Their arguments about abortion emphasize moral agreements with anti-choicers, not legal disagreements.

Excellent phrasing, and I don't think there's anything wrong with at least pointing out that Saletan & Sullivan are obviously more concerned with presenting themselves as moral creatures than rational debaters of policy and law.

" Creating conflicts where no necessary ones exist -- like writing yourself out of the pro-choice movement because you think there are moral problems with abortion -- is coalition-fracturing."

Yeah, but you're missing more context. Another problem is that women have written themselves out of the "feminist" movement itself for years due to the abortion litmus test, which positively denied any moral complexity which many (if not most) people don't really completely buy. The brainless zombie factor hasn't done it any good either, even if you don't necessarily have to accept the terms these two set out.

You write:

Sullivan has argued that such policies [i.e., "family planning and education for our young people"] represent "standing up to" pro-choicers whose goal is allegedly to maximize abortion rates per se.

What Sullivan actually wrote was:

A new generation of Catholic Democrats--which, in addition to Ritter, includes Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bob Casey, and Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio -- ... are standing up to both their church and their party by supporting birth control and insisting on a lower abortion rate.

As I read that, Sullivan was contending that "supporting birth control" constituted "standing up to" the Catholic Church, not the Democratic Party.

I'm curious: how is a scorched earth attitude toward folks like Amy Sullivan part of "good coalition building on reproductive freedom...emphasizing agreement." Might such vehement reactions to four short sentences in an interview also be "creating conflicts where no necessary ones exist."

I know there's a lot of history here, but still, I don't understand the vitriol (less in Scott's post than the ones he links to). Sullivan goes into more depth on abortion in the rest of the intervew, and what she says seems entirely reasonable. I haven't read the book (probably a good idea before jumping into the fray), but at least in this interview, she simply isn't "emphasizing moral conflicts." No cause for denunciation here.

hjk, to explain the vitriol aimed at sullivan, let me take you on a quick stroll down memory lane. shortly after roe v. wade, i was sitting in the bleachers at fenway park with several friends, and one of them said, "there must be a compromise position on abortion."

i said, "jack, there is a compromise on abortion: it's called pro-choice, and the compromise is, no one makes you get an abortion if you don't want one and no prevents you from getting an abortion if you do."

i am sick to death of amy sullivan's twisted attempts to prove how much purer she is than anyone else because she understands moral qualms: i understand moral qualms, too. i just don't really care, largely because i think there are moral qualms in forcing a woman to carry the child to term if she doesn't want to.

if sullivan wants to help, she can explain to people with moral qualms that just because orthodox jews and moslems have moral qualms about eating pork, that doesn't mean we deny everyone else the right to eat pork; that just because many christians have moral qualms about shopping on the sabbath, we don't deny others the right to shop on the sabbath; that just because the catholic church has moral qualms about war, we don't simply embrace pacifism as a national security strategy.

but she doesn't do that: she writes reams and reams of copy about how much better she is than all the rest of us slobs who don't feel her finely tuned sense of moral qualm about abortion.

hence: vitriol, as in, for example, nuts to her.

To charaterize the Salon interview of Ms. Sullivan as a "claim that her support of legal abortion can't be labeled 'pro-choice' because she believes that abortion is morally problematic" is disingenuous. From reading the interview itself, it appears that her qualms are with the "pro-choice" label, and not with the position that abortion should not be criminalized.

Both supporters and opponents of abortion rights have adopted labels which posit a false dichotomy. One can be "pro-life" on the question of whether or when to abort and nevertheless believe that personal autonomy and freedom from governmental interference are important enough that the individual, rather than the government, should make the intensely personal decisions of whether to avoid/prevent a pregnancy in the first instance or whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

In short, one can simultaneously be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Both supporters and opponents of abortion rights have butchered the Queen's English by euphemism.

Ms. Sullivan's advocacy of promoting family planning/birth control has much to commend it. This tactic seeks to appeal to those who do have reservations about the morality of abortion by reducing unplanned or unwanted pregnancy in the first instance.

Many of the most strident opponents of abortion rights also oppose contraception. Proponents of personal autonomy should not de-link the legality of the two; the radicalism of this strand of abortion opponents, if brought to light, would repel those who practice contraception, regardless of those persons' views on abortion. To emphasize family planning, including contraception, is a good tactic to drive a wedge between abortion opponents who favor contraception and abortion opponents who oppose it.

