Centerfield

Now, quickly, name one thing Bush has done to honor those words over the past four years.

Posted by: Greg Wythe at January 28, 2005 01:59 AM

Now quickly, name one thing he has done to dishonor those words. Has Bush proposed anything to make abortion illegal?

This isn't anything new... Bush has been using this line from day one. Rumors of his rampid social conservatism are false, and they always have been. It has been the establishment Republican strategy for over five years to pay lip service to the base, while having a broader general public message that while they feel abortion is wrong, they aren't going to do anything about it. Bush's stance on abortion is closer to the center than most Democrats, besides, if he acted on this issue, his pro-choice wife, and also his mother, would put him in the dog house.

Posted by: Mathew at January 28, 2005 09:18 AM

But in a very strict sense both parties "take the base for granted". The democrats paid lip service to the hard-core anti-war left, because they knew that those people were not going to vote for Bush.

What I find funny is that there was much stronger support from the Right wing base who is being ignored now that the election is over then there was from the Left wing base who were sharply critical of Kerry for basically being Bush lite regarding the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at January 28, 2005 10:03 AM

In the spirit of centrism, I come down between the first two posts.

While it is true Bush hasn't advanced an agenda to make abortion illegal, he has advanced some pretty conservative judicial appointments and will probably do so on the supreme court if given the opportunity. If the court then overturns Roe v. Wade, sending the issue back to the states, Bush's fingerprints will be on it.

The issue then is whether one thinks abortion should be a state-level issue or a national issue. Strict constructionist interpreters of the constitution will say yes, while those that view abortion as a right akin to what's in the Bill of Rights will say no.

The end result however, probably will be the reddest of the red states, such as Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Utah and a few others will outlaw almost all abortions. Legal abortions in these states are hard to get now. Many other states will significantly restrict the practice and a lot of young girls will turn to illegal means after the young fathers have run off.

That may or may not be better than what we have now. I guess it depends on your point of view and where you live.

Posted by: tim at January 28, 2005 10:03 AM

The real test will be later this year when Bush has at least one, and perhaps multiple, Supreme Court nominations. Rehnquist can be replaced with an anti-Roe justice without disturbing the status quo, but O'Connor can't.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 28, 2005 11:00 AM

As far as I am concerned, Bush will have to put his money where his mouth is when its his turn at nominating the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Ct.

Posted by: Irwin at January 28, 2005 11:10 AM

Is it just me or does anybody else here happen to believe it's actualy more important that the next SCOTUS appointments be based upon their ability to interpret the Constitution as it is written rather then whether they would vote yea or nay on the single issue of Roe vs Wade.

For the record, I want a strict constructionist. I agree with Rehnquist, I think the state badly overstepped it's authority in Roe vs Wade and, in effect, legislated from the Bench. Even though the decision the majority arrived at (different degrees of regulation permissable at different stages of pregnancy) isn't far from what I personnaly would support as a law..... I'm not willing to see the Constitution or the speration of powers distorted to achieve that end.

Posted by: cengel at January 28, 2005 12:54 PM

I think the "positivity" of the quote is that GW had nothing to gain politically to make such a nuanced response. It won't make the right happy and the left don't trust his words anyway. Regardless how you feel about the issue, certainly it would be better to have more "civil" discussions.

Posted by: Chris at January 28, 2005 01:15 PM

Bush could believe that abortion is an attrocity which does not merit constitutional protection, and still be totally consistent with this more diplomatic quote.

He says his goal is to convince people to value life. One way to encourage society to value life, is by removing legal protections for the taking of life. As he says, the reality is that there will always be abortions (whether it is legal or illegal). Laws against murder surely reduce the rate dramatically, it will never be totally stopped either. A brief look at history shows that humans are good at rationalizing, justifying, and even legalizing most anything at all in the name of expediency.

Laws are not the end of changing societal attitudes and behavior. On this issue, Bush recognizes that he lacks the political capital and filibuster proof majorities to dramatically change the laws. However the president has other ways to exert influence other than influencing laws.

Besides appointing justices, he can also influence the behavior and attitudes of the people through acts of the agencies he controls, and by speaking directly with the American people. With the current political obstacles to changing laws, he sees this as his job.

