, we’d only suffer if we’re procmiscuous sluts AND bad women who don’t appreciate the honor of growing a baby when some man decides we should.
Robert–this country is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. That is, a) the people don’t make laws as a group, they elect representatives to do so, and b) the rights of minorities with little voting power (and therefore, representation) cannot be taken away by the majority. It generally works, sometimes more than others, but it has a fault in that sometimes the majority doesn’t realize something’s not fair to a minority, and sometimes it doesn’t care that something’s not fair. And sometimes the Supreme Court, whose job it is to see that the minority’s complaints are listened to, is stuffed with nutcases who don’t realize or don’t care that something is unfair.
AndiF–“I’m not sure I would be sorry to see Roe go . . .” You’re not a woman, are you? Or if you are, well, go back two paragraphs and read my response to Amy’s post, and then go back and read Amy’s post. The rights of some people are not a fitting trade for more people becoming politically active. I personally would not be sorry to see the Republican Party shatter into a thousand pieces, but that doesn’t mean losing Roe would be anything less than a tragedy. Especially since many of the shattered parts of the Republican party would join the anti-choice wing of the Democratic party. And the only thing worse than a duopoly is a monopoly.
Nobody.Really–thanks for explaining the mechanics of the filibuster. Re the claim that the rules are unconstitutional, shouldn’t they put that before the Supreme Court? (That would be very interesting–Senate Democrats v Senate Republicans, and the Supreme Court deciding how the Supreme Court’s nominations can be decided? Yeah, I know. Unlikely.)
Kyra,
I am a woman and you misunderstood my point — state legislatures and localities are running over our civil and reproductive rights and what happens there is as important as what happens at the Supreme Court. At this point, there’s a limited amount we can do about the supreme court and I’m all for doing what we can but I am distressed at how little attention is getting paid to where we live. If we really want to assure the rights that are import to us, we need to start putting our energies where they can make real change — by electing progressives (of any party) at the state and local level to replace those who restrict abortion, harass planned parenthood, discriminate against gays, reduce assistance to the working poor and on and on.
Robert, I think you’re right. If the abortion issue had been left to the States I very much doubt that it would not have been more or less resolved to everyone’s dissatisfaction (no one wins everything) long before now. It certainly wouldn’t be at the center of the current discussion.
There are other issues, you know, facing the Supreme Court. They just get drowned out.
Kyra: feminism has aalways been tied in with class and economic issues. It’s been my observation that anti-feminist laws always seem to impact the poor the most. Rich people can get around laws that inconveience them.
It still annoys me that some poor people vote for a party that consistantly cuts social services, public funding of health care, utilities, and transit. This is one area that religion ends up being a damaging force in life. It convinces the poor to keep themselves poor.
Rick Santorum is quoted by capitolbuss blog as saying
And yet somehow the Republicans manage to get out the idea that ‘entitlement’ programs are what’s really keeping poor people down.
Great points, emjaybee.
Also, about “Do you not know how many “pro-life”? women will have abortions when it’s them or their daughters who are threatened?…
…besides, not every daughter of an anti-abortion woman will become anti-abortion herself in the first place, even if her mom never aborts. You know, like the way not every son or daughter of a couple who has over a dozen kids wants to have that many himself or herself. In some cases, he or she thinks “Growing up in such a crowded home/not having enough to eat/raising several younger siblings/whatever sucked, I’m not doing that to any kid of mine!”
To Amanda Marcotte:
“Can I just say that TheJew is 100% correct? To me, it’s just a matter of countering the “dirty sluts”? frame the anti-choicers promote and framing abortion and especially birth control as something that affects everyone.”
Don’t forget that it may affect traditionally married couples even more than it affects singletons. After all, for whom is abstinence more feasible? A single office worker who has no children? Or a housewife who was a virgin bride, who now has several children she conceived within marriage, whose husband can’t support any more, who needs to stay married to her husband to support the kids they already have, and who won’t reach menopause for years…?
If the Republicans have taught us anything in the last fifteen years, redefining the terms of discussion would be that lesson and the chief underpinning in that re-definition is that nothing is ever over. Not at the beginning of a seeming dark period, not in the middle, and especially not at the end.
IF indeed this battle for the next seat is lost now, there will be hell to pay for the party that threatens Roe and Casey., or overturns it. Politics is endless war behind a smile. Time to snarl is near.
