On "the Issues," specifically, abortion.
SDS and I have been having a comment discussion on whether Obama (who I think everybody will agree is left of center) could accomplish anything to end the partisan gridlock in Washington. SDS suggested that the differences many have with Obama are too great to overcome. I think these differences (commonly called “the issues”) are a relatively insignificant relative to the overall job of the President. However, they’re effectively played up by a number of groups to win votes, get pundits to yell at eachother, or classify candidates in seemingly-objective checklist fashion. These are the most black and white issues which seem to have the least room for compromise. They are the political places where we’re not all on the same side. These issues cast a long shadow, but a bit of illumination could tell us whether they are actually the roadblocks we think they are.
There are a number of wedge-issues I’d eventually like to talk about, but let’s start with Wedgezilla: Abortion. It probably has more one-issue voters than anything else out there. It keeps many people (once including myself) who would like to see a bit more government action on things like poverty and equal justice voting Republican. One way or another, it seems typically seems like a crystal clear issue. Choice. Life. I’m going to try to fuzz it up a bit.
(For full disclosure, I’m on the life side of all the wedge issues, which puts me in the minority of the people who will read this. I won’t go into why here.)
Most people agree that abortion is an undesirable thing. A few (likely including a few who will read this) might disagree—but most see abortion as, at best, a lesser harm than the alternative. It’s neither a pleasant thing nor something to be cavalier about. Even leaving the procedure aside, the undesired pregnancy is (tautologically) undesirable, particularly to the very young, those already in precarious health, or those with precarious finances.
(Hopefully) everybody can agree that it is tragic when an abortion occurs due to the unavailability of affordable prenatal care or economic duress. Additionally, nobody thinks that illegal back-alley abortions are an acceptable solution. And nobody thinks that the miscarriage of a desired pregnancy is good.
For those strongly opposed to abortion, the question is whether it is more important that abortion be rare or that it be illegal. I will grant that the legality of abortion is, for both sides, an important symbol—but with the stakes as high as everybody thinks they are, I think the pragmatic trumps the symbolic. I would rather have rare and legal than common and illegal. Here is why this issue breaks toward Obama for me rather than McCain. I think, Obama is more likely to support policies that:
- Cover contraception for low-income women.
- Increase pre-natal care for low-income women. (This would also prevent a lot of birth defects)
- Make childbirth an economically viable option for more families with daycare, guaranteed maternity leave, increasing the minimum wage.
Since low-income women are three times more likely to have an abortion than their higher-income counterparts, steps like this could reduce the total number of abortions by nearly 50%.
McCain, on the other hand, has promised conservative judges. McCain is likely to get one Supreme Court appointment in four years. Maybe. And this judge might vote to overrule or restrict Roe v. Wade when the once-in-a-decade case comes up, which would let state legislatures criminalize abortion, if they wanted to and if their State Supreme Courts let them. There are a lot of ifs in here. And even then, it’s unclear what effect it would have on total numbers. I would be surprised if it came anywhere near a 50% reduction.
I would prefer a huge reduction in abortion through enablement and empowerment to an improbable and likely lesser reduction through coercion. Am I wrong on this? On the whole thing? Did I leave something important out?