This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, we’re already an ever-shifting patchwork of states with different laws on just about every subject from criminal law (what’s illegal in one state is not necessarily illegal in another), marriage law, tort law, motor vehicle law and many other laws. Furthermore, different states have different standards for licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. Different states have different methods of conducting elections, educating children, taxing property, income and commerce and governing the ability to own a firearm. Why is abortion law being different from state to state worse than any of these other areas?
I agree that the controversy would spike as the state legislatures argued the issue. But pretty soon it would become clear that certain abortion positions would be political suicide and politicians would stop espousing them. Currently politicians are much more polarized over abortion than the general population. The general population is uncomfortable with abortion and would rather that there wasn’t so much abortion, and is against “unneccesary” abortion. But they when push comes to shove most people wouldn’t want all–or even most–abortions to be illegal.
But most politicians are either staunch pro-lifers or staunch pro-choicers. And why not? They lose nothing by the extreme stands. The middle of the road majority isn’t going to vote for or against someone based on their abortion views, since those views are irrelevant. The extreme wings would never vote for a person who opposes their view. So there is no cost to pandering to your base. And there could be a heavy cost to espousing a nuanced approach. If you were moderately against abortion the pro-choicers are going to hate you anyway but you will be a sell-out to the pro-lifers. And vice-versa.
But what if a pro-life or pro-choice stand had real-life legislative consequences? While people will vote for a “no-exceptions” pro-lifer now, will they do so if they actually might get a no-exceptions abortion law passed? Maybe in some cases they would, but in many cases they would not. The hard-core will have to moderate their positions or find themselves without a constituency. We will have candidates that are acceptable to the moderate pro-life side as well as the moderate pro-life side. The extremes will be shut out. Compromise will be reached. Abortion as a political issue will be sidelined.
Strict constructionism is nothing more nor less than looking to all clues within the four corners of a piece of legislation to interpret that legislation. No external clues, like legislative intent, are needed, as their existence is rather dubious in the first place. The Constitution likewise would be interpreted within the four corners of that great document.
If the Constitution is amended, the strict constructionist would be bound by that. If legislation is drafted more thoroughly and consistently to define its own terms, the contructionist would likewise be also bound by that move. There is nothing to fear from constructionism unless you are the sort who thinks judges ought to be making their own law from the bench based on their own politics. If you want to oppose constructionists on that basis, allow individuals to sneak in new laws that would never have gotten approval through the legislative process, then be my guest. Just be careful you aren’t standing alone by the time you admit that.
[quote]
Originally posted by El Jeffe
My use of “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” was deliberate. If I’d meant to refer to those who were pro-choice, I would have said so. I was specifically referring to the extreme end of the spectrum embodied by groups such as NOW and NARAL - people who associate the ability to get an abortion with empowerment. I believe these people are more accurately described by “pro-abortion” than “pro-choice”, as they make it a point to discourage traditional family structures and denigrate those women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers. I would hardly call these people “pro-choice”, as they only approve of the “choice” when it suits their preferences. These groups form the lobbyists who would sooner die than see RvW get overturned, and these are the groups more likely to prevent it from happening.**
I doubt that most folks who consider themselves “pro-choice” go around making the claim that abortions are good and desirable. I’d wager that the groups you name would see abortion as substantially less desirable than no pregnancy at all.
Still, the rhetoric comes from both sides of the aisle. Some Planned Parenthood mailings I’ve seen call Focus on the Family and the like as “anti-choice.” Yeah, these folks are really going around proclaiming that making choices is bad.
Why can’t these groups accurately represent the other sides’ arguments?
Oh, that’s right. Because if they did so, they wouldn’t get any money out of it.
I’m surprised to find that nobody has mentioned the slight issue that Roe v. Wade is no longer the controlling ruling on abortion. That is PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.
This is a complex decision to summarize, and I’m not going to try since anything short of a full description will kick up more dirt than truth, but basically Roe v. Wade doesn’t address the issues of current importance in the debate. It’s a bloody shirt to be waved by extremists on the far right and the far left, who themselves aren’t important to the mainstream debate.
Ed: Granted, a runaway Court good probably roll back choice on all fronts, but the consequences of that would be politically crippling to the right. (It’s almost worth letting them win the battle so we can finally end the war with a huge consensus.)
In general, yes. But the unofficial party line from those groups is that given the choice between abortion and stay-at-home motherhood (even if it’s what the woman wants), the abortion is better. Choosing motherhood over a career is giving in to the Oppressive Patriarchy and reinforcing Harmful Feminine Stereotypes. There’s a reason a lot of modern feminists are trying to distance themselves from those groups. I do agree though with your assessment that most pro-choicers aren’t what I would call pro-abortion.
And where do you get this idea? The mainstream feminist movement has never been about fighting the “oppressive patriarchy”. And I’ve never seen any mainstream feminist group come down against motherhood; most of them, in fact, have worked to ensure that women have the right to be mothers when they so choose. (Emphasis mine.) Granted, there are radicals within every group, but for the most part, they’re individuals, not the whole group.
And your assertion that these groups prefer abortion to women being stay-at-home mothers is ludicrous. Feminism has always been about the right for women to make their own choices. If a woman wants to be a SAHM, then that is her right.
—Granted, there are radicals within every group, but for the most part, they’re individuals, not the whole group.—
The problem is that most of the mainstream people got what they wanted out of the movement. The people who were left had more radical agendas. However, almost no one is “pro-abortion” in the sense that having an abortion is pushed as being as preferable to someone’s chosen lifestyle.
—Feminism has always been about the right for women to make their own choices.—
Then why did so many maintstream women’s groups try to get breast implants banned, even after the health effects were known?
Not only what Sofa King said, but also: here is Glorious Leader’s pick for head of an important FDA panel. He’s really special:
And furthermore:
If Generalissimo Arbusto (what’s Spanish for chickenhawk?) wants this kind of person in a powerful regulatory position, does anybody seriously think he wouldn’t jump at the chance to appoint one more anti-choice, anti Ninth Amendment, judicial activist to the SCOTUS?
In this, as in virtually everything else he said during the 2000 travesty, Gore was right. JDM
But to those opposed to abortion, that sounds as disingenuous as saying, “I’m not pro-slavery. I’m pro-choice on slavery. It’s not right for me to impose my values on others who might want or need to own slaves.”
Or, imagine a bumper sticker circa 1860: “My Plantation, My Choice!”
The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision in 1857 said that slaves were personal property, not human beings with rights.
Beyond the obvious factual differences between slavery and abortion, which make this analogy pretty much invalid, we’re talking semantics here.
In other words, if you want to use “pro-abortion” to describe people who believe in giving women the right to choose whether or not to keep a child over government, then be prepared to label the other side of the issue “anti-choice.” It’s at least as accurate and has that same nice deliberately inflammatory ring.
And hey, if it’s accurate some of the time that means it’s OK to use it all the time, right?! :rolleyes: