Dobbs and the politics of abortion

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has produced a three results I did not see coming:

First:

The Trump campaign announced this week that it opposes any federal role in regulating abortion and that the issue should be decided by the states. The leaders of the most influential pro-life groups have condemned the announcement. The Susan B. Anthony List stated that “We will oppose any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace at a minimum a 15-week national standard” and called Trump’s position “unacceptable.” Lila Rose of Live Action stated that Trump had “disqualified” himself for the nomination. Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America concurred.

Jonathon Van Maren an First Things.

I’m not sure I agree that these three are “the most influential pro-life groups,” but they’re not obscure, either.

I would warm to the idea of a 15-week non-preemptive national ban if the proponents could tell me what provision(s) in the Constitution make abortion an issue for the national government rather than the states. I’ve said and believed for 40 years that reversing Roe would return the abortion issue to the states, because I actually support the 10th Amendment. I contemn emotivist arguments for circumventing it on selected issues.

I no longer read much about the abortion issue, having all the knowledge and principle I need to guide my retired life. But I suspect that these spokesmen (yes, I noticed that they’re women) would cite Sections 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment as authority:

  1. … nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

If you noticed that invoking Section 1 would imply fetal personhood and thus support an outright national abortion ban, bonus points to you. I suspect the spokesman know that full well.

The theory that this part of section 1 applies to the unborn — as a matter of the intentions of those who wrote and ratified it — has been around for most of the forty years I’ve paid attention to abortion law, and I’ve never quite bought it.

Second, the reversal of Roe sent red states off to the races to enact surprisingly restrictive abortion laws. I always knew that some blue states would declare perpetual open season on the unborn (and they have), but I did not expect red states not even to recognize life-of-the-mother exceptions.

I don’t think this would have happened fifteen years ago, but our polarization is extreme and so are the consequences.

Third, the reversal of Roe has brought sharpness of focus to an important distinction between two kinds of Roe opponents:

  1. The Constitutionalists who considered Roe a judicial usurpation;
  2. The “we must save babies by all possible means” true believers (for lack of a better term).

For better or worse, I’ve mostly theorized my Roe opposition the first way, and that hasn’t changed since Dobbs reshuffled the deck. This probably is a reflection of my legal training and my even longer-standing interest in Constitutional law.

“Mostly” doesn’t mean I don’t support policies and institutions that make childbirth more desirable and feasible than abortion. It also doesn’t mean that I don’t support fairly tight state-enacted restrictions. I do, times two.


For all its piety and fervor, today’s United States needs to be recognized for what it really is: not a Christian country, but a nation of heretics.

Ross Douthat, Bad Religion

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here (cathartic venting) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real). Both should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.

Unhinged politics

Side-by-side at the Washington Post, Michael Gerson and Ruth Marcus present a strong contrast today, and there’s no doubt in my mind which outlook would be better for the country.

Marcus starts off decrying a “Tea Party” candidate’s campaign video in an Alabama congressional primary. (I’m still wondering how columnists so infallibly distinguish a Tea Partier from other populist types, but never mind.) The candidate thinks redistributionist welfare is slavery for the people who pay taxes, as he makes graphically clear, and he closes with a very, very brief image of a concentration camp – one of those “subliminal” images that Marcus, sitting on her high Washington D.C. perch, was nevertheless able to perceive all the way down in the fever swamps of scary, scary Red Alabama. (I’m still wondering how these subliminal images get detected if they’re so subtle. Do some people have no lives? Oh, never mind.)

She decries the video as sacrilege, unhinged and emblematic. She links it to conservative talk radio (which she hints she has spent some time listening to). She insinuates that there couldn’t possibly be anything slavish about the role of taxpayer because — hey! — this is a democracy with checks and balances, and the system we have was voted on by the people who worry terribly about the Tea Party.

Marcus closes throwing down a gauntlet for conservatives to join her in decrying such stuff.

Gerson takes up the gauntlet so firmly that Marcus may be sorry she asked. His first target: David Weigel (the reporter whose blogging got him his 15 minutes of fame — which, by the way, runs out very soon now).

When Rush Limbaugh went to the hospital with chest pain, Weigel wrote, “I hope he fails.” Matt Drudge is an “amoral shut-in” who should “set himself on fire.” Opponents are referred to as “ratf — -ers” and “[expletive] moronic.”
This type of discourse is an odd combination between the snideness of the cool, mean kids in high school and the pettiness of Richard Nixon rambling on his tapes. Weigel did not intend his words to be public. But they display the defining characteristic of ugly politics — the dehumanization of political opponents.

He continues:

Radio host Mike Malloy suggested that Glenn Beck “do the honorable thing and blow his brains out.” … Liberals carried signs at Bush rallies: “Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush.” Says John Avlon, author of “Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America,” “If you only take offense when the president of your party is compared to Hitler, then you’re part of the problem.”

Yet Gerson acknowledges the problem on the right.

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh,” Ann Coulter once said, “is he did not go to the New York Times building.” … Conservatives carry signs at Obama rallies: “We Came Unarmed (This Time).”

Gerson then ties things up a bit, beginning:

The rhetoric of the Ugly Party shares some common themes: urging the death or sexual humiliation of opponents or comparing a political enemy to vermin or diseases. It is not merely an adolescent form of political discourse; it encourages a certain political philosophy — a belief that rivals are somehow less than human, which undermines the idea of equality and the possibility of common purposes.
Such sentiments have always existed. But the unfiltered media — particularly the Internet — have provided both stage and spotlight. Now everyone can be Richard Nixon, threatening opponents and composing enemies lists.

The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party — less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent … I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

Marcus hears no enemies of civility on the left. (What! Did she go expatriate during the Bush years?) Gerson correctly sees really bad polarization with crazies at both the red and blue ends of the spectrum.

Anyone foolish enough to follow this blog faithfully will suspect that I think the country may be too far gone for rehabilitation by either the Ugly Party or the Grown-Up Party. But if we’re going into the tank economically, I’d rather go into it with people who realize that virtually all of us were complicit in bringing it about — and that no scapebillies deserve to be hung by the testicles or scapenannies to be raped and put naked on display.

I resolve to try to remember that in future posts, and I regret any dehumanizing in former posts. My intent is always “what fools we mortals be,” but blogging can be intoxicating (as David Weigel found), and I may have said some things that sounded more like “kill the creeps.”