Josh, in all fairness, this is patronizing beyond belief. It “annoys” you that poor people make independent judgments with which you do not agree. (God forbid!) So? You’re ready to do their thinking for them? And why is that? Because they are poor, and so in your infinite wisdom you know more about what is good for them than they do?
If you think these folks are voting against their “real” interests (as defined by you) you’re going to have to do more than being annoyed. You’re going to have to talk to these people, and try to convince them that your point of view is correct.
There is an argument that anyone who makes more than $50,000 is voting “against” their interests when they vote for Democrats since Republicans are more interested in cutting taxes, etc. etc. Deciding what is in someone’s interest is a value judgment. Maybe those poor folks believe that they aren’t going to be better off with Democrats in charge and feel if they have to choose, they’d rather back a party that doesn’t support killing babies and taking prayer out of schools.
Just because you don’t agree with those “interests” doesn’t mean they aren’t legitimate interests.
Wow Josh, good find. That quote is just horrifying – this is the first time I have heard it, but just….wow.
Kyra wrote:
…my vote doesn’t “belong”? to the Democratic Party, it belongs to me…
Yep. No matter how many times I repeat this to liberals and other feminists, it seldom –if ever– seems to sink in. Perhaps if we repeat it often and loudly enough, it will.
Aside from Andi’s well-grounded points, I think that feminists and liberals sympathetic to feminist issues need to divest themselves of the idea that elected officials at Federal and State level –not to mention their party-hack brokers and corporate backers– feel any good will toward feminist issues at all. Honestly, six or seven years ago, I would have been willing to credit people like John Kerry and Hilary Clinton with good will tempered by extreme cowardice. Now, I don’t believe in their good will anymore.
Just listen to them.
Look how they continue to obediently follow the Republicans as they pick up the “center” goalpost and once again shift it further right. How many more times will liberals and lefties let them get away with it before the dawn starts to break: They are not, in fact, pro-choice (or pro-labor, pro-gay marriage, pro-evironment, what-have-you). They are pro-elite. They are all in favor of civil rights and the right to self-determination– for their wealthy friends and peers who can afford it. The rest of us are good for tithing, votes and scut-labor at election time, so they will pretend to sympathise with us. When push comes to shove, however, we are sold out at the drop of a hat. We need electoral reforms that will make it possible to retaliate against these people for betraying us. The Supreme Court is part of that, but not the only part.
And NOTA knows, we need more Lefties besides Nader to stick their necks out and confront the elite– ALL the time, not just between campaigns. Nader isn’t perfect, and he’s not going to live forever, either. The drive for deep change should not be left solely on the shoulders of one person. It becomes too easy then to dismiss an entire movement based solely upon the flaws of that one individual.
Wow again. Couldn’t you possibly have found another way of phrasing this other than a sweeping statement that isn’t even tongue in cheek? Unless of course you’re saying Democrats do in fact support killing babies from your POV.
Susan:
Yes, I know. I’m such an asshole for thinking people are better off with education and affordable medical care, and they really ought to be allowed to vote against getting it without me scorning them.
I was describing a perception of voters who supported Republicans, not my own, but thanks for asking before tossing out allegations.
I know this article is about the corporate world, but I think this also applies to ‘way too many politicians: read this Washington Post article.
Maybe it’s me, but I can’t parse this. You’re an asshole for thinking that people ought to be able to vote against getting “it” without you scorning them? But you don’t think that.
I think you mean that you are right to scorn people who vote “against” education and affordable medical care. Or your ideas about those issues.
Well, as we’ve all learned on this thread, no one can stop you from scorning whomsoever you wish. (Just about everybody, so far as I can tell.) But nevertheless, you come on like an elitist, who knows the interests of other people better than they know them themselves.
Shall we elect you Dictator For Life?
Res Ipsa said it right.
The people who vote the way RI describes believe that abortion is killing babies, and intensely want prayer in schools, a banning of gay marriage, and a whole host of related issues. And these issues are more important to them than Jake’s Omnipotent Analysis of what they really ought to want, and would want if they were only as smart as he is.
It’s not the point to ask whether these people are “right” or “wrong.” The point in a democracy is, “can we talk to these people? What do we have in common? Can we make common cause with them against people who are, in fact, hurting all of us?” I would suggest that it is not a promising beginning to assume that our potential allies are idots.
