Compromising Positions
by digby
In the wake of Dr Tiller's murder, Ed Kilgore makes a very important point:
But aside from efforts to brush away anti-abortion activists as yesterday's news, there's another misconception that must be addressed in the wake of Tiller's murder: the idea that a "compromise" on abortion policy that eliminates "controversial" abortions like those performed by Tiller will make the risk of violence--yea, even the conflicts over abortion--go away. That is dangerous nonsense.
To anyone who really takes seriously the belief that (as articulated in the Republican National Convention Platform of 2008) "life begins at conception" and should be protected by law from that point, there is literally no difference in moral quality between the late-term abortions performed (where justified by health concerns) by George Tiller and any other abortion at any stage of pregnancy. And indeed, from that point of view, a woman taking a Plan B pill, if she has actually conceived (according to a very strict definition of that term), is just as much a "murderer" as Tiller, and just as deserving of violent intervention on her "victim's" behalf, or of punishment. The only real difference is that Tiller, like every other abortion provider on the planet, is a "mass murderer," so stopping him--by legal or illegal means--is relatively more justified and will have a more salutory effect.
But "compromising" to outlaw "disturbing" abortions like those performed by Tiller just eliminates one mass murderer among many hundreds, from the serious RTL perspective. And the whole focus on relatively rare late-term abortions or on very rare intact dilation and extraction procedures--a.k.a. "partial-birth" abortions--by anti-abortionists is just tactical propaganda aimed at the mushy middle of abortion opinion. Demonizing George Tiller as opposed to any other "mass murderer," or for that matter, waving fetus posters, is simply intended to create a "wedge" whereby the population is "educated" in the direction of opposing abortions generally.
So for pro-choice Americans, regardless of their exact position on abortion, the idea that "compromise" can end violence or even "end the culture wars" over abortion is completely illusory and arguably immoral, if you believe that women should generally have first and final say over their own pregnancies. Sacrificing fundamental rights on the altar of phony "compromises" is, by most standards, both immoral and ineffective, as Americans learned in the long run-up to the Civil War.
And there have already been many, many "compromises" made on the right to abortion, from the very beginning. The trimester construct of Roe was a compromise. There has been no federal funding (for no rational reason, btw) since the late 70s. There is, as a practical matter, very little access to the procedure in vast swathes of the country. It's not as if the pro-choice side has been unwilling to bend.
And there has never been one concession from the other side. The anti-choice zealots have relentlessly pressed forward the minute they obtain another restriction.
Kilgore draws the correct analogy. If you believe that women have the right to control their own bodies, all these compromises lead you nowhere, just as it did in the run up to the civil war.
Many Democrats are desperate to put the culture wars behind them. Some want to do it because they are tired of fighting and just want it settled. Others want to do it because they don't really care about these issues and believe they inhibit the party's ability to do the "real" work they think is important. And the truth is that there is some rather miraculous progress being done on gay rights and racial issues on which society is rather rapidly coming to consensus in ways I couldn't have dreamed were possible not all that long ago. Much work remains, of course, and who knows how much stress these new agreements can take. But undeniable progress is being made and it's very satisfying.
Abortion, however, isn't among these issues and, in fact, I'm rather sad and stunned to have learned in the past few years just how fragile and illusory many women's rights are and how reflexive sexism remains in our wider culture generally. Great strides have been made over the past 30 years,of course, but some kind of deep and intractable barrier remains. This is where the battles of the culture war will continue to rage. And whether they like it or not, politicians are going to have to accept that this is not something that can be finessed or swept under the rug. And it's not because the pro-choice people have been unwilling to bend, it's that, as Kilgore points out, because all their bending hasn't changed a thing. So everyone will just have to search his or her soul and decide what to think about women's roles in society and whether they believe they have agency and autonomy or not. And then be prepared to fight it out.
.