We can encourage people to make better choices in life by first admitting that abortion is a terrible wrong we should all strive to prevent, while educating the people about alternatives.

Bush told prolife groups at the beginning of his first term that it was a waste of time for him to push on laws to stop abortion, without first having a shift in societal attitudes on the subject. Many of them were quite angry at hearing this, but realistically it is true. I do think the societal shift has been progressively happening since, and may accelerate.

Posted by: Susan at January 28, 2005 02:12 PM

I agree with Cengel on Roe v. Wade entirely. As a matter of policy, I liked it, but as a matter of law I think it was a terrible decision. I don't think abortion is a fundamental constitutional right any more than is my right to take hallucinogenic drugs (or for that matter pot for medical reasons). These are policy issues that should be decided in the arena of democratic politics.

I certainly think we would be a better country with fewer abortions. I agree with Hilary Clinton's recent statement that abortion is often a tragedy for women. (Although not for all; during my single days, I shared a house with a woman who admitted she had had two abortions and considered it a form of birth control. Hmmm.)Interestingly, the extremely religious U.S. has far fewer abortions and much more permissive laws than Europe. I would like to think that there is a middle ground on which people could meet on the issue.

However, I have to react to the idea that an abortion is a "taking of life." Now, people are certainly entitled to feel that way. To a certain extent, when life begins is a metapysical/quasi-religious concept anyway. But to present that (ie, that life begins at conception) as a matter of fact is certainly not supported by science. My own opinion is that life (as we know it anyway) does not begin at conception and therefore abortion is not taking a life.

Posted by: MWS at January 28, 2005 04:00 PM

The wording of the issue of "when life begins" has always annoyed me. It's really not a question of when life begins so much as when the life grows to the point of being considered a human being. After all, the sperm and the egg are living cells before they meet. It's a picky little pet peeve of mine, and I know it's only a matter of semantics. But words are fundamental to our communication, so why not be literally correct in what we're communicating.

Posted by: WHQ at January 28, 2005 04:30 PM

I agree with MWS's point on the "taking of a life" arguement. Whether he and I would draw the line at the same point is another issue.

That said, it seems to me that there is a similarly disengenuous argument made by some on the pro-abortion side which is really the flip side of the "taking a life" argument. And that is the argument that "it's just a blob... no different than a tumor, really."

It's noteworthy that Chief Justice Blackwell spent a great deal of effort examining the issue of when "life" begins and therefore where to draw the line. That really is the root issue underneath both red-herring arguments, IMO.

Posted by: Kevin at January 28, 2005 07:01 PM

That's a really good point, WHQ. I had never thought of it in those terms before. But, you're right... it's an absurd term to be using to qualify when those living cells should be recognized as a uniquely independent being.

Posted by: Kevin at January 28, 2005 07:04 PM

Reducing Unwanted Pregnancies and Abortion
Through Prevention in Early Childhood ©

An Original Research Agenda

By

Andrew Kenny Donlan, Ph.D.

Washington, D.C.

Few national policy issues are as contentious as abortion and few so polarize citizens nationally. Many individuals argue passionately for policies to reduce abortion rates, such as prohibiting late stage abortion or other classes of abortion. These policies remain highly divisive, as many other citizens advocate fervently that abortion remain legal and accessible.

Both sides show steady resolve, and the seeming standoff among citizens is mirrored by gridlock among political representatives. The polarization among the competing movements reflects deeply held values. Accordingly, political conflict in itself need be seen as malign. But it seems clear that greater common ground will be needed to achieve substantial reduction in rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Consensus would enable both a sustaining of support for what policy changes may be possible and for sustaining societal norms required for implementation and enforcement of legislation. It is not clear that the collective and conflicting policy agendas of the political left and right constitute fertile ground for cultivating the needed consensus.

However, there is little reason to presume that policy thinking of today must define what promising avenues of policy change may be possible in future years. Change has been a steady constant in the history of our government and in ideas driving change. There was a time before which policies such as water treatment, weather forecasting, child protection services, and publicly financed education were conceivable, let alone laudable; yet the tenability of many such initiatives is now taken for granted. Knowledge pertinent to national life grows, and ideas make a difference in what sort of policy change is conceivable and possible.

