Ramesh Dusts Off His Crystal Ball

In the FRC Blogger Briefing with Ramesh Ponnuru one of the subjects that came up was what we are likely to see politically in the next two years on the subject of abortion.

His basic prediction was that we will have a number of significant battles as Democratic lawmakers try to reverse gains made by pro-lifers. Specifically, he thought that they are likely to try to reverse the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits US foreign aid being given to nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion, to allow abortions on military bases again, and to patent human embryos.

This was interesting to me. In light of the Democrats' realization that abortion is hurting them, it would be shrewd of them to keep the abortion genie in its bottle until after the 2008 elections. It was sounding less strident on the subject that helped them gain control of Congress, and if they immediately go all shrill on the subject again then it will remind voters of their recent weddedness to abortion and put them at a disadvantage come 2008.

So in the question period of the briefing, I asked Ramesh about this.

He said that he didn't think that the Democrats would lead with the subject of abortion--that they wouldn't put it on the front burner when they take control of Congress in January.

He acknowledged that this is "a potentially explosive issue in their caucus" and described a struggle in the party between those Democrats who were elected as pro-lifers (or pretending to be pro-lifers), saying that they wouldn't want to have to "choose between the values of their districts and the values of Nancy Pelosi." But other Democrats would say, "Look, on these narrow abortion-related issues, the polling is good and we can win." He also could see DailyKos and similar folks weighing in in favor of taking up abortion.

Ultimately, he said, he didn't think that the Democrats would be able to keep the pro-abortion wing of the party bottled up, saying that you are already seeing some on the left stating that the Mexico City Policy is a terrible, inhuman thing, that it's killing people, and that if Nancy Pelosi doesn't take it on then she's spineless--a wimp.

I also asked Ramesh whether, if the Democrats do push the abortion issue, it is likely to give pro-lifers and opportunity to expose the insincerity of some Democratic politicians who try to present themselves as more pro-life than they are (what you might call PLINOs).

He said it absolutely would create such an opportunity and, if I understood him correctly, he thought that it would be of general benefit to the pro-life cause. One of the problems with the recent elections, he said, was that values voters didn't have a lot to vote on. Abortion was not a central issue this election, and so many social conservatives ended up voting not on the values issues but on matters where they felt more in tune with the Democrats, such as the War or economic issues. If the values issues took center stage again, it would help pro-lifers.

He also addressed at some length the "common ground" tactic that some pro-aborts are using at present, saying that we should seek common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through things such as contraception.

Now, I would point out--and I'm speaking for myself rather than summarizing what Ramesh said at this point--that this common ground initiative is a sign of weakness on the part of pro-abort forces. It's an attempt to shift the spotlight off of abortion, which hurts them politically, onto other issues on which they think they can win--or at least sound less extreme to voters. It's also disingenuous, because the initiatives that they recommend we undertake (more contraception, more sex-ed, etc.) would not do diddly-do to decrease abortions. In fact, they would increase the number of abortions. That's been the experience of the last thirty-five years, and that's what would replicate in the future if these initiatives were pushed further than they have been.

Yet there is a politically shrewd side to this approach because contraception is widely supported by the American public. Even most in the Catholic and Evangelical communities support it, though orthodox Catholics don't and many Evangelicals are coming around on it. As a result, not only do pro-lifers lose support from non-values voters if the issue is framed in this way (i.e., on contraception rather than abortion) but a split develops in pro-life ranks on the question as well.

Ramesh's solution to this problem was to suggest that pro-lifers refuse to allow the issue to be defined in these terms and to suggest counter-proposals on how to limit abortion, such as new regulations on third-trimester abortions and cutting tax-payer funding for abortions. He cited the latter in particular--refusing to subsidize abortion with public funds--as a historically-proven way of reducing the number of abortions.

He also, in a somewhat different context, suggested revising the tax code to remove the disproportionate burden that is placed on families with children--a burden that he said has grown in recent years compared to the burden on tax-payers without children. This would help people invest more in children, which (in my opinion) is certainly something that American society needs to do for its long-term health.

