Redstate

I read DrO's adios, and your response, and I tell you truly, c17wife, I'm not trying to irritate you.  I'm not as gracious as Amos, but I will try to do better if I have offended.

I know nothing about regret.  I'm sure I know people who have had abortions, but I do not know who they are.  I don't know if this is sexist or not, but I always think of abortion as a woman's issue, in that I don't know what it would be like to be pregnant, can't even fathom it, and won't substitute my judgment.  I'm uncomfortable with abortion and uncomfortable making a woman carry a baby/fetus to term, so I try to leave it alone as much as possible.

If we push this back to the states, what then?  We have 50 state legislatures pass laws of varying restrictions.  There will be abortion holy war in the state legislative races the following cycle.  Many will outlaw abortion, some will heavily restrict, a handful will leave the Roe basics unchanged.  Will you be satisfied with that?  Will that put an end to the endless bickering, the litmus tests, etc.?

IANAL, but based on the transcript it appears the argument is that "new evidence" is now available, so Roe, as a party, can ask for the judgement to be set aside.

What is the new evidence? Not, as you might suspect, anything to do with the increasing viability of premies, or our better ability to treat and care for babies born with birth defects, or in fact anything at all to do with the fetus.

ALLAN PARKER, ATTORNEY FOR NORMA MCCORVEY: Under rule 60, Norma, as a party, can ask the court to vacate her judgment, set it aside as if it never was, on the grounds it's no longer just. And we have to show changed factual conditions and legal conditions.

And the world has changed in 32 years. We now know that abortion hurts women, and we didn't know that. It was rare and illegal in most places at the time. We now know what it is inside a woman.

And you just talked about blaming the woman and making her responsible. The women, as we quoted to the Supreme Court in our petition, they feel like they have murdered someone.

...

PARKER: But our evidence in the case, Alan, shows that the suicide rate has gone up tremendously for women who have abortions, because they have to deal with the guilt of what they have done themselves.

There has been a decades-long campaign to convince women that they are committing murder when they have an abortion. Because that campaign has had some limited success, because some women have been made to feel guilty, the lawyers are now arguing that the procedure itself causes all sorts of health risks in women. Even if true (and I have strong doubts about the validity of the studies Parker mentions - what were the controls?), how do you separate out the effects of the relentless PR blitz of the pro-life side from the actual innate consequences?

COLMES: If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion -- and state-by- state, then they make different decisions about abortion. And let's say it becomes illegal. What should be the punishment, Norma? What should women -- should they go to jail if they have abortions? Should they...

MCCORVEY: No, absolutely not. No, no, no. We want the women to know that we're here and that we're wanting to help them.

Please note also that Norma apparently doesn't think the women really are guilty of murder. The grounds for the brief are that some women feel like they committed murder.

Setting aside personal feelings on abortion (I don't particularly like it but am uncomfortable with drawing a legal bright line against it), this seems to me to be an extremely weak case. As you say, I doubt it will go anywhere - but perhaps it's more about the publicity than the legal strategy. Not that the two are easy to disentangle here.

the solution being proposed on the gay marriage issue? "Leave it to the states".

Why is one social hot potatoe different from another, other than the obvious that abortion would quickly be outlawed or heavily restricted in at least 45 states.

That's a lot of hot potatoes all in one basket.  But is gay marriage as hot as abortion?  It doesn't seem like it to me.  Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.  What does the collective RedState

think?

Gay marriage gets a little slippery when it's coupled with the full faith and credit clause, but even that is overstated - most states had statutes on the books prior to the gay debates that gave them the right to not recongize sister-state marriages if they were against the public policy of the state in question.  I guess you could analogize that with the ability for women to go to states which allow abortions, despite the fact those abortions won't be recongnized in other states, but that logic has some obvious flaws.

But I think the movement toward a constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage indicates that at least some conservatives would not be satisfied with merely letting states decide social issues.  That's my question, Streiff, will you be satisfied with Roe being overturned, or will you seek further political action against abortion?

Did you get a chance to look at The Anatomy of Revolution?

Personally, I think both should be decided by state legislatures.  I entirely expect national and local parties (as well as liberal and conservative activists) to push their view in the state legislatures, but that is the proper and final venue for these decisions.

I would like to see Roe overturned and shift the debate back to the states.  I would still campaign for abortion laws to my liking in my home state (Oklahoma), but I would accept any laws to the contrary will more legitimacy than the Supreme Courts decrees.  Similarly, I will not support a Constitutional Amendment that takes gay marriage decisions away from the states.

Furthermore, I still believe the gay marraige effect was massively overstated in the last election.  Most gay rights issues continue to be state issues and are more heated on that level (as it should be).  Abortion has been elevated to a national level due to the importance of the Supreme Court.  I would like to see it returned to the states.  An added benefit would be to allow Presidential elections to focus on other national concerns such as foreign and economic policy, leaving divisive social issues at the state level.

I'd settle for abortion being a state issue, with the proviso that whatever decisions are made are not reviewable in federal court.

My ideal would be a federal amendment that would overturn Roe, Casey, et al but I don't see that happening. I am confident that if the issue had to be resolved by governors and legislatures that I'd win the overwhelming majority of those fights.

If, as some say, the pro-life movement shares the same righteousness and zeal previously found in the abolitionist and temperance movements, federalism would seem cold comfort.  Those battles could not be contained by regionalism, federalism, local option, or any other form of compromise.  Doverspa, I believe you when you tell me you would accept the individual state decision, but what do you think your party will do?

