The Religious Consultation
|
|
The Herald (UK), July 4, 2005 Lost in the Middle
Ground of America’s Abortion War It used to be one of the most simple, entrenched battlegrounds in the world: that between Americans who believed in a woman's right to abortion and those who were dedicated to saving the life of the unborn child. But what was once an extreme stalemate has become something altogether more subtle and complicated. That the tectonic plates were shifting became apparent earlier this year when Hillary Clinton, formerly an uncompromising pro-choicer, urged liberals to find "common ground" with those who have misgivings about abortion. She declared the two sides could unite over the need to prevent unplanned pregnancies and warmly praised the influence of "religious and moral values" in delaying the onset of sexual activity in teenagers. While her words drew horrified gasps from some of the pro-choice audience, others nodded. For there is no doubt that some pro-choicers are beginning to think the unthinkable: that they will have to "let Roe go". The totemic Roe vs Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case which established a constitutional right for women to terminate their pregnancies, is fast becoming the elephant in the living room for some liberal Americans – who, in an increasingly conservative country, see it as the big issue which makes Democrats unelectable. Intriguingly, this is why not every liberal thinker is dismayed at the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the pro-choice Supreme Court judge whom President George W Bush is likely to replace with a pro-lifer, thereby potentially jeopardising Roe. Benjamin Wittes, a pro-choice commentator, believes Roe has a "deep legitimacy problem" because the right to abortion is not in the constitution. Although the judgment gave women the right to choose, that right exists under perpetual threat of obliteration by the Supreme Court. Pro-lifers who complained they never had a democratic say thus have a powerful grievance – and possess the potent feeling of being disenfranchised. Letting the Roe judgment die, Wittes argues, would call the bluff of the pro-lifers: in the short-term some states would pass highly restrictive abortion laws, or outright bans, but the backlash would be devastating for conservatism. In a post-Roe America, the liberals would be electable again. Although women might have to travel to another state to get an abortion, the right to termination would be enshrined in federal law. In other words, give the right what they want, and watch them lose everything as a result. It is, by any measure, a high-risk strategy. So why has the liberal approach to abortion come to this point? One problem the pro-choice movement has had is a loss of energy. As holders of the upper hand, they have become passive. With reason. Statistics show the majority of Americans do not side with the hard-line anti-abortionists. In polls since 1975, 21% to 34% of people have favoured legal abortion in all circumstances, and 48% to 61% under some circumstances. Significantly, more voters describe themselves as pro-choice than pro-life. As the threat to legalised abortion has become less obvious, the pro-choice lobby, taking its rights for granted, has struggled to mobilise. But there is nothing like a threat to deny someone a say in policy to get them committed to a fight – witness the pro-lifers, who, needless to say, have got more determined and more subtle in their campaigns, repackaging their message to appeal more widely. Conservatives, recognising that the majority of Americans supported abortion rights, stopped extremist tactics like attacking abortion clinics and killing doctors who performed abortions. The new pro-life rhetoric spoke of the "culture of life" and "healing the scars of abortion". They learned that showing gruesome pictures was more effective than direct action. The pro-lifers detest Roe, which they describe as "a lawless power grab" by the Supreme Court; "an unconstitutional act of aggression against the American people". But instead of fighting the ruling directly, conservatives got subtle and tried attacks from other flanks. One tack was the 2002 Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which gave legal status to a baby "born alive", even if it had "survived an abortion procedure". Then came the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which meant an attack on a pregnant woman had two victims. It was the ghastly Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, though, signed by Bush in November 2003 and shortly heading for the Supreme Court, which is the big gun. Federal courts in several states have already put abortion on trial, subpoenaing thousands of medical records relating to past abortions and seeking the name of doctors who performed terminations. The Justice Department have rejected a woman's right to privacy in this and hospitals refusing to co-operate have been fined. Next up in the legal barrage is the pending Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Against this onslaught, the pro-choice movement has spun its message and gone markedly more soft-focus in its attitudes. There are fewer uncompromising "abortion on demand" placards, and more Hillary Clinton-style focus on sexually transmitted diseases, global health, family planning issues and access to pre-natal care. Under this big tent campaigning – the lobby's own version of "culture of life" – even gay rights have become part of the package. T-shirts, symbolically, have become more sophisticated. One which says "who decides?" on the front says "it's your choice, not theirs" on the back. By not specifying who "you" or "they" might be, these slogans allow readers to interpret the message for themselves, as libertarian, pro-family, feminist: a broad church indeed. The new slant seems to be working – it is now attracting people not usually associated with abortion rights. Young, religious, black and Latino women are joining the white, middle-class feminists to whom the movement once exclusively belonged. And so, in this great moral battle of two generations, a strange no-man's-land is emerging: a place where pro-choicers reshape the debate away from who's right and who's wrong into ways to make abortions safer, legal, but rare. Nastiness may bubble underneath, but superficially at least the ultimate goal for both sides, in this pretend peace, is the fantasy land of zero abortions. Other common ground is identified by William Saletan, author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives won the Abortion War, who says abortion shows how, with clever use of "who decides?", liberal politicians can persuade a traditional, conservative electorate to support liberal reforms. This is the libertarian argument, which says the government should not be allowed to interfere in the rights of the individual, released to gnaw its owners' ankles. Saletan points out, however, that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has become a pledge to prosecute and it has a moral ugliness all of its own: the public investigation of personal tragedies. If these commentators are right, pro-choicers have never needed to be more clever, brave and confident. For the sake of women the world over. << The Herald -- 7/4/05 >>
|