Abortion and Democracy
Ross Douthat (or, as I’ve nicknamed him, “he who should be read every Tuesday”) has a very good column about the politics of abortion in the wake of Tiller’s murder. The judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade is far and away the largest impediment to compromise and thus significant improvement in the climate of this most contentious of issues. Democratic debate and negotiation dampens extremism and facilitates discussion among people unlikely to ever agree. Yet by inventing a constitutional “right” out of thin air, the Supreme Court has perpetuated exactly the opposite. This is not to suggest the justices are more responsible for the many tragedies and unspeakably evil acts that occur than their direct participants. It is to state, rather, that this overreach has produced a landscape that disallows U.S. citizens to take the same reasonable actions for or against restrictions of almost every other advanced democracy. And it is in such a landscape that extremists like Tiller and his killer find more room to operate.
Comments are closed.
The judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade is far and away the largest impediment to compromise and thus significant improvement in the climate of this most contentious of issues.
Could you or anyone else outline what a reasonable compromise might look like?
A reasonable compromise (not from the “absolutist” Catholic point of view that I share, but one that should be supported as far superior to the U.S. status quo) has been cited by Douthat and myself and many others many times, and is by and large the European status quo: restriction to the first trimester.
Now what would and does occur when legislative bodies take such an action or a related action such as public funding cases? You have courts stepping in, occasionally making one side happy and then one side sad and then vice versa and on and on.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/448/Abortion-Roe-v-Wade-its-aftermath.html
Well, the debate belongs not in the courts but in the legislative and democratic processes. The process is important for such questions, almost as much as the outcomes.
Ross Douthat writes a very thoughtful and civil article. I agree he makes a contribution to productive discussion here and often in his other writings.
jonathan,
I agree that would be reasonable. It must be remembered that in European countries, although abortions are more strictly regulated than in the United States, they are also generally paid for by some kind of national health insurance.
Here are some reasonably current statistics on when abortions are performed:
So cutting out late-term abortions would cut the abortion rate by .01 percent, and cutting out second-trimester abortions would cut it by another 9 percent. Decreasing the abortion rate by almost 10 percent would certainly be significant, but I wonder how many in the pro-life movement would feel their work had been done.
I do think, ironically, that the heavy emphasis by some in the pro-life movement and some in the media on Dr. Tiller has helped create a climate where there are bad abortions (like Tiller performed) and good abortions (first-trimester). And since Roe doesn’t have to be repealed to put restrictions on late-term abortions, it seems to me a compromise is not all that far out of reach.
Supposing Obama were to wangle some kind of arrangement in which second- and third-trimester abortions were strictly regulated in exchange for a “ceasefire” on trying to put roadblocks in the way of first-trimester abortions. I am afraid he would be seen by many in the pro-life movement as the man who sold out 90 percent of the unborn rather than saved 10 percent.
I am afraid he would be seen by many in the pro-life movement as the man who sold out 90 percent of the unborn rather than saved 10 percent.
Of course he would. And there would be howls of outrage from the left also. But America is not the pro-life movement (or the pro-choice movement), and this type of abortion regime, with an increased openness to democratic resolution, would result in abortion legislation that better reflected the views of most Americans. This type of compromise would (eventually) reduce some of the acrimony and extremism in the current abortion debate.
Keep in mind that the pro-life movement didn’t even really exist nationally until after Roe; the experience of Western Europe and the pre-Roe U.S. suggests allowing the democratic (or at any rate, republican) process to work pays dividends in civic harmony.
Additionally, most sensible pro-lifers would recognize that 100,000 lives saved is better than 0; their efforts wouldn’t end (nor would NARAL’s), but both sides would be fighting against the weight of public opinion, and neither would feel their views had been arbitrarily marginalized on a matter of life-and-death importance.
David,
Though the other thing to keep in mind is that most Western European countries do have some restrictions on abortion in the first trimester as well. Waiting periods and third party counseling are required in various countries.
DarwinCatholic,
Yes, you are correct, and those would no doubt be resisted by many on the pro-choice side. But it seems to me they could all be justified in the name of informed consent. Also, many states have waiting periods, some as long as five or six days, between the time couples get a marriage license and the time they can marry.
And of course when Obama imposes socialized medicine on the country, the long waiting times for elective procedures will make abortion a thing of the past much more effectively than repealing Roe and turning the issue back to the states.