-
sponsorship
Rachael,
Thank you for the moving story about your origins. Your parents rock! I just want to point out, though, that when your mothers' relatives were trying to coerce your mother into an abortion, they were trying to overrule her choice. Outlawing abortion is similarly coercive, since it forces a woman to carry to term, whether she wants to or not. Either one is the opposite of choice.
In unrelated news, when I broke things off with a woman I was dating last year—the first woman I'd mentioned to my family after I left my partner of 19 years—my father was very disappointed. He had metastatic cancer and wanted to see me settled with someone before he died. (Sorry, dad.) But he took a deep breath and said, "Well, just because you're pregnant doesn't mean you have to get married."
The joke was on him. I'm pretty sure I'm too old to get pregnant.
EJ
-
sponsorship
Actually, Dana, I am a big fan of moral bullying, and wish it had been more effectively used to keep us out of Iraq. I'm hopeful that eventually, through better moral bullying, we will join other civilized nations in outlawing capital punishment. And it is only by building a moral consensus - bullying, if you prefer - that we'll ever see a real reduction in the number of abortions performed in this country every year. I'm not so sure I approve of the particulars of the law Emily wrote about; if the evidence is iffy on whether having an abortion is any more likely to lead to depression than giving birth is, for example, then doctors obviously shouldn't pretend otherwise. But as to whether they are being "forced to lie'' when they point out that there's a person in there, we will never agree. I get that if you don't see an abortion as the taking of a life, you'll see this exercise as offensive. But if you did see it that way, why would you blanch? (You'd still expect doctors to behave with compassion -- and if these are the same doctors who perform abortions, why wouldn't they?) But why would people who sincerely feel lives are at stake think, "Darn, I'd like a shot at saving those lives, if only I didn't have to go so far as to make women read a piece of paper and then sign it; that I will not do!'
-
sponsorship
Emily: Ha! Here's a question in answer to your question about whether women who take on feminist orthodoxy are making a wily career move: How many pro-life female journalists do you know?
-
sponsorship
Always liked that Ann Richards,
and am not exactly immune to Obama's charms, either. Yet I was
surprised when the governor posthumously endorsed the presumptive
Democratic nominee yesterday: "If she were still around she would suit
up and campaign for Senator Obama in the farthest corner of the
farthest state,'' her daughter Cecile Richards wrote
on the Huffington Post. "Mom would see in him a leader with a long and
consistent record for standing up for women's health care. ... She'd
see in him what we at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund see. ... Mom
would have said that women voting for John McCain would be like
chickens choosing to vote for the Colonel.'' And I would have said Ann
for VP! Unless Eleanor Roosevelt were available. Or my
across-the-street neighbor Clara Barton,
an Obama girl if ever there was one. And definitely not the sort who
might be flirting with McCain, like that recently deceased voter
Hillary kept talking about. But, what would Bella Abzug do?
-
sponsorship
Just received this e-mail from a friend, a Washington lawyer who is a lifelong Democrat and a generous donor to the party. She supported Hillary in the primary and is undecided about what she'll do in November:
I just read your XX column, and I wanted to share a couple thoughts. Even though Hillary characterized her campaign as a big feminist movement in her exit speech, I'm not sure all her supporters saw it that way. I also think the risk of defection to McCain is very real, and not limited to uneducated, working class types. Just in my office, I know 6-7 women, all lifelong Democrats from VA who are now planning to vote for McCain. They are all highly educated people who follow politics closely, and a couple even worked for Dems on the Hill at one point or another. The decision to defect to McCain has nothing to do with Hillary as a woman or Obama's personality. They like Obama enough as a person, but they think he's an empty suit—rhetoric with little record behind it. Even if they agree more with Obama's positions, it seems risky to put such an inexperienced person in the White House—especially after what happened last time. I think the media misses this. It is not all about feminism.
Having said that, I know there is a bit of truth to the feminist argument. I also know a strong, pro-choice Democrat from Maryland—someone who regularly hosts NARAL dinners—who is defecting to McCain, even though she understands his views on abortion. I doubt if this woman ever even voted for any Republican before in her whole life, and she just contributed to McCain's campaign. Truly amazing! I think Obama will have a real problem in the Electoral College if he does not find a way to reach out to the people who voted against him—for whatever reason. For now, I'm undecided and I'm planning on staying that way for a while. My big issue is the economy and both Obama and McCain are weak in that area, so it probably doesn't matter much.
I answered her that the experience issue doesn't resonate with me, especially as Cheney and Rummy had been around since the last ice age, and where did that get us? Hillary has been in the Senate only four years longer than Obama: big whoop. If you count his time in the Illinois Senate, he's actually had more experience as an elected official. (And while of course her experience as first lady counts for something, would we give Laura Bush full credit for those years—even though, as she belatedly tells us, she, too, had a big policy role all along?) The whole experience question just feels like a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing. Because when someone says they would slit their wrist before voting for Obama, that is NOT about Clinton having been in the Senate longer.