It’s also unwise to assume that all of our potential allies are registered voters.
Well, alsis39, enough of them were registered, and voted, to defeat us.
My point, Susan, is that non-voters vastly outnumber either registered Democrats or Republicans.
“To all the deeply pathetic morons who didn’t see a difference between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry: here it is, you dumb fucks.”?
To all the deeply pathetic Democrats like Gore, Kerry, etc., who helped create the current Supreme Court, by refusing to fight against the nomination of Right-wing Justices when they had the power to, here it is, you dumb fucks.”
—————————–
Amen. And for ALL the senators who voted for Scalia including Gore and Kerry, Fuck you!
Unfortunately, that middle-finger is extended to both sides of the aisle in Congress.
Sorry if that sounds inflammatory but I’m not holding up any Scalia supporters as shining examples of those who would look out for reproductive rights for women in this country.
As for the abortion wars, I don’t think the USSC is where they’ll be fought. They’re being fought in the medical schools, residence programs, hospital/clinic mergers, funding, clinic leases not being renewed by antsy landlords, etc. I think that’s where it will all be won or lost….
“A Kerry presidency would have replaced O’Connor with someone in favor of keeping Roe V. Wade. ”
—————————–
Maybe O’Connor would have held out for a Republican administration, if Kerry had won. Originally, she wasn’t going to go beyond 2000 unless Gore won.
I don’t think Justice Stevens is remaining on the Court, for his personal kicks, even though I believe he’s up there in terms of seniority by age. He’s waiting…
I wonder if they’ll go through the obnoxious right-wing justice route, then after wearing the Demo-senators out(which admittedly doesn’t take much effort or time) they’ll drag out one who’s more moderate. They’ve got to pick a new one keeping in mind that Reinquist may not stay on much longer.
Overturning Roe so close to the next election might foster a backlash the Repubs haven’t seen yet, from people included unregistered voters or those who are but don’t usually vote. Great care will be taken here, imo.
My point, Susan, is that non-voters vastly outnumber either registered Democrats or Republicans.
So get out and register these folks. Don’t want to do that? Afraid they’ll vote against you?
My point, Susan, is that non-voters vastly outnumber either registered Democrats or Republicans.
So get out and register these folks. Don’t want to do that? Afraid they’ll vote against you?
——————————————–
Been there, done that, and I registered everyone or gave anyone interested in registering a form, despite being paid only if I registered Democrats.
(this was way back in those ‘ol Young College Democrat Club days, lol)
God forbid that we should compromise. Heaven forfend that we should grant some points to our adversaries, in order to make them allies.
Can we agree that partial-birth abortion is not exactly OK when we’re talking about a genetically normal full-term fetus? If we can’t go with that, why do we expect our adversaries (potential allies) to yield their position that first trimester abortion in the case of incestual rape is always forbidden? Do we all have to argue in terms of absolutes?
If we do, then we’re locked in combat, and no one can fix it. And since there are more of them than of us, we’re doomed to defeat.
When does common sense kick in?
Susan :Shall we elect you Dictator For Life?
I think people are idiots when the vote for things that affect them negativley, and you translate that into me telling them they have no right to vote. If you can find where I said people had *no right* to vote for stupid things, let me know. Otherwise, it looks like you’re debating with someone who isn’t here.
“Can we agree that partial-birth abortion is not exactly OK when we’re talking about a genetically normal full-term fetus? ”
—————————————–
The paradox is that often, late-term abortions are more medically necessary either for the life of the mother, or her health than those performed earlier. And they are increasingly difficult to obtain, even when you medically need them, which is most often the case.
In many if not most cases, the fetuses are not likely to survive for long outside the womb, due to anencephaly and other disorders.
I know three women who had to obtain late-term abortions, all for health reasons including anencephaly. From what they told me, they were difficult, heart-breaking situations, which would have been made all the more so if they had not had access to the late-term abortions(which is not nearly as easy as many people seem to believe)
“If we do, then we’re locked in combat, and no one can fix it. And since there are more of them than of us, we’re doomed to defeat.”
This isn’t even true, about more of “them”. That’s what the right-wing conservatives want us to think. Actually, they’re in the minority. Hence, the reason why I think overturning the Roe decision could backfire on them big time.
Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings involving Anita Hill, and the impact that had in terms of women in the Senate in 1992?
Radfem,
I said “NORMAL” fetuses. Not anencephalic fetuses or others with serious defects.
I pose to you an outrageous case. A woman is carrying a fully normal, full-term fetus. At the last moment, three days before the due date, she decides because she’s had a rupture with the father (or for any other reason) that she doesn’t want this baby. She’s OK, the fetus is OK, no medical problems.
Would you take the position that she is entitled – at will – to have a partial birth abortion of this (normal, viable) fetus?
“…Afraid they’ll vote against you?”
No. I’m afraid that the party which would best represent them was too busy kissing Kerry’s ass in 2004 to merit my continued trust. If I don’t trust the GP’s leadership, I’m sure as hell not going to hit the pavement for them and lie to a whole lot of fellow citizens that I don’t even know.
You have quite a knack for deliberate obtuseness, Susan. You know damn well that it’s not simply a question of signing people up. If you can’t demonstrate that the folks in charge have enough in common with non-voters to share their priorities (as opposed to just smarmy rhetoric about common priorities), it’s highly unlikely that even those you can get registered will bother with the subsequent step of actually voting. Furthermore, people hate feeling conned. If you sell them on the notion of voting for a Social Darwinist in Populist pancake makeup (ie– Bill Clinton) they will likely decide after the makeup comes off that their first vote is also their last vote.
Thanks for asking. :/
You said genetically normal. There’s a difference btwn that and normal, in general. Think about it a bit, and you’ll get it.
anecephaly can be related to genetics, but it doesn’t have to be. Environmental factors, nutrition, etc. play a role as well, though scientists aren’t sure exactly what causes it.
It wouldn’t be my choice of how to handle the situation, however, if I decided that she didn’t have the right to get an abortion, then I’m taking away her choice….though if I knew her, I’d talk to her about it, and her choices. Forcing women to give birth is not an area I want to step into either and if the right-wing crowd wants to stone me for that, well choose round ones please….What are you going to do, strap her down, chain her and induce labor? How’s that for outrageous?
It’s usually a right-wing tactic to parade out these “outrageous” scenerios and pretend that they are the norm in terms of WHY women seek late-term abortions. You know, like they used the excuse that women got abortions earlier, because they didn’t like the way maternity wear clashed with their nail polish or something equally ridiculous. The way to counter that argument is to present the larger, more accurate picture of what the issue involves. And the fact is that the situation you outlined above is not near of what the norm is.
Radfem
My example is no more outrageous than the example of the 14 year old impregnated by her father by rape, who is in the first trimester.
Neither situation is typical. If I said abortion was always and everywhere prohibited, you’d throw the above example at me. If you said every woman could have an abortion at any time for any reason or no reason, I could throw my example at you. And we’d both be right.
But realistically, how many abortions fall into either category? A very small fraction.
Can we talk? And more importantly, can we talk to the rest of the nation?
The extremes are useful because they require people to define the boundaries of their philosophies. It is also useful to see who squirms at being asked to do that. People who won’t characterize their positions or define them are often (though not always) people who are aware that their position really isn’t defensible – so they avoid the battle.
For my part, I think it’s morally acceptable to tell the ten-minutes-from-normal-delivery woman “tough, the ship has sailed” and “force” her to give birth. (More accurately, to deny her an abortion. It’s nature that will do the forcing.)
I think it’s morally wrong for the 14-year old raped by her father to have an abortion, but it may be the lesser of two evils in her particular circumstances. She ought to be encouraged to give birth and supported in that decision, but if she just can’t face it, then she just can’t face it.
Pingback: The Heretik
Right on, Robert.
I feel the ‘lost cause’ part of this except for one thing…
Bolton
The Democrats have been successful at at least that so far…..
Maybe we can make it so bad and hard for them to get the right winger in there that it will hurt for years to come..
but I don’t have a lot of hope.
FYI, (There is no one size that fits all.) A family that we are very close to has a daughter that is the product of her mother being raped by her step father at 15. The mother is now married to a neat guy and the kid is just an incredible person. (Abortion is an option not the only choice.)
