Andrew Sullivan reacts to the “elite meltdown” over the Supreme Court’s presumed overturning of Roe V. Wade with observations that resembles those expressed here:
What strikes me about all of this is not the emotive hyperbole — that’s par for the course in a country where every discourse is now dialed to eleven. What strikes me most in these takes is the underlying contempt for and suspicion of the democratic process — from many of the same people who insist they want to save it. How dare voters have a say on abortion rights! The issue — which divides the country today as much as it has for decades — is one that apparently cannot ever be put up for a vote. On this question, Democrats really do seem to believe that seven men alone should make that decision — once, in 1973. Women today, including one on SCOTUS? Not so much.
Is this the case in any other Western country? No. Even the most progressive countries regulate abortion through the democratic process. In Germany, it’s illegal after 12 weeks of pregnancy — more restrictive than the case before the US Supreme Court that bars abortion after 15 weeks. European countries where the legal cutoff is even more restrictive: Austria, Spain, Greece, Italy, France, Belgium and Switzerland. Abortion enshrined as a constitutional right? Not even in super-progressive Canada.
The United States, in other words, has been an outlier in the past and, if Roe is reversed, will return to a democratic politics of abortion, in line with most of the Western world. And so I wonder: why is this so terrifying for pro-choicers?
The answer to his question is actually pretty obvious: the majority of Americans don’t agree with the extreme position that pro-choice supporters are advocating. Since, as Mr. Sullivan also notes, some of those advocating extreme pro-abortion views are the same as those loudly declaiming that they want to save democracy, it does raise the question of what they mean by “democracy”. It certainly doesn’t mean the rule of law and it certainly doesn’t mean majority rule. I think it means getting their way whatever that happens to mean at the time. That isn’t democracy. It’s totalitarianism. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I think we should also ponder on why there has been no serious attempt has been made at remedying the manifest defects of Roe v. Wade from a legal standpoint by codifying it into Constitutional law. I think it’s because, first and foremost, abortion advocates always thought their views would be imposed by the least democratic institution in the federal government, the Supreme Court. But second they knew it would lose. Americans recoil at infanticide and the closer a fetus comes to term the more abortion looks like infanticide. That’s what I think is going on in the states that have enacted more serious restrictions on abortion (most not as serious as those of secular France). Rather than theocracy I (although religion may play a role) I think it’s squeamishness. Modern imaging technology has made second trimester abortions look a lot more like infanticide.
Mr. Sullivan concludes:
Leftists, if they could only snap out of their disdain for democracy, can make a powerful case for moderation on this issue against right-extremism. To do that, of course, they will have to back some restrictions on abortion in some states — which some seem very reluctant to do — and even allow some diversity of opinion within their own ranks. There are forces aiming to prevent that — forces that Biden could confront if he hadn’t long been beaten into learned helplessness. But surely someone can take the initiative.
So let’s stop the hyperventilation and get back to democracy. Persuade people, if you can. Get them out to vote. Stop demonizing those you disagree with and compromise with them in office, however difficult that may be. What Roe did was kickstart the extreme cultural polarization that has defined and blighted the last few decades of American politics. Maybe the end of Roe can mark the beginning of a return to living together, and negotiating a way to make that bearable.
I’m not hopeful. All of the trends in our politics, e.g. the enormous increase in “safe seats”, the self-segregation into “Red States” and “Blue States”, the transition from “colleagues with whom we disagree” to “evil enemies”, mean that, at least at the national level but increasingly at state an local levels, the muscles that allowed legislators to craft compromises with their political opponents have atrophied. They literally don’t know how to compromise any more.
Abortion is legal here in Ne but none are performed as providers
of abortion have been hounded out of the practice or out of state.
I’m generally anti-abortion furiously anti-abortion within my own family but fairly ambivalent about others.
Most are performed on Afro-American or Hispanics and on those shrills who decry forced motherhood is slavery.
You know what Vito Corleone would say about that.
It’s a great income stream for Planned Parenthood and a boon for fetal tissue research while reducing future social safety net costs.
But that will all be debated and decided at a state level and Iowa is only a bridge away from eager abortion customers.
I’m a little windy today but wasn’t Kermit Gosnell from Chicago?
That was such a mess that the health department would have shut him down if he were selling sandwiches instead of abortion.
