Volume CXXXIII, Number 5 October 10, 2003 f

Pro-choice strategy wrong on partial-birth abortion

JAMES BAUMBERGER
ORIENT STAFF

The fight to defend so-called "partial-birth abortion" was destined to be lost eventually.

Despite a massive effort by abortion rights groups to stop it, the bill banning this procedure is almost certain to receive the final approval of the Senate and the presidential signature needed for it to become law.

While these groups were trying to avoid the catastrophe they saw as the beginning of the end of abortion in America, the way they fought it could ultimately do a disservice to the cause of protecting a woman's right to choose.

For clarity's sake, "partial-birth abortion" isn't a medical term, but a political one. It's one of those contrived terms intended to make something sound horrible. It's sort of akin to the Republicans' changing the name of the estate tax to "the death tax." The correct term for the most commonly used method of late-term abortion is "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X.

The bill currently in Congress would ban what is referred to as "partial-birth abortion" except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

D&X is typically performed in the third trimester although it is at times performed in the second trimester. It involves delivering much of the fetus's body from the womb, extracting its brain from the cranium, and removing the rest of its body from the mother.

This description can make even the strong a bit squeamish. It is gruesome by anyone's standards. I say this not to argue against the procedure, but instead to show why many pro-choice supporters oppose the use of D&X.

Aside from the question of whether or not D&X should be legal in principle, there is a still a question regarding the effectiveness of the pro-choice movement's political strategy.

Ever since the partial-birth abortion ban entered the national dialogue in the mid-1990s, the pro-choice groups have fiercely lobbied against its passage.

By fighting so aggressively, they have made partial-birth abortion the most visible abortion rights issue on the agenda.

This was not the smartest idea. A vast majority of Americans, in most polls around 70 percent, oppose partial-birth abortion. To add to that, in recent years more Americans have identified themselves as pro-life rather than as pro-choice, which was not the case several years ago.

In a time when Americans are becoming less sympathetic to the pro-choice cause, picking a high-profile fight over such an unpopular issue is only going to drive more people away from supporting for reproductive rights.

Abortion advocates make the case that banning partial-birth abortion would only be the first of many provisions on the slippery slope towards restrictive abortion laws. The irony is that by vehemently opposing the partial-birth abortion ban, the pro-choicers may be hurting the very agenda they are trying to protect.

A better strategy would have been to concede the loss of partial-birth abortion, especially with a Republican Congress and a pro-life president. Energies would have been better spent entrenching in a more widely accepted agenda that would avoid splitting abortion's supporters, energizing the pro-life forces, and driving the average partial-birth-abortion-opposing American farther away from the pro-choice camp.

More focus should be placed on tearing down barriers to abortion early in the pregnancy. This can be accomplished in several ways, including improving the access of rural women to abortion clinics, educating women about their reproductive rights, and making emergency contraception more widely available. The goal should be creating less need for late term abortions.

Interest groups can run into trouble balancing idealism with politics. The pro-choice groups may be tempted to follow their principles on every issue, but the mere fact that these powerful groups hold tremendous sway over lawmakers makes them inherently political organizations. They need to embrace this political power and use it to their long-term advantage.

A more modest and politically savvy agenda will ensure that when the real debate comes around (the nomination of anti-Roe v. Wade judges to the Supreme Court), the pro-choice activists will have the support necessary to prevail.

since 11/01/02 FastCounter by bCentral