It is easy to generalize, and no I wouldn’t want to make it law how a person should make those decisions. However the point that was made that getting to the place where pro-choice folks are willing to admit that an unborn baby might have a role and possibly rights, in the decision, would give the pro-life folks an opportunity to admit that there are circumstances where aborting a baby is not always a last attempt to get away from the inconvenience of a pregnancy resulting from a moment of irresponsible sex. (Possibly like rape or incest.) It isn’t that hard to imagine.
Raising the value of life is a good thing. (Maybe there would be less willingness to war and towards violence. Abortion is a violent act; it seems contrary to advocate it and human rights.) Teaching people how to be responsible with resources and privileges is also a good thing. It makes sense to carry the message of the value of individuals into all areas of discussion; it also makes us far more credible when we are consistent. Greater responsibility and awareness would yield fewer surprise (or not so surprising) pregnancies and fewer choices having to be made.
Alsis39 (post 54 ) great points. Blessings.
Susan:
I find it almost impossible to discuss partial-birth abortion, because the public discussion has been so muddied with misinformation that I don’t even know what people are referring to when they say “partial-birth abortion.” Part of the problem is that virutally all pro-life leaders are liars; they have no hesitation in saying to the public “we want to pass a law to prevent full-term babies from being brutally killed for no reason,” while writing laws that go much further.
There’s a big difference between the “14 year old rape victim” example and the “woman obtains abortion of healthy forty-week fetus for reasons other than health” example. The former, although rare, actually does happen. As far as I know, the second one doesn’t.
It is therefore rational to look at the extreme case – the 14 year old rape victim – and ask “how will this law effect her?” I’m not sure that it makes as much sense to look at a nonexistant case and worry about how the law effects nonexistant cases.
Would I support a law preventing needless abortion of full-term babies after the 38th week? No, I wouldn’t, because in practice it would be up to judges and hospital administrators to decide what is or isn’t “needless.” In practice, pro-life judges and administrators would bend the law to decide that it’s okay to cripple or take a chance on killing a pregnant woman if it might save a not-yet-born babies life; and I don’t think that should be their decision to make.
(However, just to keep things clear: In real life, no one has ever opposed such a law, because no such law has ever been proposed. If it were proposed, and if it had the thing pro-lifers hate most – an exception to protect the women’s health – then it would pass with overwhelming support from both parties. )
There is no possible mechanism of decision-making – whether the mechanism is “let the woman decide” or “let the judge decide” or “let the federal government decide” – that can promise to be perfect 100% of the time. Given the lack of a perfect option, we have to ask “who is more likely to decide with sensitivity to the particular situation of individual women? Who is best placed to understand and weigh the risks, more often than not?” I think “let the woman decide, in consultation with her doctor” is a better answer to those questions than “Republicans in Congress should decide.”
Should we be passing laws to prevent things that don’t happen anyway? And is outlawing partial-birth abortions – a necessary procedure that is sometimes desparately needed – a rational way to prevent “two days before birth” abortions that don’t actually happen in real life?
I agree with the “let a woman and her doctor decide” POV. I’m always struck, in these late-term abortion arguments, about how the anti-choice folks never bring up the doctor’s input. This is a medical procedure, and doctor has a say in whether she/he feels it is what is best for the patient. It’s not like a woman could just go buy an abortion out of a vending machine somewhere. This is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. That’s where it should stay.
I entirely agree with Alsis on this.
Bush has said he doesn’t think the nation is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade — hardly different from the position of the Democrats, who’ve been hinting strongly that they’ll abandon support for abortion rights. Kerry’s campaign statements of personal opposition to abortion, Hilary Clinton’s condemnation of abortion, Dean’s statement that the Democrats should run anti-choice candidates… Sorry, the writing is on the wall.
My main question is whether this will lead to the Democratic Party’s collapse.
My main question is whether this will lead to the Democratic Party’s collapse.
More likely a Republican collapse at the national level. Don’t underestimate how much of the GOP’s real fire-in-the-belly motivation comes purely and specifically from pro-life activism. If Roe vs. Wade went away, a lot of that activism would redirect to state capitals, and a lot would go away (particularly in states where abortion would quickly become restricted). The state parties would probably end up getting stronger. The national party would take a pretty big hit.
That might decentralize the Republicans, but it wouldn’t actually break up the party.
