Jump to navigation
Roe v Reality
R. Alex Whitlock
Ramesh Ponnuru
wonders about a recent uptick in pro-choice polling:
But all of a sudden, and without attracting much notice, the pro-choicers have pulled away again. A July poll had pro-choicers outnumbering pro-lifers by 51 to 42 percent. By late August, the gap had grown to 54-38. A SurveyUSA poll taken around the same time found a similar result. It seems as though two-thirds of the pro-life gain on this front over the last decade has been erased.
So what explains how the pro-lifers have risen and then fallen? I have a theory, which I retain the right to modify or discard if a better one comes along.
There are a lot of possible explanations for the upward trend over the last decade, and probably several of them played a role. But I think the most powerful explanation, especially given that the pivotal years are 1995-97, is the pro-life campaign against partial-birth abortion. When the major pro-life proposal was a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, people who opposed an amendment tended to think of themselves as pro-choice. The legislative campaign against partial-birth abortion, which began in the summer of 1995, changed what some people thought about first when they thought about abortion. If being pro-choice meant being for partial-birth abortion, and being pro-life meant being against it, those people were on the pro-life side. [...]
I can only assume that it was the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at the beginning of July, and Bush’s initial nomination of John Roberts to replace her, that has driven people back into the pro-choice camp. The Supreme Court vacancy made Roe the first thing people think about when they think about abortion. And the public supports Roe for a variety of reasons (including the mistaken beliefs that it legalizes abortion only in the first three months and that to overturn it would be to ban all abortions). Moreover, the debate over Roe has been pretty one-sided. The leading pro-choice spokesmen in politics have been saying that Roe is vitally important but threatened. The leading pro-life figures, President Bush and congressional Republicans, have mostly tried to change the subject rather than to make the case that the country can live without Roe.
Far be it for me to ever pass on an opportunity to drive home a point that I've made here and there, using statistical data is most naturally interpreted to conform to my pre-existing beliefs.
Ponnuru's column is notable for its astonishing ability to walk right along the edge of answering his own question, but stubbornly refusing to do so for dogmatic reasons and the typical ideolog's conceit that one's views can be correct, well-articulated, and rejected by the American public at the same time.
People, by and large, like to feel morally righteous. Whether it's a conservative Christian railing against abortion or a liberal environmentalist crying Gaea's tears, it exists all over the place. People are also quite defensive whenever their lifestyle is called in to questions. People also like an easy way out.
Though an atrocious decision constitutionally and even morally,
Roe v Wade has been the gift to Republicans that just keeps on giving. With Roe in effect, people can feel self-righteous and at the same time not have to worry about being judged. The most common personal answer to the abortion question I've run across is "I don't morally approve, I wouldn't have one, but it shouldn't be illegal," by which many mean "As long as I don't need one, I don't think it's a good thing, but if I do I want that option available to me." This way you can have it both ways: retain your right to an abortion (or an abortion on your behalf, if you're a guy) while vaguely maintaining a semblance of morality on the subject. Should you ever need an abortion (or an abortion on your behalf), you can justify it as being unique to the circumstances (cause you're the only girl to get pregnant or the only guy to get a girl while in college or unmarried or without the means to take care of a child and therefore your circumstances are unique, unique, unique...).
The recent uptick in pro-life support was, interestingly, in females. While I don't have the data on the new polls that Ponnuru refers to, I'd be willing to bet that the pro-choice lurch was also female. Guys aren't quite as swept up on maintaining a balance or even coherency on the issue because, facts being facts, they will never have to have one. It's easier for a guy to be pro-life because he can walk out. It's easier for a guy to be pro-choice because it can get him out of a jam without having to deal with the emotional consequences.
So Roe was the easy way out for everybody. It's safe to be pro-life when little or nothing can come of it. It's easy for the Republicans to "take a stand" on abortion because they can talk as loudly as they want without having to do terribly much to back it up except pass unconstitutional and largely symbolic laws. In fact, one of the most devestating effects of Roe was to coarsen the debate by taking it out of our hands. Who needs to compromise or be realistic when the decree has been given from on high? But from a machiavellian political perspective, it keeps religious conservatives in the tent without alienating a larger chunk of the women's vote.
