A FEW THOUGHTS ON ABORTION, COURTS, DEMOCRACY

So, continuing where I left off yesterday, why is it the neither side in the abortion debate seems to have any inclination to compromise? I suspect the reason is that the Supreme Court imposed a near absolute right to abortion on our society about 30 years ago.

The Court is the least democratic form of government in our democracy since, obviously, its members are not subject to election. When the Court does something that causes one side to lose so absolutely, as happened to pro-life adherents in Roe vs. Wade, the side that loses feels resentment that they would not feel if they had lost through the legislative process. If you lose through the legislative process, you still think that you had a chance to win, and that it was not beyond your control. Furthermore, there is still the opportunity to change it at some point in the future. You can work to influence future elections, hopefully electing candidates more sympathetic to your cause. You can wage the battle through the press in an attempt to change people’s minds. With the Court, you have no such outlets. All you can do is file lawsuits, maybe some amicus curiae briefs, and then hope for the best. I suspect that the feeling of helplessness that results from letting Courts settle matters meant to be settled by legislatures results in a disposition to be uncompromising.

On the other side, the victory breeds the same disposition. Consider, in 1973 the pro-choice forces got pretty much everything they wanted. Being able to have your cake and eat it too is not a situation that leads one to welcome compromise. Why bother, when you’ve already got most of what you want?

That is one of the main problems with letting the courts determine things like laws and new rights that are the proper purview of legislatures. It’s all-or-nothing, and all-or-nothing leads to the obstinate approach politics. That’s not a good approach in a democracy.

posted by David 9:18 AM

. . .

NEW MEANING TO THE WORD “BONDING”

Thanks to Chad at Tusk and Talon for pointing out this article in the Des Moines Register. It’s hilarious. No explanation needed. Just go read it.

posted by David 9:13 AM

. . .

HATERUSH.COM

My new column at the Spectator.

posted by David 1:08 AM

. . .

MORE ON THAT GRISLY PROCEDURE

Royce from Iowa Libertarian left this comment regarding my Tuesday post on partial-birth abortion:

This is one I have to respectfully disagree on. If Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land (I disagree with the "anti-federalist, legislating from the bench" method in which it became so, by the way....) and second trimester abortions are still legal, then the method should be left to the patient and doctor.

As for the terminology... this strikes me as the right's version of the left's "assault weapons" name game. The term is an emotional touchstone to advance their agenda.

And… the Pro Choice folks have the similar end point that the Anti Gun crowd does. That would be doing away with the things altogether. First, “assault weapons”, then registration, then confiscation of all firearms. First, “partial birth” abortions, then second trimester abortions, then all abortions (and IUDs for that matter…).

I don’t want to stir up the entire Pro Life/Pro Choice debate (although, I guess I already have…), just illustrate the way that terms are used and why they are used are important. Terms help define the debate… presumably to advance end goals of the person/group that defines and uses them.

And thus, I will respectfully disagree. First, I don’t think that the pro-choice folks have a point regarding the slippery slop argument insofar as it is compared to the gun argument. Yes, we have a ban on assault weapons and background checks, but is anyone besides the absolute-gun-control extremists calling for a ban on hunting weapons? True, there are bans on handguns in some cities, but even those are increasingly under assault. It’s less a slippery slope, and more of a tug-of-war. It’s not at all clear why banning the more grisly abortion procedures would result in the banning of all abortion procedures.

Second, with all due respect, I think you’re falling into the absolutist trap that characterizes the abortion debate. The pro-choice folks want all abortions to be legal. The pro-life folks want all abortions outlawed. One side insists that human life begins at conception, the other side insists it is the woman’s body until the moment of birth (and some so-called ethicists would go so far as to say it is her body up to 30 days after birth). Anyway, my point here is that neither side wants to get serious about what I think is the fundamental question in the abortion debate: When, exactly, does life begin? If either side would make a really serious attempt to argue when life began, they’d probably get about three-quarters of what they wanted.

So let me make a half-hearted attempt at defining when human life begins—that is, at what point can the life that is growing inside a woman be considered a human life? Now, I do believe it begins at conception, but that is a spiritual belief that probably isn’t going to cut any scientific/medical mustard. I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing the average Joe (or Jane) that what is essentially a single cell that will die if it is removed from the uterus is an actual human life.

Thus, I hereby state with the powers invested in me by absolutely no one, that human life has begun when the baby can live outside the womb without dying within minutes. That would certainly cover any baby that would face the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion. Now, is that a pretty lame attempt? Yes—I can think of some flaws in it just as I’m writing it. But at least it is an attempt that is not absolutist and could provide the starting point for further debate.