The Democrats are a different matter. The leadership of the party is wildly at odds with their electoral base on a large number of issues, most notably the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Democrats have been recklessly alienating their electoral base.
However, there aren’t any major politicians in the Dems that have based their career on opposing the invasion of Iraq. But supporting abortion rights is another matter — many Democratic Party politicians regularly cite that as a reason to support them. If the Democratic Party leadership actually drops support for abortion rights, those politicians may consider abandoning the party — and in the unstable condition of the Democratic Party, that might trigger a collapse of the party.
That’s just my speculation, of course.
Susan said:
I see folks throw out this type of extreme example a lot when they are arguing against women’s rights. Funny thing is they never back that one up with an actual case to cite where it happens. Susan, do you have any cites where a woman aborted a “genetically normal full-term” baby for the simple reason that she changed her mind and didn’t want it? It is an outrageous example that I don’t think ever happens.
I think the reason folks use the scenario you describe is that you think people will be made too uncomfortable with the example to say “Yes”, a woman can decide to do that. And if we can’t say “Yes” in that example, we shouldn’t be able to argue for any example or situation where a woman might want or need an intact dilation and extraction . [That is the medical term, but anti-choice folks say “partial-birth” because it sounds worse.]
And it seems to me if I were to say “Yes”, that in your scenario or any other scenario as outrageous or extreme, that a woman does not have the right to abortion because of what “I” think, or what “others” think then that would be saying that a woman has less value than that of a potential life she might bring forth. That a woman is the sum of her parts, not more. That in some cases, a woman is simply a uterus with legs.
So I can’t say “Yes”. Because saying that chips away at any choice we have. Saying that makes it that much easier in the next outrageous example or scenario to say that women’s choices should be limited by what they are, by the fact that they are female.
Using that example, you try to paint those who support a woman’s right to choose as “baby killers”. But we aren’t. We just think that women have a value beyond that of “incubators”.
Apologies, I have no idea why a paragraph of my reply is in bold. I did not use any tags to make it so
[For some reason, WordPress does that when there isn’t a full blank line both before the opening and after the closing blockquote tag – see the bottom of this webpage for a clearer explanation of where the blank lines go. It’s another incomprehensible CSS thing. Anyhow, I’ve fixed it. Amp.]
Assuming the doctor has input on the abortion decision (after all, he or she is performing the procedure), Susan’s scenario is extremely unlikely. However, let’s take a somewhat more likely scenario: a woman discovers she is pregnant in the 4th month and decides in the 5th month that she wants an abortion, for whatever reason. With the wonders of medical technology, babies are viable around 23 weeks now. (My neighbor’s granddaughter was born at 23 weeks 6 years ago and will be starting kindergarten in the fall, so this isn’t a fantasy.) Where do we stand in this case? I think most Americans are uneasy about abortions after 20 weeks unless absolutely medically necessary because so many have heard or know of cases like my neighbor’s granddaughter.
I believe that conservative politicians benefit from the current political situation regarding Roe v. Wade – it gives them a crusade to go on and a source of fundraising. Settling the issue would make a great many of them fundamentally useless. While I’m sure the next couple years are going to scare the hell out of us pro-choicers, I think what we’ll see is a lot of back-and-forthing on abortion restrictions – still very important for women’s health – but not a direct assault on Roe v. Wade.
Mousehounde, thanks for your post. If it were in bold, maybe that’s not such a bad thing? :-)
“Bush has said he doesn’t think the nation is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade … hardly different from the position of the Democrats, who’ve been hinting strongly that they’ll abandon support for abortion rights. Kerry’s campaign statements of personal opposition to abortion, Hilary Clinton’s condemnation of abortion, Dean’s statement that the Democrats should run anti-choice candidates… Sorry, the writing is on the wall.
My main question is whether this will lead to the Democratic Party’s collapse.”
————————————-
I agree with this, Brian V. There’s no need to overturn Roe at this point, and if the republicans are smart, they’ll leave it alone and let abortion access and rights get eroded in a way that leaves both parties with dirty hands. Roe being overturned would counter-act this. Imagine what would happen, after all.
Lee, are you saying that your neighbor’s daughter’s mother wanted to abort the baby right before the 23 weeks were up ? I’m a little lost here.
