Give Up Blog

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Give Up on abortion

The Washington Post informs us that in states that want to ban abortion, it has effectively already occurred. In fact, the resemblance to the pre-Roe era is striking. The main obstacle to abortion once again is not legality, but travel, money and convenience. Before abortion was legalized by Roe over 1 million abortions were performed a year in New York alone. Abortion was not really illegal, just inconvenient and available only to the rich or those who lived in places like California and New York. The right-to-lifers have effectively re-created this condition in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota etc and the Alan Guttmacher institute has research indicating that about 60% of abortions to women in these states now occurs at out of state clinics.

So, the economic ban on abortion is re-established in the red states, why do we continue to rant and rave about abortion as a national issue? No one, not even NARAL thinks that we can pass federal legislation legalizing abortion, they're happy keeping it as an act of the courts. Now the situation is that a bunch of states, by trial and error, have pieced together obstructive (but ostensibly constitutional) legislation in concert with the pro-life movement's campaign of terror and intimidation (or like this recent attempted bombing of a clinic) and have created an effective ban on abortion in the deep red states.

I say we just give up on this as a national issue and let them ban abortion in the damn flyover states. I'm not saying to give up on abortion rights, only on abortion as a federal issue, we'll keep fighting for abortion rights in the blue states. Maybe then women in the red states will wake up and stop voting for these Republican assholes.

To make sense of this I will now introduce the idea of the abortion paradox. As long as abortion is legal it is a great issue for Republicans, they can rant and rave and make the religious right froth at the mouth and Democrats can say nothing or else be seen as "pro-abortion" aka a baby-killer. If abortion is illegal it is a great issue for Democrats because 60% of people are pro-choice and the so-called gender-gap gets reinstated as women finally realize these Republican jackasses really are going to pass laws to control their bodies. The only way we will ever resolve this issue is if the pre-Roe conditions are met again and instead of a court decision we elect enough Democrats to address the problem legislatively.

Ultimately do we really want liberalism to live or die by this single issue? I tell you I'm sick of this damn issue. If red states really want to wreck the lives of their citizens, maybe we should let democracy run its course and let them do it, maybe liberals should keep their nose out of the red states' business. I for one, if given the choice between presidents like Bush and a haphazard level of abortion access, and presidents like Clinton or Gore(or even Kerry) and access to abortion only in the blue states, I'll take the latter. After all, it's just a formalization of the system already in existence. Liberals will never accept such an idea however, their defining characteristic is an unnatural concern for the lives and well-being of people who they don't even know (especially those who don't live in their state or country). Screw that, lets see some blue state federalism, I'm sick of carrying these jackasses. And if you really feel like arguing with pro-lifers, knock yourselves out. You do realize they're the type of people that worship cinnamon buns don't you?

5 Comments:

Reen said...

This is where I find the mantra of giving up a little hard, and frankly, a bit misogynist and elitist. You see, all the "bite" of bad abortion policies is disproportionately felt by poor women and their poor families. It might be true that giving up on abortion would kill the topic as a national wedge issue, and maybe, given the existence of laws like those in places like South Dakota, which effectively ban the damn procedure outright, fighting over it simply doesn't matter, but if we abandon the issue completely, aren't we abandoning these people? Maybe they have no one to blame but themselves for not voting differently, or maybe they do vote differently but morality is being dictated for them by a majority that will never (and perhaps, by virtue of a chromosome) can never face the issue head on, or would just bypass the whole thing with a little $$$ (overnight flight to Manhattan, anyone?) I'm not sure we should let these great "underminers" who pass laws like those in S.D. win their great war to subject other people's bodies to privation so that they can feel righteous inside, even if there is some political gain to be felt there.

2:38 PM, December 27, 2005

Rev. Dr. said...

The entire Give Up argument is elitist, I'm basically saying the red states should be written off as a loss and everyone with sense should move to blue states. I think we should stop caring so much about what happens in these red states and focus on progressive politics where it's possible to make a difference, after all Democrats don't control a single branch of the federal government anymore.

