The Soulless Pro-Choice Movement

William Saletan had a piece a few days ago that’s worth commenting on. Saletan is pro-choice, but argues that abortions need to be reduced. Here’s how he described his experience at a recent meeting of pro-choice leaders:

Friday morning, leaders of pro-choice and feminist groups gathered at the Center for American Progress to debate the movement’s future. One of the panelists reported that the latest annual tally of abortions in this country was 1.295 million. The most recent comparative numbers, detailed in an article I brought to the meeting, indicated that our abortion rate exceeds that of every Western European nation. “Raise your hand if you think that number is too high,” the conference moderator told the 50 people in the room.

I saw one hand go up. The woman next to me said she saw another. The two hand-raisers used to work for pro-choice groups but no longer do.

This is the predicament facing the abortion-rights movement. It’s led by three kinds of people: Those who see no problem, those who are afraid to speak up, and those who think it’s futile. I’m betting that the denial, fear, and futility will give way. But it’ll take time.

I should mention that I didn’t raise my hand. I was invited to the meeting, along with my friend Katha Pollitt, to debate the wisdom of declaring a pro-choice war on the abortion rate. Katha and I are on the record on this question. I’m for it; she’s against it. Although I’m pro-choice, I can’t claim to be part of the movement. I haven’t earned it, and as a professional critic, I can’t make such a commitment. So I came, I made my case, and then I shut up and listened. It was like preaching to the choir, except that my preaching was Sunni, and the choir was Shiite.

Well, what did Saletan say that was so controversial:

I knew I’d get flak for using the word “bad.” But I was amazed at the group’s reaction to the word “responsibility,” which was the subject of the next panel. “Responsibility is to me a code word that has a lot of racial and class … implications,” said one participant. “I don’t like the word ‘responsibility,’ ” said another. “I don’t want to talk about responsibility unless we’re talking about the government taking responsibility,” said a third. Hoping to bring the discussion back to earth, the moderator suggested, “Is there a way for us to reclaim the idea of responsibility?” The answer was a chorus of rejection, punctuated by a “No way!” She retreated apologetically.

Sad and responsibility get this reaction. While Saletan is optomistic as he finds people who are able to say things like abortion is “sad” or “tragic,” the vehemence of the movement is illustrated by this article by Katha Politt, his debating partner at the meeting:

The trouble with thinking in terms of zero abortions is that you make abortion so hateful you do the antichoicers’ work for them. You accept that the zygote/embryo/fetus has some kind of claim to be born. You start making madonna-whore distinctions.

So, the advice of Ms. Politt is, “Be bloody, be bold” like the three witches to Macbeth. A couple paragraphs down, Ms. Politt admits that her strategy is not working:

In 1989 a number of polls asked respondents whether abortion should be legal or not depending on the reason for seeking it. After life/health, rape/incest and fetal deformity, majorities of Americans disapproved of every reason on the list: can’t afford a child (40 percent approval), too many children (40 percent), emotional strain (35 percent), to finish school (28 percent), not married (25 percent). Assuming opinion hasn’t drastically changed, most Americans think women should be denied abortions for the reasons the vast majority of procedures are performed.

Ms. Polit says it all. The pro-choice side is in a lose-lose situation. The arguments that keep the movement alive are the same arguments that are costing it politically. Changing to Saletan’s plan of attack will give the pro-choice movement political traction, but will kill its idealogical base.

The good news is that arguments like Ms. Polit’s have failed, when you’ve tried to force people to be non-judgmental about what they believe to be evil.

“But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: — far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition.” –Senator John Calhoun (D-SC) in a speech on the floor of the Senate in February, 1837.