Stare decisis is good policy, because otherwise the law is unstable. If the draft opinion is, in fact, published, we will likely see why it is good policy. I expect a particularly violent summer would ensue, with multiple killings, and the Supreme Court would be packed with lunatic lefties. They will reverse the opinion once again, with even more radical abortion rights.
I was raised Catholic, but I am lapsed. I am slightly opposed to abortion, but I really don’t care enough about it to get upset by the upcoming decision, however it goes. I am also slightly opposed to the death penalty, but I don’t real care if a state uses it, as long as it is humane.
Those are not issues that get my vote either way. I am more concerned about the actual Bill of Rights, the economy, and shutting down our war machine before it kills us.
PS. I don’t think abortions are done mostly on blacks and latinos, but those groups are disproportionately represented. It is an issue with some black and latino activists, but in general people of color don’t seem to care.
Agreed. However, if stare decisis were not to have exceptions, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in force. That raises the question when does stare decisis not apply? IMO Roe v. Wade despite its flaws is not such a case. I presume that those who think that stare decisis should not apply in the case of Roe v. Wade would do so on the grounds that it was non-originalist.
Gosnell I believe was doing business in Philadelphia. His clinic was beyond awful for both maternal care and literally killing live babies. When he went to trial the courtroom had aisles cordoned off for the press to report on what was a fairly sensational trial. Only one person from the media showed up. Per the usual, the media ignores what it doesn’t want the public to know. That’s why we have such filtered out facts and hidden truths in this country….and, it’s only getting worse!
Philly?
Sorry, Steve.
Was he anyone you knew?
If Roe is overturned it wont matter that much in terms of the number of abortions. In the states that oppose abortion it is already difficult have one. When it becomes illegal the pregnant daughter of the conservative Baptist minister will just go to another state like they do now. People will use the pills. The only people affected will be poor people. I am sure that the pro life people who care so much about kids will provide extra funding to help those people. (Sarcasm alert.) I really dont understand the worry about democracy here. Most people think abortion should be legal. Most think it should not legal in all situations. Means it will be legal in some places and not in others.
I worked at Penn. Gosnell worked at some office he earned somewhere. He was appropriately sentenced to three life sentences. Of note, I am old enough to have been around before abortion was legal. Saw some women die who had to carry a baby to term who should never have been in that situation. No one got a life sentence for that. That was seen as God’s will.
Steve
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/05/liberals-are-evil.php
The title of the above Powerline piece was unusually harsh for this blog. Intellectually conservative, Powerline normally walks the fine line of debating or criticizing the political opposition without pulling out all the stops – like calling “liberals evil.†However, I increasingly think such name calling fits liberals and the lowly tactics exercised by many of them, more and more every day. I might add that “liberals†are not only evil but also intolerantly crazy!
Progressives aren’t liberals but I don’t think they’re either evil or crazy. I do think that they tend to be Marcusists, i.e. they think that tolerance of “repressive regimes”, i.e. right-wingers is immoral. I also think that there is a very Manichean view dominant in America. That is contrary to the more Enlightenment-style view traditional in the U. S. Now there’s the “good guys” vs. the “bad guys”. “Our side” (whoever “we” are) are the good guys and anybody else is the bad buys.
It fascinates me how much debate occurs with nary a mention of the competing rights issue central to abortion. Babies apparently have no standing or rights. However, mountains of verbiage (and diversionary or irrelevant considerations) is devoted to the rights of a pregnant woman. Once you cross the line of ignoring one party’s rights let your mind run wild as to the implications. It appears that much of the world has concluded that, as a practical matter or as a compromise, there is a transition point where rights are conferred upon a child in the womb. 15-16 weeks hardly seems a draconian standard.
As far as democracy is concerned, the guys over at OTB illustrate the problem, routinely lamenting the absence of a pure democracy, generally after a lost national election. But it is the system we have, and have had, for years. Change the rules if you are not happy. But the system was wisely set up to not enable a handful of states govern the nation according to their narrow interests. Talk about civil war.
I’m so far unimpressed by the stare decisis reasoning. I am not to be confused with a legal scholar, but those who are routinely point out that the concept does not warrant application in the event of decisions not rooted in the Constitution. And there appears to be widespread acknowledgment that Roe fits that description, and required quite a lot of tortured reasoning. Further, I would think the argument would end with Brown.
