THE PLANK AUGUST 25, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney writes that the Democrats at the convention plan to highlight (among other things) "Mr. McCain's opposition to abortion rights." For their sake, I hope they don't.
A small number of pro-life activists want to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion outright. Most Americans reject this position. Why shouldn't Democrats point out the decision of the Republican Party to align itself with the activists? Because every time they do so, they highlight their own absolutism on the issue. Within the past week, Americans have learned that as an Illinois legislator Obama voted against a bill that would have banned infanticide. (The bill was a pro-life trap, true, but nevertheless one that snared him.) Then there is the Democratic Party platform, which, despite claims to the contrary, shifted several steps to the left on abortion this election cycle. All language stating or implying that abortion might be a bad thing (like the brilliant Clintonian formulation affirming that abortion ought to be "safe, legal, and rare") has been stripped. In its place is the statement that the party support for Roe v. Wade (that is, abortion-on-demand through all trimesters) is "unequivocal."
The facts are these: Just below 20 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases and circumstances. A slightly smaller number believe it should be illegal in all cases and circumstances. The rest (roughly 60 percent) think it should "usually" be legal or "usually" illegal, showing that the views of a solid majority of Americans confound the purists on both sides of the spectrum. And yet both parties insist on sticking to their extreme positions. Given the current configuration of interest groups in American political life, it might be impossible for either party to moderate its official line on abortion. But given political reality, you'd think that self-interest would lead each one to keep its voice down when discussing its position on the issue.
8 comments
What's your basis for your characterizing Roe v. Wade as allowing abortion as of right throughout all trimesters? Roe said that states could prohibit abortion during the last trimester, based on states' interest in the potential life of the fetus, and it said that states could require that abortions in the second trimester be done in certain kinds of facilities, based on states' interests in the health of the mother.
- tarfon
August 25, 2008 at 7:46pm
This is what a convention is. The most radical and unabashed members of each party try their best to cheer on a more moderate member of their party who's trying to win over independents. But in this case, Obama and McCain have the tricky task of also sppealing to their bases. Man, I'm dizzy.
- rozenson
August 25, 2008 at 7:49pm
Thank you for that clarify, tarfon. I knew something smelled but I couldn't put my finger on it.
- GSpinks
August 25, 2008 at 8:27pm
Jeez, you get off to a crazy start when you completely mischaracterize Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade reflects that 60% you were talking about with increasing restrictions on abortion as the pregnancy goes on. Abortion on demand through all three trimesters- Pfft. Read the decision for heaven sake. Linker, you seem like an honest guy I usually respect, but this is an assinine statement
And insisting on the right to have a late term abortion IN THE CASE THAT A WOMAN'S LIFE IS THREATENED doesn't strike me as the kind of unreasonable absolutism you decry.
- miceelf
August 25, 2008 at 8:30pm
Tarfon and miceelf make good points. There are certainly more pro-choice positions one could take than by endorsing Roe v. Wade.
- rozenson
August 25, 2008 at 9:12pm
Damn, I wanted to set Linker straight about Roe v. Wade. So I'll just add that the polling numbers he cites don't really tell us anything. Who the hell knows what those 60% actually think about specific abortion restrictions like parental notification or informed consent? Who knows what restrictions those people have in mind when they say they "usually" support or oppose "restrictions"?
No matter what the party platform says, the Democratic position on abortion is not "abortion on demand." That's not what Roe provides. It's kinda what the Freedom of Choice Act would provide, but only pre-viability. The idea that Democrats support unrestricted late-trimester abortions might be helpful in creating a dichotomy with the "no abortions ever" crowd, but it's simply inaccurate.
- sbarr13
August 25, 2008 at 9:54pm
Here is a direct quote from Roe v. Wade:
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
- winnie2001
August 25, 2008 at 9:56pm
On MSNBC they reported that at the press conference for that nurse who flipped from McCain to Hillary was asked about McCain's abortion position.
She said that she thought that McCain opposed overthrowing Roe v. Wade.
That's why it's paramount that the Democrats broadcast McCain's extreme view on abortion rights and Obama's comparitively moderate one.
- kerouac9
August 26, 2008 at 12:17am