The trouble with the sort of question posed by Susan was covered nicely by mousehounde and radfem, methinks. I don’t think that the majority of women who have reached their 5th month with no hitch to the pregnancy and no sign of mental illness or trauma related to the conception are going to suddenly decide to abort out of mere boredom or frustration with the whole business. I tend to have a better opinion of the average woman than that.
Rock, I appreciate the props, but basically, I don’t think that a fetus should have rights that trump that of its mother. If I tell a pregnant woman when she can abort/give birth and still be a good, moral person, I’m imposing my own personal ethics on her. That’s something I prefer not to do. Robert and Susan, of course, would like to spin this policy of non-intervention as cowardice, but I think of it as more a demonstration of humility: I can’t really know what another woman wants for herself and I consider it arrogant for me to tell her what she should want.
It is a very difficult ethical walk. I would not like to see it legislated either. I would like to see a more civil discussion and more care given to prevent the need for abortions where possible. I at one time was of the opinion that the fetus was without rights or feeling, I am less certain now. After holding my son and daughter, I started to search out and inside of myself and I now have doubts. I agree that there should not be condemnation of a woman for her choice, it is a very difficult time, either way she needs support. Our love for each other should not be conditional on what we do. (IMO)
Blessings.
Amen to that. I’ve already revealed prior that I had an abortion many years ago, and while I look back at the situation with sadness, I can’t say I look back with regret. My biggest hope is that we as a nation could move beyond wanting to control women’s choices, and instead try to educate and provide access to forms of birthcontrol that would stop (in most cases) women from having to deal with unwanted pregnancies.
People that think the majority of women make the choice frivolously, or without thought are kidding themselves to justify what they -want- to believe about abortion, not the reality of it for most women.
I wouldn’t at all oppose more programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies from the get go, in fact, I’d wholeheartedly applaud and support them. One of the odd and frustrating things that I’ve seen with this statement, however, is that most who approach this from the indignant right to life standpoint tend to also hold the point of view that sexual activity outside of marriage is amoral and shouldn’t be encouraged by providing education about and access to preventative birth control methods.
One of the odd and frustrating things that I’ve seen with this statement, however, is that most who approach this from the indignant right to life standpoint tend to also hold the point of view that sexual activity outside of marriage is amoral and shouldn’t be encouraged by providing education about and access to preventative birth control methods.
Frustrating I get, but why odd?
Most (though by no means all) of the folks who could be classed as indignantly pro-life are Christian. Most Christians believe that, surprise, sexual activity outside of marriage is amoral and shouldn’t be encouraged. So where does “odd” come in? We believe what – with some general trends and idiosyncratic variations notwithstanding – we have always believed. (Or at least, have believed for quite some time.) It’s not like Billy Graham came down and started telling people “Hey! It turns out that fornication isn’t OK with the Lord! Who knew?”
There is also a point of view that the sexual innocence of children ought to be preserved for as long as is reasonably practical – and that point of view generally stands opposed to organized efforts that – regardless of their organizer’s intentions – lower the age of “practical”.
People are not baby factories for the simple reason that they don’t actually make the babies. Youir mom and dad didn’t make you. Otherwise, you’d be a machine. Babies are not machines, they do not exist for their tissues, they do not exist for their reproductive potential, they exist to love. It seems to me better than random that the way that babies, once fully grown, like to love is a way that lands them new babies. A pregnant woman cannot know her child personally until he or she leaves the womb. Therefore, abortion is very forgivable, because she cannot have a relationship with the babe. Although very forgivable, it is also abhorrent. Part of the reason, though I’ve been loath to admit this, always, is that our raison d’etre is to love, and this means that our raison d’etre is to have something in our hearts which, put into natural practice, makes children come into being. Who are we to get in love’s way?
Robert,
Why do you think there is a necessary connection between gaining knowledge and using it? If someone explains to me how to shoot a gun, it doesn’t mean that I am going to point one at someone and fire.
Ignorance does not equal innocence and innocence is not undone by knowledge, biblical stories notwithstanding.
Robert, apropos the various rape threads, I’d say that the sexual innocence of *any child* is gone, and won’t be fixed until rape is far, far less common.
Alsis39: “Lee, are you saying that your neighbor’s daughter’s mother wanted to abort the baby right before the 23 weeks were up ? I’m a little lost here.”