The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is directly derived from the substantive due process right of the individual to decide whether or not to bear or beget a child. Those of us who support abortion rights and legal contraception should not give a pass to those who oppose both.

Legal abortion has become the constitutional right that dare not speak its name. Let's drop the euphemisms and proudly support the rights of the individual regarding sex and the sometime product thereof.

alkali--except that sullivan, you know, actually did say that in "insisting on a lower abortion rate" he was "standing up to his party."

From reading the interview itself, it appears that her qualms are with the "pro-choice" label, and not with the position that abortion should not be criminalized.

If you could explain how that contradicts anything I said, it would be helpful.

scott, fwiw, the "both" sentence is poorly written and edited in my estimation.

it could mean: "standing up to their church by supporting birth control and standing up to their party by insisting on a lower abortion rate."

it could mean "standing up to their church and their party by supporting birth and a lower abortion rate."

in either case, it's immensely stupid: the democratic party is not in favor of a "higher" abortion rate. it's in favor of "legal" abortion in conjunction with ready access to birth control, sex education, and counselling.

so ultimately, the syntax doesn't much matter, since the underlying argument is inane, but on the level of the syntax, it could just be sloppy.

"if sullivan wants to help, she can explain to people with moral qualms that just because orthodox jews and moslems have moral qualms about eating pork, that doesn't mean we deny everyone else the right to eat pork; that just because many christians have moral qualms about shopping on the sabbath, we don't deny others the right to shop on the sabbath; that just because the catholic church has moral qualms about war, we don't simply embrace pacifism as a national security strategy.

but she doesn't do that: she writes reams and reams of copy about how much better she is than all the rest of us slobs who don't feel her finely tuned sense of moral qualm about abortion."

I get your general point, but then you kind of undermine your contention that you *do* have the kind of moral sensibility she's trying to point to, if you equate the developing human life with eating pork or shopping on Sunday. It's a mistake to re-write the moral claim in the abortion debate as a mere article of religious superstition. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. Pro-choice law has a problem from within the logic of American secular law and our attempt to construct rights and obligations for people. The thing that saves it is that it's *too difficult* to generate legal applications against abortion that can't themselves be challenged in court, producing endless vicious circles.

That doesn't mean the claim is mere religious superstition, unless you want to say that all our beliefs about rights and obligations are mere superstitions. Sure, there's probably something to that, but I don't think that's what you meant.

In other words, Amy Sullivan is, herself, making a mistake if she's saying the pro-life moral claim is a religious one. It's not. If it were, it wouldn't be a legal problem.

Yeah, I know. The all powerful Christians waved their magic wands and put the court and all of government in their pockets.

Scott: If I said that "Jack and Jill drove a Hummer and a Prius," presumably you would infer the word "respectively" from context and not claim that I must be describing two amazing stunt drivers who could drive two cars at once. There doesn't seem to be any reason to similarly misread Sullivan's statment.

Howard: I agree that the Democratic Party doesn't favor a higher abortion rate, but I think it's at least arguable that the party doesn't favor a lower abortion rate, in the sense of affirming that "short of restricting access to abortion, public policy ought to be designed to favor a lower abortion rate."

For what it's worth, I agree that Sullivan's analysis does break down after this point, because it's not clear what kind of policies she has in mind that would actually accomplish that. There are lots of policies that Democrats favor that do tend to discourage abortion --public health programs providing contraception education and making contraception available, programs that bring college education within the reach of young women, after-school programs, etc. -- but in general Democrats support those programs for some more immediate reason than their effect, if any, on the abortion rate.

alkali, i don't think the democratic party has a target number of abortions and i don't think it should, although insofar as there's a mantra, it's "safe, legal, and rare."

anonymous, i have no problem distinguishing between biological processes are occuring and human life, which in my estimation begins at birth, but frankly, people don't have to agree with me: it's not relevant.

what's relevant is whether people are free to behave in ways that offend your morality, and actually, i think that my brief list is perfectly acceptable in that regard.

John from Nashville,
Make that in-substantive due process:

Roe v. Wade's fundamental liberty of bodily privacy (men's and women's) needed to take one more step to turn into abortion rights, per se: the state's interest in unborn life in the opposite balance needed to turn out less than compelling (the so called "compelling interest test").

Substantive balancing is properly left to legislatures -- and as long as the outcome is at least arguably reasonable. But the Roe Court did the dirty -- or so conservatives have always complained -- and made the substantive "compelling interest" judgment by its own lights.