Overall, Ramesh thought that "This is a pretty hopeful moment to be a pro-lifer." In spite of the recent elections, abortion is still a losing issue and pro-lifers can take the offensive and gain more ground.

Apologies, again, if I've mischaracterized anything, Ramesh. Just lemme know by e-mail or combox if I have. In the meantime, for more of his thought,

CHECK OUT THE PARTY OF DEATH.

Comments

[Don]

Yea, Jim Wallis seems to be leading the charge for the creation of a "Religious Left".

It's very frustrating when he says that mmorally we ought to support a whole litany of social justice issues at the legislative level with specific laws; but then he goes on to say that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are ones that are best left to the individual conscience.

It's inverse Catholic teaching. Sadly, I think it will gain a lot of ground. Look for potential candidates like Obama to use it very effectively.

[Kate]

I do think that a shift in focus would do pro-lifers good - not that we should stop pushing for legislation limiting abortions, but we should also push to reduce the reasons women choose abortion - things like lack or insufficiency of prenatal care and health care, work/financial pressures (job insecurity/lack of maternity leave/ inability to afford to stay home or afford day care). Canada's current conservative government made a promise to put federal day care funds directly into the hands of mothers, a promise they kept by creating an additional $100 month credit for children under the age of two. That sort of thing is more likely to make it's way into law, and have a an affect on the abortion rate. Promotion of marriage buy reducing the tax load on married couples and families should also have an effect.

[jim whall]

The Dems have issues I could strongly believe in, but their abortion stance invalidates most candidates.

The thing that really irks me is that they try to obscure the issue. Embryonic stem cells aren't about making 'Christopher Reeve walk again' its about trying to avoid courts classifying an embryo as a person worthy of legal protection. It promotes relativism and confusion.

I know many good Catholic Dems who oppose the war due to the loss of life but don't bat much of an eye over the continual loss of life every day. They know Church teaching, but the issue is confused for them. War = always bad. Abortion = ???. So vote for the candidate who is anti-war and pro-abortion.

Worse, its not even just the pro-abort candidate. Its the candidate who funds abortion and opposes any means of trying to mitigate them.

[horatio]

Good post, Jimmy; good comment Kate. While reducing or eliminating federal funds for abortions would reduce the number of legal abortions (and the aggregate as well), it would place a rather significant health care burden on the poor and disenfranchised. (i.e., the rich people will still be able to pay for their abortions at private hospitals, but the poor will be left with more children to raise with fewer means to do so). Providing prenatal care at the community level (perhaps not always the federal level) is something that Dems and Repubs should join together. Good government close to home that reduces abortions and provides better opportunity in life. This along with promoting strong traditional families and continuously educating everyone on this issue and we might have a fighting chance.

Lastly, unforunately many Dems are insincere about their pro-life stance. Equally unfortunate, many Republicans are as well. I was amazed at how little ground was made in this area while the Republicans controlled every branch of the government.

I have only discovered their site recently, but perhaps there could be some hope for the Democratic party. Does anyone know much about this org? http://www.democratsforlife.org

[vox borealis]

Horatio,

The repubicans never controlled every branch of government, because they never 'controlled' the courts (well, the supreme court, anyway). This is where the battle must one day be won. So long as Roe v. Wade stands and the SC is arranged the same way, most any attempt to eliminate abortion via laws will just be struck down by the SC. The Dems know this; they know the courts trump democracy, and that is why they fought and will fight tooth and nail for every SC nominee. The most damaging aspect of the recent elections is that the Republicans lost the majority necessary to keep reshaping the courts.

[horatio]

Vox,

Agreed, but for a number of reasons I prefer not to think of the SC as "controlled" by either party. Of the current court: Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito were nominated by Republican Presidents (7 of 9). The two recent retirees (Rehnquist & O'Connor) were also nominated by Republican Presidents. Yes, most of those took place under Democratic held Congresses (Roberts, Alito being the expceptions), but with the unlikelihood of a vehemently pro-life nominee making it past a filibuster, I suspect the best way to curb abortions in the near future is through legislative laws that begin to limit access. Of that, I have not see enough from the Republican Congress. But maybe my expectations are too high. Some good laws were passed at the individual state level.

