What's Right. (even in a relative world).

I have a long, moralistic, very preachy tirade forming in my head about all this. It is forthcoming in a subsequent blog. Until then, why I love Hillary Clinton:

From Planned Parenthood's Website:

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would consider the constitutionality of the federal abortion ban. The ban would outlaw abortion methods used as early as 12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy that doctors say are safe and the best way to protect the woman's health. Passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, the federal abortion ban has been struck down by every court that has examined it because it lacks constitutionally required protections for women's health.
On Wednesday the South Dakota Senate passed a ban that would outlaw nearly all abortions in that state. The ban would strip women of their constitutional right to determine if and when to bear children. It is a total ban affecting virtually all women seeking an abortion, with the sole exception of cases in which the woman will die if forced to continue the pregnancy. These attacks on women's health and safety were hardly isolated coincidences. Throughout the country, that chill wind has women seeking reproductive health care services in its icy grip. Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia are debating legislation that bans abortion or would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned.And the attacks are not limited to abortion. Across the country, states are chipping away at access to contraception and medically accurate sex education — the two vital means to guarantee a reduction in the number of unintended pregnancies. Missouri is considering a bill that would allow health care institutions and providers to refuse any health care service, including contraception. Pharmacies that refuse to fill valid and legal prescriptions for contraceptives — often supported by state legislators — are a growing phenomenon. Many states now teach unproven, ineffective abstinence-only sex education — a mandate of the Bush administration — that includes misleading or no information about protection once a person does choose to become sexually active.
Outlawing abortion will not end abortion, but it will put women at risk. If politicians opposed to abortion truly wanted to reduce the need for abortion, they would work with organizations like Planned Parenthood to prevent unintended pregnancy by supporting increased access to contraception and medically accurate sex education.
The majority of Americans support a woman's fundamental right to make personal and private health care decisions, including the sometimes difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. It's politicians catering to an extreme and highly organized fringe who are creating the hostile climate. They are a reminder to us all that representatives who will support women's health and safety are critical to our ability to freely live our lives. --0--

From Hillary Herself:

We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999

Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. Jan 22, 1999


On Hillary's Genius:

Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it...This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink. Not this time. Abortion is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."
Does not ever have to be exercised. I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I've never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.
Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband's presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I'm sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that's the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.
Admit the goal is zero, and people will rethink birth control. "Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies," Clinton said. That number drew gasps from her pro-choice audience. I bet if she translated it to abortions, it would knock folks in Ohio out of their chairs. How many abortions are you willing to endure for the sake of avoiding the word "condom"? Clinton says we can cut the abortion rate through sex education, money for family planning, and requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives. What's your plan? Ban abortion and monitor everyone's womb like Romania did? Or ban it and look the other way while the pregnancies go on and the quacks take over?
Critics of birth control say the surest way to avoid unintended pregnancy is to avoid sex. They're right. I've heard a few liberals complain that this message is too preachy and encroaches on the sexuality of teenagers. With all due respect, it's time for Democrats to throw these people overboard. Many profound things are at stake in the abortion debate. Afternoon delight isn't high on the list.
Clinton seems to understand this. In her speech, she recalled campaigning for "teenage celibacy" a decade ago. She emphasized "the important role that parents can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. … Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this—and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do."
Abstain. Parents. Religious and moral values. The right thing. This is the way to shake up the Democratic position on abortion—not with tiny defensive concessions but with a big offensive to promote responsibility and bring down the abortion rate. Bush has used a similar strategy to commandeer the education issue. According to polls, it has worked.
A message of responsibility allows Democrats to turn the moral tables on the GOP. "I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," Clinton declared. Many reporters touted that line as an olive branch. They overlooked her next sentence: "But that does not represent even the majority opinion within the anti-abortion community. There are exceptions for rape and for incest, for the life of the mother." In other words, Clinton has read the polls. She knows that most people who oppose abortion think it should be allowed for rape victims, because these victims didn't choose to have sex. From a crude standpoint of sexual responsibility, they're innocent.
Clinton spent much of her speech excoriating the administration on this question. She blasted the Food and Drug Administration for dragging its feet on approving Plan B, a morning-after pill. Then she demanded that the Justice Department add discussion of such pills to its treatment protocol for rape survivors who "may have had an unwanted pregnancy physically forced upon them." Aiming at cultural conservatives as well as liberals, she asked, "How is it possible that women who have been so victimized by violence can be victimized again by ideology?"
Above all, a message of responsibility breaks down the distinction between motherhood and contraception—the widespread attitude that there are two kinds of women: those who have babies and those who have birth control pills or, failing that, abortions. In reality, said Clinton, they are the same woman. "An average woman who wants two children will spend five years pregnant or trying to get pregnant and roughly 30 years trying to prevent pregnancy," she observed. You don't have to be against motherhood to line up behind birth control as the best anti-abortion strategy. You just have to be for it.
William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.