Horizon

Not to mention that it's at least disingenuous to pretend that pap smears are what abortion opponents object to.

All health care is in terribly short supply in the United States. Planned Parenthood does provide gynecological care that women really wouldn't get otherwise. I am one of its grateful recipients. When this speaker refers to "health initiatives," do you actually know she is talking about abortion, or is she speaking as an advocate for women's health care who is appalled at the obviously appalling shortage of health care in the United States? Y'know, people who risk their lives to provide contraception and abortion to women in need aren't trying to kill as many babies as possible. They're trying to save viable post-born women's lives and futures. Do you truly find it inconsistent or strange or dishonest that an advocate for abortion rights would also be in favor of increasing general women's health care in addition to contraception or abortion? Really and truly, what do you think makes a Planned Parenthood doctor get up in the morning?

As for "fewer and fewer people think that there is a debate," I'd say that description applies best to the right wing, which seems to take the position routinely that the rest of us should give up our petty little expressions of dissent, our eccentric little attachments to quaint old writs like habeas corpus, etc., and fall in line behind the majority party, because there's no room for dissent in a time of national crisis, etc., etc. I doubt highly that a former Planned Parenthood president -- a woman who, voluntarily and purely on principle, has risked her life every day for years to an extent neither you nor I nor many soldiers ever have -- could possibly think there was no controversy afoot. Her point, quite obviously, was that basic gynecological care should be freely available, and that, yes, only the wicked or incompetent could be in favor of denying health care to people in need of it. That actually does not appear to be an arguable proposition.

Would someone like to explain what generally recognized ethical (or "faith-based") system of principles allows the richest country in the world to deny medical care to its citizens? Personally I can't name one.

Her point, quite obviously, was that basic gynecological care should be freely available, and that, yes, only the wicked or incompetent could be in favor of denying health care to people in need of it. That actually does not appear to be an arguable proposition.

There is no such thing as 'freely available' medical care, in the sense that such care might descend gratis from the skies like manna from Heaven. All medical care has to be paid for. The question is: by whom? The state? OK, fine, as long as it's recognized that (a) ultimately it's the citizenry that's still paying through taxes - the cost is spread out rather than charged at point of receipt - and that taxes spent on health care means taxes not spent on other, sometimes equally important things; and (b) the point at which 'basic' gynecological care turns into 'advanced' (and far more expensive) gynecological care is, like every other branch of medicine, unclearly defined - and that's surely a critical and contestable matter of public debate. That you dismiss these caveats out of hand strikes me as part of the very problem I was trying to address. I might disagree strongly with many people on the specifics of these and other questions, but it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend that they are motivated only by malice or incompetence.

I never, by the way, questioned that both sides take part in this denial-of-debate. And both sides say that it's the other side that's worse.

Hm. I think our difference is that I take your "(a)" as an obvious starting point, and really when it comes to noncontroversial procedures like screening for cervical cancer, it is hard to argue with the idea that we as taxpayers ought to pay for it. Yes, you can argue with it if you want to. But you can argue with anything so long as it's phrased as a moral statement rather than a fact. The question is just who else is going to agree. Unfortunately, she was probably being optimistic in stating that nobody opposes publicly funded cancer screening for poor women. Some people do oppose publicly funded cancer screening for poor women. It's just hard to understand why.

It looks anyway like the thing this speaker said about basic gynecological care being an uncontroversial Good Thing wasn't her main point, it's just that a student editor pulled out the "no other side" quote from that part of her remarks and stuck it in a headline, where it caught your attention.

It looks like the main point this speaker made was that the right to abortion was briefly commonly accepted as having been finally granted, but then the anti-abortion movement problematized it again.

We in our thirties were raised to assume that this and a whole lot of other battles had already been won on our behalf. We were assured that the interesting times were over. Ha.

The speaker never appears to have made any attempt to clarify what are on the face of it pretty arrogant claims, and - tellingly - no-one in her audience appears to have tried to make her clarify them. Because that would involve critical thinking. These kind of solipsistic conversations are what we have in place of a proper debate.

When this speaker refers to "health initiatives," do you actually know she is talking about abortion

Not having been present for the speech, I have no idea what she's referring to when she says "health initiatives". In fact, I don't even remember the phrase from the article, which I read within the week.

What I do have a guess about is what she means when she characterizes the "other side (to pap smears)". It may actually have been a great leap for me to presume that that's a reference to the opponants of her organization, the majority of whom object specifically to the practice of abortion. While some of them do, in fact, object to contraception, I'm not aware of any who object to pap smears.

As I said, however, that may have been a leap.