[Kevin Jones]

"the reasons women choose abortion - things like lack or insufficiency of prenatal care and health care, work/financial pressures (job insecurity/lack of maternity leave/ inability to afford to stay home or afford day care)."

The major reason women(and their men) choose abortion is because they have sexual relations but don't want to have kids. How will larger welfare programs change this fundamental root cause?

[Jeannette]

"it would place a rather significant health care burden on the poor and disenfranchised. (i.e., the rich people will still be able to pay for their abortions at private hospitals, but the poor will be left with more children to raise with fewer means to do so)."

Er, Horatio, do you want to rephrase that? It sounds to me as if you consider children to be a burden. With our eighth child on the way, I am wealthy beyond measure.

[horatio]

Jeanette - first of all, I believe children are always a blessing, and I apologize if my note was taken the wrong way. I was merely stating that bearing and raising children has monetary implications. Of this, I'm sure you are entirely aware, and my argument intended to reflect on this one aspect (of many) of raising a child and the effects legislation can have on people who live in different economic conditions. I don't pretend to speak to the entire experience, nor would I say that one's economic status should play a role in a person's decision to have a child. It does play a role, however, in how effectively they may be able to provide proper health care for that child once he or she is born. Lastly, I'm certain everyone would agree that you are wealthy beyond measure. God bless you.

[Jim Whall]

"While reducing or eliminating federal funds for abortions would reduce the number of legal abortions (and the aggregate as well), it would place a rather significant health care burden on the poor and disenfranchised."

Two things:

A) What if we took the money funding abortions and shifted it to prenatal and pregnancy care for the poor? We won't fund your desire to murder your child, but we will help you take care of her.

B) Is it a bad thing to limit murder? I would argue that the positive steps to abort the poor (pennyless) and disenfranchised (babies don't vote) *are* a "significant health care burden on the poor and disenfranchised"

[Sixten]

>'more contraception, more sex-ed, etc. would not do diddly-do to decrease abortions. In fact, they would increase the number of abortions. That's been the experience of the last thirty-five years ...'

On its surface, this claim seems highly reductionist. I wonder if it can it be supported by other than a post hoc correlation?

As noted, most Americans including Catholics view abortion as a greater evil than contraception by a long shot. Indeed, most people view contraception favorably (not even a lesser evil) and invest a lot, a whole lot, in their belief in its effectiveness to achieve what they think are positive ends -- to have sex without causing pregnancy or contracting disease. The suggestion that "pro-lifers refuse to allow the issue to be defined in these terms" therefore would seem to have limited potential for success without actual evidence for the counter-intuitive notion that contraception actually causes more abortions than it averts.

[horatio]

Jim,

A) Of course I would support something like this. Hopefully, it wouldn't reside in a wasteful federal program and instead live at the community level, but in any case, moving money from funding murder to funding medical care during and post-pregnancy would be the way to make a strong case (and a strong political case) for the end to federal funding of abortions.

B) No, it is never a bad thing to limit murder. My point is that our concern for life, and therefore reasons for being pro-life, should not end at birth.

[Brother Cadfael]

...limited potential for success without actual evidence for the counter-intuitive notion that contraception actually causes more abortions than it averts.

I'm not sure that it would be possible to get evidence of the type that would satisfy most.

But it does seem rather intuitive that the number of abortions increases as illicit sexual activity skyrockets. There is certainly a statistical correlation between the two, and the cause/effect relationship seems obvious.

There is likewise a statistical correlation between increased availability/effectiveness of contraception and increased sexual activity outside of marriage. Again, the cause/effect relationship seems obvious, but I'm not sure it can be "proven."

[Mary]

but the poor will be left with more children to raise with fewer means to do so

Only if the poor continued to conceive children at the same rate.

[StubbleSpark]

Contraceptive sex and belief in the ideals of proffered by pro-choicers resulted in the abortion of my unborn daughter Rose. If I had understood the meaning of sex and the significance of life (ie, if I were Catholic), I would not have played a part in the murder of my own child.

The lies of pro-choicers are the greatest curse facing American society today.