H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
If one ever doubts the pettiness to which the political discourse in this country can be taken by the advocates of partisan hackery, look no further than the abortion debate for validation. The battle is now measured in inches and yards (or trimesters) in which neither side will realistically be able to claim triumph for the foreseeable future. Nowhere is this more poignant than here in Madison, where a slew of veritable holy rollers from the Alliance Defense Fund to Pro-Life Wisconsin have raised an uproar over the Madison Surgery Center’s decision to weigh the benefits of offering second-trimester abortions after the retirement of Dennis Christensen, who performed that service through Madison’s Planned Parenthood.
The opposition to MSC offering second-trimester abortions stems from several objections on legal grounds. Firstly, the Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter decrying the fact that “second-trimester dismemberment abortions are being imposed on a previously legitimate surgery clinic over the objection of employees.” Although the reasonable and readily obvious counterargument — that employees are legally allowed to opt out of abortion procedures if they find them objectionable — has worked in other cases, the Defense Fund, along with its indigenous counterparts here, found ample justification to pervert the issue. The same is true for its claim that aborted fetuses “may well serve as a fresh source of baby body parts for various UW research projects as has occurred in the past,” as though Christensen and his associates were a horde of ogres who just couldn’t wait to get their grubby claws on discarded fetuses for the questionable purpose of advancing medical science.
The Alliance Defense Fund then launched into an admittedly powerfully diatribe describing the functions a fetus in the second trimester is able perform, such as touching its face and yawning. However, it is difficult to see what the legal ramifications of the ADF’s efforts at pathos will do for its cause, especially when the path for MSC to offer second-trimester abortions is a perfectly legal one anyway.
The simple and ugly truth for Wisconsin’s assorted pro-life crusaders is abortion is legal in this country, and to quibble over the location or time period at which it is performed is a whimsical strategy that ignores the fundamental reasons for which they hold their convictions. If a fetus is a human life at the moment of conception, the abortion itself is equally egregious no matter when it occurs. Of course, the ADF would no doubt agree with that assumption. But then why does it insist on fighting insignificant battles over the time at which it occurs? Polling indicates Americans are pro-choice by margins similar to those by which they elected Barack Obama. Whether these organizations make the issue an emotional one or not, they are unlikely to accomplish a local overturn of the Roe v. Wade decision, particularly after the election of a president who is vocally sympathetic to the concerns of pro-choice constituencies.
The debate over abortion is a difficult one to relinquish because most pro-life organizations and the individuals that compose them feel they are allowing genocide to occur. It is natural to question the morality of a procedure that results in the large-scale annihilation of what can reasonably be construed as human life. And yet, it is difficult to see what the Alliance Defense Fund seeks to accomplish. Employees of the MSC will invariably object to performing the procedure, and their supervisors will invariably allow them to opt out of assisting in an abortion. Even to a writer who holds a degree of sympathy with the pro-life position, the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade was, even under George W. Bush, a losing battle — and one that faded into utter irrelevance when measured against the magnitude of the country’s economic woes. What remains to be seen is whether the Christian right will allow its most destructive electoral campaign to die gracefully.
Sam Clegg ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in economics and history.
IP hash: e3d15476
“What remains to be seen is whether the Christian right will allow its most destructive electoral campaign to die gracefully.”
That’s a load of crap, Sam. First of all, why would any pro-life person let abortion die gracefully when fetuses are dying in a less-than-graceful manner? Second, it’s not just a religious or right-wing issue. Plenty of rural or black Democrats tend to be pro-life, and nonreligious people like myself have a great deal of sympathy for the pro-life cause.
IP hash: 076d18e3
why would the righties overturn it? And lose all that political capital? The worst thing the repubs could do is overturn it. The only other platform they would have is…fear and taxes—yawners.
IP hash: 42571c6e
32 million dead. 32 million injured.
When will this endless war on babies and women stop?
IP hash: 7bbeedf1
Fitting how you ended the article. The pro-life movement must “die gracefully.” If only millions of children could say the same thing.
IP hash: 52cd3751
Sam Clegg,
This is my first time reading your opinions and as young and uneducated as you may be it is still disappointing to see that you cannot understand the fundamental principle of the Pro-Life agenda: saving lives.
Why would the “Christian Right allow its most destructive electoral campaign to die gracefully?” This line of reasoning assumes that everyone has the same liberal thought that “if it is not popular, abandon it.”
I am thoroughly disappointed in you and the liberal minds that created you.
IP hash: 52cd3751
I would understand if you deleted my previous comment out of an inability to respond intellectually.