Democratic strategist Francis Wilkinson
wrote a while back:
STOP me if you've heard this one. A pro-life Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice. The fate of Roe v. Wade, that momentous, muddled law of the land since 1973, hangs in the balance. Despite the best efforts of Democratic senators to force a confession, the elusive nominee remains mum on Roe and rides overwhelming Republican support to confirmation. (A pro-choice group immediately issues a press release that the sky is, in fact, falling.)
But a funny thing happens once the nominee is safely ensconced on the court: instead of sinking Roe, he supports it.
This, of course, is the story line of both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, who allegedly suffered knife wounds in the back from high-court appointees who upheld Roe. There are various theories to explain these instances of Sudden Pro-Choice Syndrome but no clear explanation. It's the darnedest thing, but when it comes to the most sacred cause in the Republican canon, the right to life, Republican presidents somehow find a way to mess up. You'd almost think they were doing it on purpose.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this because it encapsulated some of my more cynical thoughts on the Grand Ole Party. Truth be told, I don't know if Harriet Miers will end up supporting Roe or not. As such, I don't know if that was Bush's intent. Honestly, though, if they read the numbers even remotely the same way I do, we have to consider it a possibility.
Like Ramesh, I do believe that the uptick in pro-choice numbers is temporary. The problem, however, is that I see it returning with a vengeance whenever it actually matters.
[via American Scene]
Observations
With polling, I think we have to be open to the notion that any given poll CAN be an aberration on a trendline.
My explanation for the relatively recent surge in pro-life views has been technological.
Technology has rendered the old pro-choice argument that "it's just a meaningless clump of cells" wholly unsustainable. Anybody who watched that wonderful documentary "In The Womb" knows better now. The notion of abortion on demand, anytime, anywhere, justified by the idea that you're only removing a meaningless clump of cells simply can't be advanced honestly.
Now, I realize not all pro-choice people held the fervent view, and that the reasons for supporting Roe are varied and complex. Please don't read me as suggesting that's the ONLY reason people support Roe. But I do think technology has knocked the hell out of a major argument once advanced by the most fervent (abortion on demand, everywhere, anytime, no restrictions) pro-choice supporters.
Once that argument is knocked out, now we're really just arguing about limits. If Roe were overturned, we'd still be arguing about those limits, and perhaps we'd be better off to bring that argument to the political arena.
Ultimately, I think everybody would be better off by bringing it into the political arena because it would force us to be honest. I do think reversing Roe would hurt Republicans immeasurably in the short term, probably causing a ripple-effect and maybe even a redefinition of the party structure. I think Roe should be overturned because it was a poor decision, but I'm not at all optomistic about what the fallout would be.
Couple of points.
First, I don't think taking a pro-choice position in which one avers distate for abortion but wishes them to remain legal consitutes the "vagu[e] maintenance of a semblance of morality." It's an entirely consistent and defensible moral position, which is why, as I've pointed out to Kevin, I loathe the term 'pro-abortion.'
I consider myself more or less pro-choice, and I am most assuredly not a big fan of abortions, and I can only imagine the difficulty for a person who has chosen to go through with such a procedure. Yet I think the choice to do such a thing should be preserved. I don't see anything vague about the morality of that position.
Of course, disagreement as to that morality is all well and good -- but your phrase seemed to imply a kind of hypocrisy or inconsistency that does not necessarily attend the belief, IMO.
Second, I continue to think the "fervent" pro-choice advocates Kevin speaks of are on the margins, as your post points out: I agree with you, Alex, on what "most" people tend to think about the issue, which is most assuredly not "abortion everywhere, anytime, on demand." There are those who do believe such, but I am dubious they are any more numerous than the fanatical pro-lifers out there.
