Neo-conservatives support President George W. Bush because they see in him a zealous crusader on a mission to democratize the world in America’s image. Whereas, traditional conservatives support Bush because they see in him a zealous crusader on a mission to Christianize the United States according to their fundamentalist “born-again” dogma.
Therefore, it is a testament to Bush’s political rectitude that his presidency is now distinguished by his faithful attempt to execute both of these missions with equal zeal. Of course, that Iraq may turn his democracy crusade into a proverbial
Waterloo hardly seems to matter to Bush or his neo-con enablers. But his political redemption seems assured amongst the traditional conservatives who, incidentally, comprise the vast majority of his supporters. After all, their holy war is not with Iraq; it’s with abortion.And, these conservatives regard Bush’s appointment of Justices
Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court as decisive battles won in their war to overturn Roe v. Wade – which gave women the right to an abortion. Moreover, they pray faithfully that he will have an opportunity to appoint yet one more “Christian” justice to the court before his term expires in 2008. Because everyone in America knows that this South Dakota law banning abortions except where the mother’s life is at stake (and similar laws now making their way through legislatures in other states), was enacted for the sole purpose of giving a more Christian Supreme Court a case to decide, anew, whether abortion is a constitutionally protected right.I suspect that this court, as presently constituted, would probably decide that abortion is a protected right. However, it would no doubt grant states the authority to put limits on the exercise of this right (e.g. parental and spousal notification, mandatory counseling, a waiting period and, of course, it would probably rule that late-term abortions are not only unconstitutional but, in fact, a form of infanticide).
Whatever their rulings on these test cases, however, abortions will never be outlawed in America. Because, when all is said and done, each state will be left to decide under what conditions abortions will be allowed. And, more conservative states will curtail this right to the fullest extent of the law and liberal states will extend it in similar fashion.
UPDATE (12 March 1:45 pm): I’m obliged to let you in on a little secret. I am blessed with a group of friends who are not only my most dedicated readers but also my ardent critics. I regret, however, that – to a person – they consider it too impersonal and contrived to write their comments here when they can ring me up and debate particular points in my posts directly….Alas, such are the benefits (and costs) of friendship.
There are seven people in this group and four of them rang this morning with similar criticisms about today’s article: “You seem too intellectually removed from this issue. You need to tell your readers where you stand more clearly.”
I was eventually persuaded that they were right. So here’s where I stand on abortion:
I am PRO CHOICE…but:
I do not believe abortions should be available on demand and unconditionally.
I believe, for example, that late-term abortions (so-called partial-birth abortions) should be illegal. I see no reason why society should not impose upon a pregnant woman the duty and responsibility to decide whether or not she wants to abort her child within the first trimester (or, at the latest, by the end of the second trimester in extraordinary circumstances). Moreover, I find pro-choice advocates who insist on a woman’s right to partial-birth abortions as fanatical and unreasonable as I find 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) advocates who insist that all Americans should be allowed to purchase machine guns and bazookas for personal use. However, I believe it’s absurd to deny a woman the right to an abortion in the case of rape or incest as the South Dakota law proposes.
I believe it’s reasonable to require parental notification before a doctor performs an abortion on an underage girl. However, I do not think such notification should be required if the girl has reached the age of consent (16). Moreover, I think it reeks of the most insidious form of paternalism to require doctors to notify a woman’s spouse before she can have an abortion.
I hope this clarifies my position on this intensely personal, emotional and resolutely ambivalent issue. Because it’s an issue on which only intellectual fools and religious zealots would claim absolute clarity and conviction.
South Dakota, abortion ban
Brian Varitek says
Sometimes I’m quite amazed by the almost rabid energy that conservatives put into trying to control other people. With this court, they will not win this one, but they will be trying forever.
Layman says
Other states are lining up to follow suit:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-tide-turning-on-abortion-law.html
Jennifer says
Hi Anthony
I have to say that I think your special group of friends were being hard on you because when I read this article earlier I knew exactly where you were coming from. Anyway thanks for spelling it out so clearly.
Anonymous says
One of my coworkers is a stalwart Neo Con and his favorite line is “They don’t bother me, I won’t bother them”.
He hates gays, feels illegal immigrants should be shot on sight, and when I first started working there he said that I was “One of the good Puerto Ricans”. He’s against abortion at any cost and feels that “we have too many freedoms”.
When someones says Neo-Con I think of him….
Noel
Liz Coleman says
Hi
I’m glad your friends got you to add the update. It helps a lot. I like the way you think. As a pro-choice woman, I used to buy the line about the need to protect all abortions. But your example about the crazy gun people who think the constitution gives them the right to own every kind of gun imaginable made me think that that’s how reasonable people like you must think of me. I really like the way you think. Your update was really helpful. Thanks
Rachel S says
I think many conservatives are prochoice; it is really the only hard core Christian fundamentalists that are opposed to all abortions. I largely agree with your views (for once LOL!) with a little exception. I would support late term abortions if the health of the mother is at risk and in the cases of rape and incest.
ALH ipinions says
Layman:
Thanks for the link.
Rachel S:
I shall regard it as a sign of my creeping intellectual growth that I’ve expressed views with which you agree (“for once” ;) As for our apparent disagreement on this issue, I offer the following:
I suspect the S.D. law contemplates abortions (even partial-birth ones) if the health of the mother is at risk. So I think we are all in agreement on this point. As for late-term abortions in cases of rape and incest, I wonder if – here too – it’s not reasonable to expect a woman to decide within 6 months of her pregnancy, despite her trauma, if she wants give birth to a child conceived under such duress.
I feel constrained to note, however, that there’s considerable confusion between late-term and partial-birth abortions. The terms are used interchangeably. And, though no authority on the subject, I refer to late-term abortions as those being performed in the third trimester – invariably by the “partial birth method” – where the health of the mother is NOT at risk.)
Rachel S says
I understand your point about deciding within the first 6 months, but I think that ignores some of the issues that surround incest in particular. I don’t know if you remember the case of the girl who was twelve and was inpregnated by her 17 year old bother (somewhere in the midwest). For obvious reasons the girl didn’t tell the parents until well into the pregnancy. The parents wanted her to have an abortion sometime around six months, but radical pro life groups tried to block her from having the abortion and also from going out of state to do so. I think she ended up having an abortion in the 7th or 8th month. It would have been sooner had prolifers not intervened. But I think it is understandable that she waited so long to tell her parents. 60 minutes also had a good report about two couples who had late term abortions because of serious fetal defects that potentially endangered the mothers. It was interesting.
Michelle says
Rachel S
You make some interesting points but they are so extreme that I don’t think they contradict Anthony’s suggestions. He even says that anyone who claims absolute answers on this issue is a zealot or fool. I think as a rule I would have to agree with him understanding that we can all find exceptions to every rule.
Danielle says
Hmmm…I am a Christian and against abortion, and the comments on this blog really spell out much of the non-tolerance to my personal beliefs. I believe that having an abortion is killing a child, I guess many of you do not. So there’s a difference in opinion, I’d still appreciate respect, though, and your derogatory words against my faith are uncalled for. Many other world religions are strictly against abortions too. Let’s stop the Christian-bashing.
Liz Coleman says
Danielle, like so many Christians, you seem to think the world revolves around your religion. “your derogatory words against my faith are uncalled for…Christian bashing”? Really, what words are those and where’s the Christian bashing?. You’re the first person to introduce religion into this debate. Get over yourself sweetheart.