My larger point is this: if the pro-choice side made a real attempt at this; if they got scientists, doctors, ethicists (albeit not ones at Princeton) involved; if they offered a definition of when human life began that conceded that not all abortions could be legal, they’d probably convince enough Americans to support abortions at least through the second trimester. On the other hand, if the pro-life folks were to do the same, they’d probably get all abortions save those in the first trimester banned. The first one to reach for the middle wins!

Of course, Royce, you are probably now saying, “Dave, what are you sprinkling on your breakfast cereal, and where can I get some?” There isn’t a snowflake’s chance in you-know-where of either side doing that.

Tomorrow: why there isn’t a snowflake’s chance.

posted by David 1:07 AM

. . .

THE SOMETIMES SANE VOICE

Over at Tusk and Talon, Jeff praises David Yepsen as the “one sane voice” on the Des Moines Register op-ed page, because Yepsen gets it on property taxes in Des Moines. He then goes on to excoriate, quite effectively, the Register editorial in support of the Grow Iowa Government Values Fund.

Just one problem Jeff. Yepsen isn’t always that sane.

posted by David 1:05 AM

. . .

MORE CHUTZPAH

Don Luskin found another quote that you-know-who used improperly.

posted by David 1:02 AM

. . .

WHY I NO LONGER TAKE REKHA BASU SERIOUSLY

The headline for yesterday’s column of the writer of the Des Moines Register’s Worst Column Ever:

In 90 years, scant progress on domestic abuse

posted by David 1:01 AM

. . .

A NEW DEFINITION OF CHUTZPAH

Back in May Paul Krugman wrote:

Chutzpah, according to the classic definition, is when you murder your parents, then ask for sympathy because you're an orphan.

At issue today is a remark made a few weeks ago by Representative George Nethercutt:

So the story is better than we might be led to believe in the news. I'm just indicting the news people, but it's, it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day which, which heaven forbid is awful.

At the time, the remarks were quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer; however, the context was pared down so that the quote read “it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day.” Since early last week, the press has run stories in which Nethercutt has blasted the Seattle P-I for taking him out of context.

So, in today’s column, how does Krugman portray Nethercutt’s remarks? Take a guess:

Some Americans may share the views of the Republican congressman who said that progress in Iraq was "a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day." (Support the troops!)

In conclusion, here’s a better definition of chutzpah: repeating a distortion as though it is accurate even after it has been revealed to be a distortion.

posted by David 1:15 AM

. . .

HOW TO SPIN A GRISLY PROCEDURE

The Des Moines Register editorialists put in their two cents worth on the ban of partial birth abortion:

The U.S. Senate recently voted to ban a medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion," as the U.S. House did earlier.

The quotes around partial-birth abortion are telling, as though that’s just a pejorative term used by the opponents of the procedure. It’s a procedure by which an 8-month-old fetus is removed from the uterus feet first, the skull is then punctured, and the brain is vacuumed out. Pejorative? The term “partial-birth abortion” is almost euphemistic. “Living-baby suck out” seems more accurate to me.

Both sides of the abortion debate have an opinion, but everyone should be troubled by government intrusion into medical choices.

Would that they take the same attitude toward Medicare, Medicaid, or universal (government-run) health care!

Lawmakers are practicing medicine with this bill by taking away the discretion of physicians in treating patients whose well-being may depend on the procedure late in a pregnancy.

Practicing medicine? How about banning infanticide? Furthermore, the claim that the patients’ “well-being may depend on the procedure” is a fabrication. Many doctors have come forward to say that it is never a medically necessary procedure. Here, for instance, is former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop: “The primary reason given for this procedure--that it is often medically necessary to save the mother’s life--is a false claim.”

This is what tends to happen when lawmakers take it upon themselves to play doctor. They forget that decisions about health care are best left up to patients and real doctors.

Again, would that they took the same attitude with other aspects of health-care! How about Medical Savings Accounts, which would give consumers greater freedom in deciding when they could visit the doctor? Ha! The Register twisted that one into a tax break for the wealthy. It’s little wonder then that they spun partial-birth abortion into a medically necessary procedure.

posted by David 1:13 AM

. . .

HOW TO LET POLITICS RUIN A MOVIE

A review of 28 Days Later at Blogcritics.

posted by David 8:50 AM

. . .