Or did it? Even the possibility that human life may have begun seems compelling, ipso facto (possible at any developmental stage -- as Roe's inability to choose from a list of conception-to-birth theories of life freely concedes). Which inescapable substantive situation may have made the compelling test not the choice path to constitutional abortion rights, after all.

In the end, the Roe Court (of necessity?) seems to have skipped over the compelling interest test in favor of imposing an unprecedented constitutional burden on respect-for-unborn life legislation: "In view of all this we do not agree, that just by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake." (my italics) Which constitutional change of direction I can only label a "consensus test."

"In view of" five -- what soon to be president of Stanford Law, Prof. John Hart Ely described as -- Roe's "unnecessary surveys": the whole history of abortion ethics dating from antiquity, state and federal precedent leaning towards abortion rights, leaning against, places in the Constitution where the word "person" does not refer to the unborn and, finally, Roe's list of not very current theories of life. (Ely's Yale law review was titled: "The Wages of Crying Wolf" -- explaining that the Warren Court was often unfairly blamed for just ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever it wanted to -- that the Roe Court felt it could actually do so this once without anybody knowing the difference.)

Laurence Tribe, most quoted liberal law professor in America, wrote in the Harvard Law review: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smoke screen, the substantive judgment [the weight of the fetus] on which it rests is nowhere to be found." (HLR, Vol. 87:1, p.7 -- read p.4 on viability's similar non-rationale.)

"It's a mistake to re-write the moral claim in the abortion debate as a mere article of religious superstition."

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that's what howard is saying. At least, one can argue that these are particular (rather than universal) moral claims, within specific traditions, like keeping kosher/ the sabbath/ Catholic just war theory, etc. If Amy etc. just want recognition that they have these particular moral claims, and that they can (rightly or wrongly) - well, I don't think too many people disagree. To the degree that it becomes an argument that everyone must share these particular claims - that they are in fact universal (and as mentioned, this is Saletan, really) - well, that's another matter entirely.

John in Nashville - I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying, but I think you're also demonstrating one of the things Sullivan's doing that gets people a little annoyed at her. Yes, many of your suggestions are good ones, but they're what we're already doing, and in fact have been for quite a while. That we need to do it even louder, or find more efficient means of communication - ok, thats probably true - but it's not some incredibly rare and brave thing spearheaded by a handful of party rebels.

" I think it's at least arguable that the party doesn't favor a lower abortion rate, in the sense of affirming that "short of restricting access to abortion, public policy ought to be designed to favor a lower abortion rate."

Personally, alkali - and I should note that I have no position or influence with the Democratic party, besides living in a swing-ish state - I don't think public policy should be a priori designed to favor a lower abortion rate first and foremost. Rather, I think it should be designed to make sure women are able to make their own choices. This can mean helping women get the varied tools that help avoid unwanted pregnancies, or making sure that women who need an abortion have de facto access and affordability, or doing our best to make sure that no woman feels compelled to end an otherwise desired pregnancy because of economic issues - which some research (and common sense/ experience) suggests is a major factor.

Meanwhile, the party doesn't quite agree with me - as howard points out, the quasi-official position is "safe, legal, and rare."

All the same, I believe - and again, research, common sense, and experience says - that such measures (the 1st and 3rd, at least) do reduce the number of abortions. You agree that " There are lots of policies that Democrats favor that do tend to discourage abortion . . ." yet insist "but in general Democrats support those programs for some more immediate reason than their effect, if any, on the abortion rate." Now, that's surely true in some cases, at least in terms of primary reasons, and - at least - far more complicated in others. But in the end:well, ok - so? Isn't the important part the first half of that sentence?

I'm imagining the following (unfairly caricatured) exchange:
Amy Sullivan Democrat: I insist on a lower abortion rate!
Party: Ah . . .what are you proposing?
ASD: [list of absolutely standard Democratic policies and proposals]
Party: Oh, so you mean all the things we're already doing/want to do?
ASD: Yes - but you have to say you're doing them first and foremost for a lower abortion rate.
Party: Um . . . we do? That seems a little . . .
ASD: Say it!
Party: Look, I don't think that -
ASD: Who's your daddy?!
Party: OK, I'll be going now . . . .

The Democratic Party's position on abortion is the correct one. It's position on "pro-life" candidates could use some work.