IP hash: d20747fb
What remains to be seen is whether the Christian right will allow its most destructive electoral campaign to die gracefully.
Somebody hand a copy of this to those kids out on Library Mall today, and then tell Sara Mikolajczak to stop emailing me.
IP hash: 7052dd5a
Well said, Sam.
It seems like the pro-lifers have a pretty good case for calling fetuses human lives. Are they not alive or not human?
IP hash: 6b2d9ac7
When will the war on women stop? When they decide not to have the abortion, as is their legal choice!
IP hash: da9211ee
The person who posted at 7:07am who says that abortion is not just a religious or rightwing issue is partly right but mostly wrong. It isn’t just a rightwing issue in the sense that there are prolife Democrats, if that’s what is meant. But in terms of single-issue voters who vote single-issue on abortion at the national level—these voters are basically ALL religious and they ALL vote Republican. In terms of individuals who identify as prolife but don’t vote single issue on abortion, there is a mix across parties—but they are strongly, overwhelmingly people who identify themselves as religious—the large majority being conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants, mostly Evangelicals. That doesn’t mean that secular people don’t identify with or sympathize with certain aspects of the prolife position but they tend to be very moderate and they aren’t out there mobilizing against abortion. Except of course for the rich fiscal conservative neocons who have conveniently realized that pretending to be prolife helps get Republicans elected. Just don’t expect to see any of their teenage daughers running around in public 9 months pregnant any time soon.
IP hash: 4089035a
“What remains to be seen is whether the Christian right will allow its most destructive electoral campaign to die gracefully.”
Well, I guess the online commentary answers that one.
IP hash: 3defab3c
Sam has a valid point, guys. The fact that people are given the ability to get an abortion is a freedom of choice, which stems from the freedoms of speech and expression. And if one doesn’t want to perform and/or get an abortion, one has the CHOICE not to. Just like you have the choice to not brush your teeth in the morning… not go to class this morning… or even the choice to skip a meal today so you can afford a couple drinks tonight. Our lives are made for choices, not barriers, and without tough choices like these in our daily lives, the people only regress by not gaining experience… and thus judging for themselves how they would react. Though we have the choice of using capital punishment (even on a few people proven innocent before or after death), the idea remains that no life is equal. Age and what you do with your years conquers all, apparently. And though you accept the idea that a fetus should be spared (not knowing of their future as a possible billionaire or delinquent), you cease to think that a prisoner can be saved. “The children” may be part of our future, but only to an extent. Instead of just thinking about the choices for life/abortion of a fetus, why not think about the choices for life/death of the whole population?
But I digress, it is early in the day for me and I have important material to learn in classes. Ta-ta all, I’ll be expecting pitchforks and flaming bottles of alcohol at my doorstep now that I’m a “pro-baby-killer”.
IP hash: 06c2c41c
You have a choice to have unprotected sex. You take that risk. You should be able to just kill babies because you are too stupid/drunk to use protection? What a joke.
IP hash: ff950dbf
Wow, everyone missed the entire point of this column. He doesn’t take a stance on abortion one way or the other in this piece. His point is really twofold. First, that if you believe abortion is wrong then your just wasting time by squabbling over the specifics of when a woman is allowed to have an abortion. This time not even over a law but merely the policy of one single abortion clinic. Secondly, that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, thus currently the abortion battle is a losing one for the pro-life side.
IP hash: 7df66c3c
@Sam: Well done. I disagree with almost everything of yours I’ve ever read, but you really nailed this one
@12:42PM: Since the majority of ended pregnancies were conceived when birth control failed, you’ll need a stronger argument than the tired “irresponsible whore” mantra. Only about 1 in 12 women don’t use birth control and they account for nearly half of unintended pregnancies. See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fbinducedabortion.html for statistics updated in July 2008.
IP hash: 048cf767
totally true. the abortion debate seems to be primarily a conflict of competing worldviews. The prochoice side stakes its defense of abortion rights on the freedom of religion/worldview/the individual and allows for complexity to enter the debate as well. The problem is that the prolife angle simply doesn’t allow for the existence of the prochoice angle within its worldview. The prolife side says abortion is wrong “because my worldview says it is.” These people seem to have not developed the capacity to understand that their their worldview is not singular and shared by all. or it may be the case that they believe their worldview is truly THE right one and are just plain dictatorial. but either way, its not that different. and it seems like it is the first one, since most of them don’t seem seem capable of engaging in anything past “abortion is wrong” and “abortion is baby killing.” No matter how you plead them to say something else, to actually “discuss”—that’s about all they got. Their are a few exceptions, but they are rare.