Give Up is also a utilitarian argument. How many people are dead because of Bush? Tens of thousands? Probably. Hundreds of thousands? We don't know what the real death toll has been in Iraq, but it may end up being that. It's been estimated as high as 100k last year, and there are still about 1k civilian deaths each month, not to mention the 2k+ US soldiers. How many critical civil liberties have been lost under this guy? How does that compare to the harm of some states having abortion bans. I'm saying Democrats should bunt on this issue so we can prevent the big damage from occurring.

Also, I don't think such a ban would last very long, and in a short period of time a more effective federal legislative system should emerge. After all, the statistics indicate a majority support the right to obtain an abortion, this issue is a winner for Democrats. It's a short term harm for a long term gain. People have forgotten that the only thing abortion bans do is create a black-market for the procedure and a socioeconomic ban. Once people realize that Roe evolved from this injustice, and not just the whim of the Warren court, a democratic and long lasting solution may be obtained.

3:30 PM, December 27, 2005

Reen said...

South Dakota's system is a rebuke to the "Give Up" argument. South Dakota has abortion in name only -- its extremely burdensome laws basically make abortion illegal to all but those who can afford to leave the state. Abortion can't possibly be a wedge issue in South Dakota politics -- the right has soundly won. And yet South Dakota has not undergone some vast leftist shake-up. The voters of South Dakota have not responded by tossing the guys who wrote those laws out on their ears. The people with power like those laws and those politicians, and the people who suffer as a result of the laws and politicians have no power, no money, nothing. They can't vote with their feet, and even if they vote with their ballots, it would seem there are more people voting the other way.

"Give Up" fails if there are more of "them" than there are of "us." You rely on the majority percent support statistic, but will people actually vote based that support? Poll data shows that South Dakotans are basically evenly split on the issue. You might think that pro-choice persons accounting for half of the voting populace might be a little less complacent about their State's socioeconomic abortion ban, but I guess they don't really care.

If we "gave up" and the right actually did overturn Roe, I do think it would backfire on them, as an outright ban on the procedure might be enough to wake some people up. And I understand your "greater good" argument. But it seems to me that in moving for the "greater good," we are sacrificing the rights and dignity of the people with the least power in our country and communities. That's nothing that should be done lightly, especially by people monetarily set to avoid any ill effects caused by our strategy.

4:37 PM, December 27, 2005

La La said...

I am sure that I also speak for Reen when I say:

Get out of our uteri, Rev. Dr.!

I would prefer you not let one of my civil rights be sacrificed for your cause.

I would also like to add that since Nixon's resignation led to Jimmy Carter, then Bush's impeachment should at least lead to a Jimmy Carter level winner. I'm talking satifiyingly uber Democrat. Someone who forces the entire White House to recycle all of their type 2 AND 3 plastics.

5:12 PM, December 27, 2005

Rev. Dr. said...

Reen,
As far as SD goes, you have to give the process more time. It takes more than a year or two to piss off all your constituents. This effect will take at least 5 years for people to really start getting pissed, by 10 years I predict South Dakotans to be totally fed up with this bullshit. Besides, even if the deep reds don't convert immediately or even in a decade, the borderline states will turn faster and Give up has never predicted a Democratic majority in every state, but rather a re-establishment of a gender gap nationally. It might increase the chances of a democratic leadership in borderline red states (like in Virginia) but that is not the focus of giveup. It's about blue state federalism leading to changes in national politics. When people figure out which states are functional versus those which fail consistently, they'll begin to realize that Republicans are not interested in their constituents and their policies never lead to increased quality of life for the majority.

Give up means fuck the red states. Sorry, it's cruel, but are choices are what? Block Alito's nomination how? Pass progressive legislation how? Create executive orders protecting civil liberities how? Pack the Supreme Court with liberals how? Our choices are limited by our options. It's time for state politics, not dreams of federal authority which liberals have become overly dependent on over the last 4 decades.

12:35 AM, December 28, 2005