Friday, April 26, 2013
Fighting for abortion rights "right there . . . every step of the way."
The Star-Tribune reports:
President Barack Obama vowed Friday to join Planned Parenthood in fighting against what he said were efforts across the country to turn women's health back to the 1950s.
Obama's comments were the first by a sitting president before the abortion-rights group. He lauded its nearly 100 years of service to women, providing cancer screenings, contraceptives and other health services. . . .
He encouraged those gathered to continue fighting for abortion rights. "You've also got a president who is going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way," Obama said.
The President, it is often pointed out, taught constitutional law. And so one has to assume that he knows that it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that there is afoot an "orchestrated and historic effort" to return birth-control and abortion-related policies "back" to the 1950s.
He does not need to be re-elected; would it be so hard for him to say -- how refreshing it would be for a politicians to say! -- "look, before the Roe decision, questions about whether and how abortion should be regulated were decided through politics; Roe and Casey, on the other hand, constitutionalized the issue -- remember, I taught constitutional law -- so that many regulations of abortion that would enjoy political support in some states are nonetheless off the table. In my view, that's a good thing, because a woman has a fundamental right to abortion, and fundamental rights should be removed from politics. But, some people disagree with me. Some think abortion should be more closely regulated, because they think the unborn child is a human person who is entitled to the law's protection. And, some think that the law should generally allow, and even subsidize, abortions, but not because the Supreme Court says so. I think I'm right, and these other people are wrong."
UPDATE: Here's a good post by Michael Sean Winters, addressing the same speech. Among other things, he says:
In the days after Benedict’s resignation, I got a call from a producer at a television talk show. She wanted to know if the cardinals might elect a new pope who would “take a more liberal position on issues like abortion.” I replied that the Church already has the liberal position on abortion: We stand up for the person who has no voice.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/04/fighting-for-abortion-rights-right-there-every-step-of-the-way.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Him teaching law is often cited as a dig and I'd let that be. The issue here is not some specialized nuanced question where that really is relevant.
There is efforts in various states to seriously limit the right to obtain an abortion. There are various efforts for "personhood amendments" that if applied literally would burden contraception rights. There are efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As a rhetorical point in a speech to an advocacy group, how much of a "stretch" really is it? Is this really something worth our time to focus on as compared to some opposition to actual merits on specific policies?
Politicians have said that they oppose leaving these things to the political processes because they believe it is a constitutional right. They say that while supporting Roe v. Wade and Casey. They say that it is a matter for each person to decide following their conscience, those against abortion having the right not to have one based on their conscientious belief. They think the freedom of conscience is a good thing and think it is a bad thing for others to make the decision for them, pre-Roe days being the "bad old days."
They say they respect people they are friends with like Kennedy was friends with Hatch with different beliefs but believe it should be a personal choice. They might not say this in an audience mostly of pro-choice advocates, but I'm sure they have in other fora. So, I think you put forth something of a strawman.