Wasn't trying to be tricky.  Even sketchy liberals have honest curiosity.

Do you think your party will follow your lead?  Why would you not fight on for you ideal?

As for federal review, I suppose it would depend on how the Court approached the issue.  But if the Court determined abortion was not intertwined with a right to privacy or fundamental rights of childbearing, judicial review would occur only if the legislation broached other federal rights.  I would guess a court which overturned Roe and progeny would not be inclined to do so, but I don't think your wish could be granted short of amendment.

In the majority of states the extremes would isolated.  Abortion-on-demand would be ended but abortions in certain cases would be legal (rape, incest, first trimester... depends on the state).  Thus, the "no abortion" crowd would continue to fight to outlaw more types of abortion and the abortion-as-birth-control crowd would fight to ease restrictions on abortion.  A negotiated comprmoise would suit the vast middle that is overlooked by the pro-life v. pro-choice dichotomy.

I hope the party would not nationalize the issue.  And in an ideal world, the Supreme Court would rule that there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to decide abortion battles.  It is a reserved right of the states.

Do you think your party will follow your lead?  Why would you not fight on for you ideal?

If by ideal, you mean a constitutional amendment, the fact that I am not sanquine about success in this arena doesn't mean that I wouldn't devote time, energy, and cash.

If by ideal, however, you mean outlawing abortion then I think fighting state by state is much easier than fighting an unelected and unresponsive federal judiciary.

As to my party, who knows what they would do? But they don't do my thinking for me.

I was talking about amending the Constitution.  I agree the mountain is steeper to climb than simply fighting on a state-by-state basis, but I was curious if you would press for more.  You've answered my question.

I know a generous handful of women who have had abortions.  For most, the abortion was prompted by the fact that they became pregnant in some difficult circumstance -- most often, they were in failed or failing relationships.  Financial matters -- by which I mean the ability to feed oneself and one's family, not the ability to take a vacation -- were often a factor.  None of them made the decision to abort lightly.  In all or nearly all cases, these women feel sorrow, even regret, over their decision, sometimes strongly so, and often many years later.  In all or nearly all cases, they also feel they made the best decision available to them at the time.

I also know a smaller handful of women who, in similar circumstances, decided to have the child.  Most of these women had some support system -- family, church, friends -- that rallied around them and made sure their needs were met.  Some, but by no means all, of these women have some regret or other mixed feelings about the circumstances into which they bore their child -- missing or unreliable father, financial hardship, deferment of their own goals and dreams -- but none of them regrets having their child.

I don't know what the best solution is to this question in terms of policy.  My personal inclination is that access to legal abortion, at least at an early stage, should remain available.  I feel this way mostly because it's not clear to me that we know, or even have a way to know, exactly when one cell becomes a human person, and therefore the right for each person to make their decision according to the dictates of their own conscience and understanding should be respected.  I fully understand that many disagree with this, and frankly I have neither the insight or will to try to convince anyone of the rightness or wrongness of their opinion on this matter.

To me, the strongest argument against abortion is that the creation of a new life is a mystery, and a miracle, and we should not consider interfering.  I also recognize that, for many, and sadly, what should be a blessing can instead be an enormous, even a crushing, hardship.  So, I feel not in a position to judge other's decisions.

Cheers -

Norma McCorvey has led a troubled life, she has been used by both sides in the abortion debate, and she now has been "saved by the Blood of the Lamb through Jesus Christ".  She now thinks Roe was wrong based on her new faith.  OK, fine, although I disagree with her.  The logical argument she puts forth, however, does not make sense.

"But then, you know, we have to back up and look at the women who have died from legalized abortion, also." - Norma McCorvey

The risk of dying in childbirth is 11 times the risk of dying from a first trimester abortion.

"We're trying to repopulate the earth, because we've lost three generations of children..."

The earth's population has passed 6 billion and keeps rising.  This is just a little weird.

The other disturbing trend from the interview is the idea that women are unable to make decisions for themselves.

"The women that we've talked to feel responsible, but we also feel that they are the least responsible. There are people who pressure them into getting abortions." - Allan Parker, in response to a question about whether women should be punished for having abortions

The whole idea of women not being responsible for their actions or that they might regret it later logically extends into questioning whether women should be allowed to vote.  It is as if women should be protected from having to make decisions for themselves.  It is a ridiculous argument in a nation which prides itself on the self-determination of its citizens.  Frankly, the anti-abortion movement has much better arguments and spokespeople.

Not to plunge into things that are too personal, but did any of the mothers you describe consider adoption.  In my young age, I only know three people in situations where abortion was considered.  One miscarried but was religious and probably wouldn't have had an abortion.  One kept the child.  One put the child up for adoption and choose the parents herself.  All seem to be content with their decisions.

I tend to agree with your reasoning, except for one point.  If we are not sure about where life begins, I believe we should err on the side of protecting the right to life.

Finally, I wish the 9 Supreme Court justices had the humility you have to admit the don't know the answer.  And then they could return it to the people's representatives in the legislatures.

"but did any of the mothers you describe consider adoption"

I don't know.  Those whose thoughts I am aware of did not.

"If we are not sure about where life begins, I believe we should err on the side of protecting the right to life."

That's a very reasonable position, and I respect it.

Cheers -