Accordingly, civic and faith leaders and ordinary citizens concerned with the common good have noted the importance of relying on investigation and specialized expertise when it exists; and they have from time to time commended and prescribed the study of fields relevant to public policy and social concerns. Fields such as sociology, child development and public policy have much to offer to the question of how to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Cultivation of original and different public policy options through research may hold the promise of helping achieve greater policy success where preceding efforts have had limited impact.

This paper makes the case for investigation of a new avenue for reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortion: prevention in early childhood. Existing research suggests that a dedicated research agenda investigating prevention in early childhood could have much to contribute and could lead to a new strategy that may effectively supplement existing efforts to reduce rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Social science research indicates that early childhood is the period in which individuals are most susceptible to family and other influences on later outcomes such as social relationships and economic status. Aspects of early family life such as parent-child interactions and socioeconomic status have been consistent predictors of innumerable later life outcomes.

Furthermore, research provides examples of many effective social policy interventions that target early childhood and that positively impact social and economic outcomes in later life (such as social attachments and economic status). Examples of such initiatives include domestic violence prevention, high quality early education, parenting classes, family support through home visitation, and WIC.

Insights into these effective policy interventions in early childhood are of no small consequence for abortion, for the social and economic outcomes they can influence are an integral part of the context in which a woman makes decisions about becoming a mother. A woman's support network and economic status have been linked to abortion and the reasons given for having an abortion. Related, research indicates that poor women constitute a disproportionate share of women that have elected to have an abortion. Family traits and early childhood experiences are consistent predictors of not only behavioral outcomes (such as antisocial acts) but also economic status.

These findings provide a strong foundation for the idea that effective policy interventions that focus on early childhood experiences could positively affect the risk status for unwanted pregnancy and abortion. If children growing up in poverty or a dysfunctional family conditions are at greater risk for unwanted pregnancy and abortion in adulthood, then it would follow that policy initiatives designed to strengthen the early family experiences of children could be a sound strategy of prevention.

No study identified has as yet comprehensively synthesized the relevant evidence from the varied pertinent academic literatures, including child development, sociology, abortion research, and public policy. This proposed research agenda, therefore, seeks to systematically analyze and assess the merits of the proposed policy avenue, and in so doing, to provide a foundation for a new line of policy research.

If the proposed policy avenue were through research affirmed as sound, societies would thereby have recourse to a significant new strategy to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion, one that could be argued to be complementary with other existing policy options (such as those employing education and some restrictions on abortion).

Moreover, in this new policy avenue there is promise of positively impacting a multiplicity of social and economic outcomes in adult life, not just unwanted pregnancy and abortion. As noted above, although policy initiatives inevitably vary in their effectiveness, research provides many instances of interventions that target early childhood and that positively impact social and economic outcomes in later life that are risk factors for abortion such as social attachments and economic status.

Could it be that, despite the effect that early childhood experiences have on diverse outcomes in later life, they that unwanted pregnancy and abortion might be immune from their effects? Though this is possible, it is difficult to conceive how this could be so, for this would contradict a now extremely large research (on the common origins of diverse developmental outcomes), and the lessons of experience in which individuals who experienced childhood neglect are found to manifest several developmental limitations, with no one aspect of human development immune from risk.

Contemporary political agenda setting in our society seems highly polarized, reflecting the deeply felt values of groups that posses largely conflicting views. Pro-life groups identified give top priority among national issues to the defense of the unborn. Competing pro-choice movements have just as fervently advocated that abortion remain available and accessible. It seems that few civic groups have as their top priority the aim of identifying common ground through which large and sustainable reductions in abortion might be achieved, an ambitious aim.

However, it ought not be presumed that policy options that make headlines today will define all policy options that may be conceived in years ahead. Cultivation of new public policy options through systematic research may hold promise of attaining greater success than has been achieved to date. Existing research suggests that a research agenda focusing on prevention in early childhood has clear potential for developing new avenues through which to reduce rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

Posted by: Andrew Donlan at January 30, 2005 07:33 PM