TP,
There's no inherent inconsistency in the position described, but there is what I consider to be a convenient moral flexibility. I don't think it should be done, except when it should. That's not to say that the position isn't often held most sincerely, but that I've seen it held insincerely enough to be jaded.
It also ties in to what I call reverse hypocrisy: the belief that something is wrong for me to do, but not necessarily wrong for others. If it's wrong for you, then unless there is a distinct difference in situation, it's wrong for someone else to. If Joe is a recovering alcoholic, then it's right for Joe not to drink but say that it's okay for Jack to drink. On the other hand, if Joe doesn't drink for moral reasons (say he's a Mormon or Pentacostal), but then says that it's morally okay for Jack to drink because he's an atheist, then Joe is being whatever the opposite of hypocrisy is.
That's a bit off-topic, though. Whether it applies to abortion-isn't-good-but-should-be-legal depends on the phrasing. But I think a lot of people take the middle ground (I wouldn't, but you should be able to) not because it's right, but simply because it's the middle ground. Not always, but enough to pollute the water in my eyes. No one wants to be the pro-choice person at the pro-life dinner table, and vice-versa.
Alex,
I'm going to post about this on TP. thanks for the blog fodder.
Reverse hypocrisy is also referred to as "patronizing".
Reverse hypocrisy is one thing - but the debate has always been colored as a debate between two crazy groups as long as I remember. It wasn't about whether abortion should be legal, or not, or until what point - instead it was about an extreme left painted as "killing the unborn" versus an extreme right who would even outlaw condoms.
As the bar's moved, of course, all but the most ridiculous fundamentalists have realized that condoms, the pill, and general contraception are generally Good Things(tm), and with that has come the notion that abortion, Up To A Certain Point, was acceptable.
In the end it's a matter of pushing the bar. When the bar was in barring a particularly barbarous, and almost never used, portion then you got a lot more "Pro-Life" people to remove something horrific. Today the debate's shifted.
In the fallout, of course, a lot of things which ought to be common sense - such as parental notification for minors trying to get an abortion - slipped through the cracks. Sad really. If a 14 year old needs parental consent to have a kidney removed or any other surgical procedure (barring immediate life-or-death instances of course) then one would think the same should apply to ANY surgical procedure, including abortions.
It's funny that you mention how much you hate the term "pro-abortion," TP, because I was thinking about that this morning. I was thinking that, no matter what the protestations on the left, I will continue to refer to the mainstream media as "liberal" as long as they continue to use the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." Either standardize "pro-choice" and "pro-life" (how they self identify) or use "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (their relative positions on the issues), but to maintain the current terminology is blatantly political and non-objective.
That said, part of my problem with polling on the abortion issue is how susceptible it is to question bias. For example, pro-aborts like to point to the fact that a majority believe abortion should be legal, while pro-lifers point to the polls showing that their should be stricter limits on abortion. When I talk to people on the subject (which is not often), I find that the non-fervent "pro-choice" people fall back on what is referred to as the "tough choices" (rape, incest, life of the mother) to justify their views. When you point out to them that such situations account for less than 1% of abortions, they begin to get a bit consternated.
I think it's clear that Roe swung the pendulum too far to the left, and the failure on the Right has been to allow the fringe to take over the debate and not address the real concerns some people have with the state of the law.
Centinel,
1) you make a good point about the terminology as used; each side tries to use the most pejorative term for the other, but it's unfortunate that the self-identify term for the left ("pro-choice") and the pejorative term they use against the right ("anti-abortion") are what have stuck in the (supposedly objective, even though everyone knows they actually aren't) media.
2) Also an excellent point on question bias; the same also comes up a lot in the gay marriage debate, where the question itself in any poll almost always uses pejorative language designed to steer a "correct" response.
3) As far as the failure on the right, I can't say that's the case. There have been some real common-sense suggestions in the past, which nevertheless are seen by the "pro-choice" crowd as the equivalent of cross-burning because "it's a first step to overturning Roe." Things like parental notification for underage abortions, for instance.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
