This week's meme of "a country divided" is probably overstated, but it is not without basis. There are a few issues over which the country is sharply divided, or more correctly, is offered sharply divided choices. Some of these are transitory (e.g. Iraq), others are persistant and seemingly intractable. The most prominant of these is abortion. Ever since the Roe decision of 1973, which over time established abortion as a nearly absolute constitutional right, much of the political landscape has revolved around this one issue.
Roe failed. It was intended to settle the argument over abortion, but instead the argument rages unabated -- yet strangely frozen. As long as Roe stands, resolution is impossible, and the division we hear about this week will remain. Further, this cannot be settled by judicial process. First, the Senate is unwilling to allow Roe opponents to serve on the Court. Second, even if the Senate's intransigence is overcome, a different Supreme Court, with a different fiat, will not resolve anything. It will just gore a different ox.
The only possible way out of this box is a Constitutional Amendment. The Court has made it clear that it does not intend to overturn Roe or even nibble at it much, nor will it allow Congress or legislatures to do so either. Congress has the added difficulty that its authority over the issue is suspect even in the absense of Roe. Despite the federal Court's usurpation of the issue, as a legislative matter it is ironically a state concern. Enter a Constitutional Amendment.
One has been proposed -- the Right to Life Amendment -- but it has utterly no chance of passing either Congress or the states, and no conceivable electoral triumph will make it so. The position of the other side (that even a 15-year-old has a right to a late-term, intact-dilation-and-extraction, government-funded abortion without the consent or notification of her parents (i.e. the current regime)) is, if possible, less likely to pass muster as an amendment.
When asked, the majority of Americans stand firmly in the center, avoiding absolute positions of any kind. About 20% oppose all abortions, another 20% support abortions under any circumstance. The vast middle thinks there should be a compromise and probably thinks the whole thing rather tiring. Yet the politicians and advocates ignore them, resulting in a political polarization that is wholely unnecessary.
If you don't believe this, ask yourself: "Would your vote Tuesday have changed if abortion was a settled issue? Would your previous votes for president have changed? Would you thank or damn the president who resolved this issue? Are you willing to compromise to get past this?" Even if you, yourself, would not change your vote, and/or care nothing about abortion one way or the other, most everyone knows people who vote primarily on the politics of abortion.
Therefore a modest proposal: As only Nixon could go to China, only George W Bush can resolve the abortion issue. Only Bush has the political capital to propose a constitutional change that allows abortions under the limited circumstances that the 60% of folks in the middle can abide, yet avoids either of the untenable extremes. Something like:
An adult woman's right to an abortion in the first four months of pregnancy shall not be infringed. States may limit, regulate or ban abortions in all other cases, and may regulate all abortions for safety and efficacy. No state may prevent travel to another state for abortions locally illegal. No state may be required by Congress or this Constitution to subsidize any abortion.Solving this issue is a necessary condition to uniting America. Polls show that the issue has not, and probably will not, go away of itself. It has metastisized into the body politic and only radical surgery can resolve it.
Wonderful post! It's one of my most passionate topics. I completely agree with you that until Roe vs. Wade is completely obliterated, the holocaust on children will continue and no resolution will be sought or brought to pass. I also agree with you that Bush needs to step it up on this issue.
Rehnquist is going to retire soon. Opportunity to save the kids? I think so.
Posted by: DeoDuce at November 5, 2004 12:13 AMInteresting proposal. I don't think it could pass though. For many even in the middle, four months is too much.
If you proposed an amendment whereby states would be permitted to legislate the procedure as they saw fit, you'd have an easier time passing it I'd say.
I'd really rather just see Roe overturned. Which would accomplish the same effect.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at November 5, 2004 10:05 PMFour months, three months, whatever. The object to to accomplish a repeal of Roe, sending it back to the sates, but to guarantee a basic abortion right, without which there is no resolution.
I happen to belive that even if Roe was overturned tomorrow, there is no state that would ban 1st trimester abortions. Things have changed since 1973, and while the current regime is extreme, there is widespread support for the abortion right.
Why even state a duration? Just provide that each county may regulate the time, place, and manner of abortions and say "Congress and state legislatures shall make no law" concerning same?
Posted by: Shane Chubbs at November 11, 2004 10:08 AMThe idea is to PUT an explicit, limited, abortion right into the Constitution, as this is the only way you'll get more that 12 votes.
What you suggest is just overturn Roe and be done with it, which is one option. But it's an option that will create such a backlash that you'll lose the next 4 elections, and you'll still have a similar amendment put in by the other side.
I'd rather not repeat the Goldwater/Civil Rights Act debacle, where Goldwater position as GOP candidate allowed the sothern Democrats to get away with voting NO.
BTW, "county?" I don't think you want to mention counties in the Cosntitution.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at November 11, 2004 10:24 AM