You wont see much conversation since the debate is about current abortion standards vs no abortion. So in a state like California with least restrictive abortion rules it means abortion is illegal after viability unless health or life of woman is endangered. In other states it may be at 6 weeks. What is planned by states that oppose abortion looks to mostly be the total elimination of abortion and the debate is about what if any exclusions apply such as in LA where it looks like they are pushing to have none. So in conservative world there are no competing rights. The fetus has them. In liberal world, in practice, not what some extremists say, once the fetus is viable it has the same rights as the woman. Maybe more. Anyway, since the debate in red states will be about exclusions that is why I keep harping on how you intend to assess risk. If you decide the woman does have some rights and if her life is at risk it is OK to terminate then how much risk? 50%? We arent that good at calculating risk of death that precisely and if you are sick enough to have a 50% risk of dying it is likely the baby is affected.
I have never seen anyone at OTB shill for pure democracy. Some do have this old fashioned idea that the party with the most votes should win. I can see why you would oppose that.
Stare decisis is only embraced when convenient.
Steve
There is a big difference between having the most secured real votes versus the most ballots, indiscriminately mailed, put into unsecured collection boxes, many lacking chain of custody or signature verification.
“So in conservative world there are no competing rights.”
Wrong. I’m a conservative and can see both sides of the argument; both sets of rights. Its why I’m not a zealot on the issue. I think the majority of conservatives and non-conservatives have similar views.
The hard part is that for most there are no bright line distinctions to a number of the issues in the debate. And that is when the trouble starts. You can have life begins at conception on one side; and blather about a women’s right to choose on the other. And then the party starts……..
Further, even states that have or are considering restrictions have, so far, proposed dates from inception similar to those in European countries. A large number of people’s sensibilities on the issue apparently fall in that 12-17 week range.
“Stare decisis is only embraced when convenient.”
I think that’s overstated. Its usually followed, and often cited, as a principle to avoid volatility in the standards of law. Its criticized when its viewed to be flat damned unconstitutional.
“There is a big difference between having the most secured real votes versus the most ballots, indiscriminately mailed, put into unsecured collection boxes, many lacking chain of custody or signature verification.”
I am talking about the real world, not fantasy land.
“Further, even states that have or are considering restrictions have, so far, proposed dates from inception similar to those in European countries. A large number of people’s sensibilities on the issue apparently fall in that 12-17 week range.”
You are more optimistic than I am. My prediction is that most of those states go to 6 weeks or less. If they really do 12-17 weeks it will be even less of an issue than I thought and I already thought it wouldn’t affect the number of abortions very much.
Steve
So I went and looked. Isn’t the internet grand. Per wiki 13 states have trigger laws that will totally eliminate abortion if Roe is reversed. I am having trouble reconciling this with he claims of 12-17 weeks.
“States with trigger laws or pre-Roe v. Wade bans on abortion that would make abortion illegal in the state if Roe v. Wade were overturned
In the United States, thirteen states, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma,[1] South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,[2] Utah, and Wyoming,[3] have trigger laws that would automatically ban abortion in the first and second trimesters if the landmark case Roe v. Wade were overturned.”
Steve
IMO six weeks is extreme; so are no restrictions all the way to term.
Increasingly all that are left are extremes.
“There is a big difference between having the most secured real votes versus the most ballots, indiscriminately mailed, put into unsecured collection boxes, many lacking chain of custody or signature verification.â€
I am talking about the real world, not fantasy land.
Do you have any evidence to support that, steve? Evidence, not leftist outlet BS. The mail in ballot issue is very legitimate. In fact, its how it was done.
I actually share your concern that zealots won’t stop at (whatever) 16 weeks. Incrementalism has been poo-poohed here at this cite. You have been guilty. Its the central argument against incremental gun law restrictions.
I have great sympathy for both sides. If, in one’s well considered opinion, life begins at conception your position is done. Period, full stop. I think the “woman’s right to choose” is much weaker, but I understand the opinion. But now we are fucked. At the risk of repeating myself, the majority of people have arrived at a compromise position. Some number like 16 weeks. I’d let the legislative process take over from there. Perfection will not be achieved.