No, I wasn’t trying to say that. I obviously put it badly. I was trying to say that because many of us know children who were born prematurely during the second trimester, many of us are uncomfortable and uneasy about second-trimester abortions.
Alsis39: “I don’t think that the majority of women who have reached their 5th month with no hitch to the pregnancy and no sign of mental illness or trauma related to the conception are going to suddenly decide to abort out of mere boredom or frustration with the whole business. I tend to have a better opinion of the average woman than that.”
I never said the abortion would be out of boredom or frustration. I said “for whatever reason.” If abortion is to be purely the woman’s choice, then she should not have to justify her decision, yes? So it shouldn’t matter whether or not there was a problem with the pregnancy or with the woman’s mental state or with her home situation – it is purely her decision. Keeping abortion legal will necessarily involve some compromises, though, because at some point in the pregnancy (and everybody draws the line at a different point, which is why this is such a contentious issue), abortion starts to look like homicide. For pro-life activists, this line is at conception. For hard-line pro-choicers, this line is after the cord is cut. I believe many Americans fall somewhere in the middle, and the line for them is in the second trimester. That’s why the average woman is unlikely to abort in the second trimester except in cases of medical necessity – because of that line she has to cross when she makes that decision.
If I’m not charcoal by now, please let me say that I believe that the ONLY person who can make the decision about an abortion is the woman carrying the fetus. She’s the one who has to support it and help it survive and grow, she’s the one taking the health risks, she’s the one who feels it moving around inside her, she’s the one who ought to know what’s best for her and for the child, so she gets to decide. Pragmatically, though, I don’t think American society as a whole supports abortion of a viable fetus, which is why I think some compromises will be necessary to keep it legal.
And, yeah, I would really really like to make it possible for abortions not to be necessary.
“…Pragmatically, though, I don’t think American society as a whole supports abortion of a viable fetus, which is why I think some compromises will be necessary to keep it legal…”
Thanks for the clarification, Lee.
[shrug.] Given the restrictions and lack of access in this country, I think we’ve made enough compromises. Also, even if I trust in the good graces of the average rank-and-file pro-lifer, I don’t trust their masters. If you let the leadership move that goalpost once, they won’t stop. Their sense of honor and fair play would fit safely into a peanut shell with room left over.
They also have a maddening lack of willingness to see the connection between reduced access and the increase in likelihood that the abortion would take place later rather than sooner. :( Perhaps the hope of the average pro-lifer is that if you can stall a woman long enough, she will change her mind and decide she wants the baby after all. Leaving aside the arrogance issue of a random person playing god with my body when I’m pregnant, I’d add that I consider that a long shot. In fact, I think it’s about as likely that a reluctant mother would suddenly want her fetus to go to term at five months after feeling unhappy about it for the first four as the reverse I stated previously is likely.
I think that most women who change their minds at a late date about wanting to bring the fetus to term do so for medical reasons. If there are other reasons for a change of mind, can’t those be adressed by existing laws, rather than raising the bar on vindictiveness once again ? I read the thread about the young woman whose boyfriend kicked her in the stomach repeatedly– the one here not long ago– and was speechless with sadness. A woman in that situation has huge problems, but further messing with the law about “partial birth” won’t help her, and it runs the risk of hurting the majority of women who are not mentally ill or whose situation is otherwise completely different from hers.
Furthermore, I get tired of the pro-choice side being constantly expected to be on the defensive and having to justify its existence. Maybe it’s time to turn the tables. A few weeks ago, one of the blogs I was on (forget which one, sorry) mentioned that if there were an upsurge in unwanted White, ablebodied babies, the adoption industry would make a fortune. Very little of this fortune would go to the mothers. Most would go to go-betweens, many of them “faith-based.” Maybe it’s time to ask the pro-life leadership if it cares most about babies, or about pumping up the bank acounts of the adoption industry and getting its own cut as facilitator. I don’t consider that assumption any more outrageous than the notion that the average women goes nuts at five months and wants a scissor jammed in her unborn baby’s skull, or whatever.
Brian wrote:
In his post-election wrap-up, Greg Bates credited slavery for doing just that to the Whigs. So it’s a long shot, but no out of the question. Fights at the state level and local level, where Democrats have already written off huge swaths of territory, would be particularly open to newer, smaller, decentralized parties jumping in to fill the void.