QUOTE
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml
Norm Scheiber
02.16.05
PUTTING THE ANTI-ABORTION MOVEMENT ON THE DEFENSIVE: Easily the most tactically brilliant flourish in Hillary's Roe speech a few weeks back was her suggestion that people on both sides of the abortion debate can agree that abortion is a tragedy, that they all want to reduce the number of abortions, and that the best way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This doesn't exclude promoting teen abstinence, as Hillary concedes. But it clearly includes guaranteeing access to birth control.
What makes this tack so brilliant is that, in addition to being true, it obviously puts anti-abortion groups on the defensive: Their preferred solution to lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies is, I suspect, for fewer people to have nonprocreative sex (at least fewer unmarried people)--which is not exactly what you'd call a winning position. Still, I didn't appreciate just how vulnerable anti-abortion groups were on this point until I read the following in today's New York Times:
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.
There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."
Takes no position? That's it? That's your response? As far as I can tell, the only way you could be an anti-abortion activist and not think of birth control as directly relevant to what you do is if you really weren't interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe that's the case. But it would be a pretty alarming admission.
Seems like Democrats need to get in the habit of asking anti-abortion politicians and activists straight up whether a.) they favor reducing unwanted pregnancies as a way to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, and b.) (assuming the answer is yes) what's wrong with honest, responsible, hard-working adults using birth control as a way to accomplish that. I'm dying to hear their answer. (Well, Tim, I just don't think people should be having nonprocreative sex... Somehow I don't see that going over so well.)
Norm Scheiber
02.16.05
PUTTING THE ANTI-ABORTION MOVEMENT ON THE DEFENSIVE: Easily the most tactically brilliant flourish in Hillary's Roe speech a few weeks back was her suggestion that people on both sides of the abortion debate can agree that abortion is a tragedy, that they all want to reduce the number of abortions, and that the best way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This doesn't exclude promoting teen abstinence, as Hillary concedes. But it clearly includes guaranteeing access to birth control.
What makes this tack so brilliant is that, in addition to being true, it obviously puts anti-abortion groups on the defensive: Their preferred solution to lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies is, I suspect, for fewer people to have nonprocreative sex (at least fewer unmarried people)--which is not exactly what you'd call a winning position. Still, I didn't appreciate just how vulnerable anti-abortion groups were on this point until I read the following in today's New York Times:
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.
There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."
Takes no position? That's it? That's your response? As far as I can tell, the only way you could be an anti-abortion activist and not think of birth control as directly relevant to what you do is if you really weren't interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe that's the case. But it would be a pretty alarming admission.
Seems like Democrats need to get in the habit of asking anti-abortion politicians and activists straight up whether a.) they favor reducing unwanted pregnancies as a way to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, and b.) (assuming the answer is yes) what's wrong with honest, responsible, hard-working adults using birth control as a way to accomplish that. I'm dying to hear their answer. (Well, Tim, I just don't think people should be having nonprocreative sex... Somehow I don't see that going over so well.)