We in our thirties were raised to assume that this and a whole lot of other battles had already been won on our behalf.

Please assume for the moment that whatever opinions about the abortion debate I have match yours. Here you seem to be objecting to the last thirty years' political battles over abortion on the grounds not that your^H^H^H^Hour side is right, but rather that it has won and shouldn't be forced to defend its gains in the moral, intellectual, or political sphere.

but then the anti-abortion movement problematized it again

"Problematized it?" I have a ton of issues with the anti-abortion movement, but I don't think I could describe objecting to an issue decided exclusively by the courts in such dismissive words. Pesky citizens, objecting to what their unelected betters have proclaimed!

Ah, the old trope about judges acting in spite of citizens. They don't, you know. Judges more or less follow public opinion, just more slowly and with more leeway than directly elected officials do. You don't truly think the Warren Court created desegregation and the due process revolution and the right to reproductive privacy all by itself, do you? It didn't. First, a series of human rights movements created a climate in which such decisions could be made. Attacking "unelected judges" elides the fact that large parts of U.S. public opinion did support and do still support these human rights causes.

And I can't see what's strange about regretting the fact that the abortion battle, although once won, has had to be refought continually. Cf. the need to re-defend the universal franchise, secular biology textbooks, habeas corpus, Food Stamps, and so many other twentieth-century achievements. Wot -- you're telling me that in order to be thought sufficiently broad-minded I've got to be pleased that women's rights are still under attack? Why?

P.S. Yes, I do know that habeas corpus predates the twentieth century. All the more reason to regret the need to re-defend it.

Ah, the old trope about judges acting in spite of citizens. They don't, you know. Judges more or less follow public opinion, just more slowly and with more leeway than directly elected officials do.

Although, as Michael Kinsley recently pointed out, liberals wax and wane on the immutability of Supreme Court decisions, and the proper influence that public opinion should have on their deliberations, just as often as conservatives.

Judges more or less follow public opinion, just more slowly and with more leeway than directly elected officials do.

I suspect you meant to type "less leeway" there. If not, I'd be very interested in hearing you elaborate.

Attacking "unelected judges" elides the fact that large parts of U.S. public opinion did support and do still support these human rights causes.

Certainly there's support. But don't those who disagree with these decisions have a right to object? Or is there something about a Supreme Court decision that renders any protest against it or attempt to change it invalid somehow, as your belittling comment about "problematizing" and your previously-expressed horror at Kelo protests seems to imply? Tell me, if I'm outraged at Raich or the copyright decision of a couple of years ago, am I allowed to express dissent, even though substantial parts of the public agree with the Court?

I suspect that your objection is a symptom of achieving judicial shortcuts on issues that should have been decided through the democratic process. The Court is delegitimized in the eyes of the losers, and a sense of self-righteous indignation bred in the winners. Neither seems especially healthy for the Republic.

And I can't see what's strange about regretting the fact that the abortion battle, although once won, has had to be refought continually.

Oh fair enough. I'd also like it if my political opponents rolled over and played dead.

Alan, the final paragraph of the Kinsley article reminded me of a thread on Amy Welborn's (very Roman Catholic and very pro-life) site. She posted a proposal made by some Democratic legislators to attempt to reduce the number of abortions preformed by creating or strengthening various health and social safety-net programs, but without criminalizing the procedure.

The comment thread was fascinating — a number of posters mentioned their exasperation with the Roe-focus that has dominated the pro-life movement for the last three decades but "not stopped a single abortion" during that time. Others regarded the proposal as a ruse to distract the movement. I believe that at least a few mentioned that their groups had been pushing for both these measures and against Roe for years, but gotten little encouragement on them.

If you're interested, I'll try to scare it up. Would serve you right for getting me and Martha arguing about abortion, of all things.

I think Hilary Clinton has said similar things -- that abortion should be both rare and legal. I think in fact the "no other side" comment that started this conversation might have been similarly heading for the point when women get good care, the need for these heartwrenching decisions tends not to arise in the first place. As you probably know, the late-term abortions that are the most morally debatable aremost likely to happen in cases where a girl or woman is poor, frightened, ill-informed or uncertain. Similarly it's where women's health care is worst that birth control takes the form of abortion instead of condoms etc. My college Russian teacher went through a horrific illegal abortion at sixteen, without anesthesia, with the doctor scolding her about her moral failings throughout the procedure. That's a kind of thing that happens only in places that ban abortion and discourage contraception.

[12/2/05: I'm reposting this commentbecause it was not displaying in all formats due to some kind of technical glitch. --MB]