And here's my friend's response, which shows that hurt feelings cut both ways during the primary season, and opened some wounds that Obama must now work hard to help heal:
I think her years as first lady count for something, but regardless, she has a much better command of the issues. He was a back-bencher in the state senate, not committee chair, etc. ... He improved during the debates, but even at the end he was flubbing basic tax, economic, and foreign policy issues. Maybe I've been dealing with those issues for too long, but honestly, he is constantly struggling for answers and contradicting himself. I think it would help if he gave voters a sense of who he would appoint to his Cabinet. If he is just going to be an inspirational figurehead, I'd like to know who's going to be advising him. ... Bottom line—the divisions here are very, very deep for all sorts of reasons, and Obama has got to find a way to reach out. Many people are hurt by all the name calling in the campaign. [My son] was repeatedly called a racist at school for supporting Hillary, and I know they have had to address similar issues in [a private school in Washington]. I've heard that some African-American women who supported Hillary were subjected to threats and taunting. Of course, it's not Obama making those comments, and people need to realize that there is a downside to all that young voter passion, but it does not make you want to switch to the other team. Five years ago, I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat because I've always liked him. He's definitely sold out to the right in those five years, though, and that's what gives me pause.'
That she's even thinking McCain should give her party pause, too.
-
sponsorship
Oh my dear Emily, I just read that NOW letter about how Ted Kennedy has supposedly betrayed all women everywhere by endorsing Barack Obama—and I have not seen that many exclamation marks since I read Donna Hanover's book about how great it is being the ex-Mrs. Rudy Guiliani. (In brief, it is great!) Even though Politico's Ben Smith double-checked with NOW to make sure this missile was for real, it's still hard to believe it isn't a prank, of the sort pulled by those guys who yelled, "Iron my shirts!'' at Hillary a couple of weeks ago. (Seems like longer, though, doesn't it?)
This is such an old-fashioned hissy fit, I would not be surprised to wake up tomorrow and read that the sender had gotten up off her fainting couch and apologized: "Silly moi, lost my head there for a minute, on account of PMS. Or not.'' Because it only underscores Kennedy's point about how important it is to "close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.'' And Obama's point that the old politics -- interest-group politics -- will not go quietly. Obama's position on abortion rights is identical to Clinton's, so is the fact that Kennedy has endorsed a man really the outrage here? Or is it that somebody thinks their power base in the Democratic Party is being threatened?
-
sponsorship
Were you just being provocative, Emily? Describing a best-case abortion as nothing more than "a few not ideal hours'' makes it sound like an afternoon at the DMV without a good book. And aren't you being just as categorical as you say Caitlin Flanagan is when you argue that giving a child up for adoption is definitely trickier than having an abortion? (Except when it's not?) Whether you think abortion is morally neutral, intrinsically evil, or the gray area that hijacked our whole political debate, though, here's what I wish we could agree on: There is no other-than-partisan purpose in lobbies on both sides of this issue raising huge sums that only stoke the argument, like some hideous perpetual flame. And despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it's the fight itself that keeps us from focusing on the widely agreed-upon need for birth control, birth control, for heaven's sake birth control.
That Erica Jong post on girl-written puff pieces that Dahlia mentioned made me laugh, though; first, why shouldn't we have enough confidence to cop to an interest in not only Iraq and the Darfur and the dollar, but also shoes and Carla Bruni and poor, poor Katie Holmes? (Today's shiniest news bauble: The man Princess Diana considered the love of her life has, as the Daily Mail put it, "run to fat.'' In his first-ever, "world exclusive'' interview Pakistani doctor Hasnat Khan, reveals ... lots less than the photo of him does. "I found her a very normal person. ... I think she did great work for the country. ... I always wanted to follow in the footsteps of my maternal grandfather, who was a doctor.'') If women really were the lead dogs on the newshound puff patrol, however, we'd completely dominate daily journalism at this point, because we are all style reporters now. There's no mystery about why that might be; as news outfits cut staff to boost stock—and are expected to magically do More with Less—it's way cheaper to provide commentary than reporting. And though women are still overrepresented on the boo-hoo brigades sent out to gather quotes from grieving families, I think I mostly differ with Jong on what the meaning of "puff'' is.
She complains that we delve into such "idiotic'' and trivial matters as a political candidate's marriage—but then also charges that we "never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father?'' I write a lot about political marriages, so I guess her puff pastry is my meat and potatoes. But isn't looking at a candidate's closest relationships how we find out about bomb-happy dry drunks trying to play out Oedipal wars? Not a whole lot of that sort of thing comes of just-the-facts coverage of position papers. Doubtless we can do a better job of covering the issues, even in our current pared-down state. As can any readers who feel deprived of substance.
-
sponsorship
OK, XX Team, most of you are solid supporters of choice, so please help me out here. After my piece on Michelle and Barack Obama’s marriage ran yesterday, a lot of the reaction I saw on the Web boiled down to: I’m not interested in anything that woman might write, because I disagree with her on abortion. Even though the Obama piece contained not a word on that subject; why would it? And even though my actual views in that regard are somewhat less thrilling than advertised. My question: Has it really come to the point that we only listen to people pre-certified as in agreement with us on all crucial matters? And if so, what does that cost us?
For months, I’ve been in John Kerry mode, thinking that nothing could possibly be gained by answering people who are too mad to listen. (Who, me, thin-skinned? Let it go.) But is this What Hillary Would Do? Think again, caballeras.
So, belatedly: Contrary to the provocative headline on my mild but reviled June op-ed in the New York Times, I never posited that “Pro-Choice is a Bad Choice for Democrats.’’ In fact, on the sheer politics of the abortion issue, I’ve said just the opposite.
What the piece argued instead is that pro-choice should not be the only choice for Democrats in good standing. And that Democrats are losing voters they don’t have to lose by out-and-out insulting any who dare differ on this one matter.
These are not classic single-issue voters, in other words, but otherwise liberal pro-lifers who just want to be able to attend a party function without hearing themselves described as extremists. But even the modest proposal that we make more room at the table was shouted down, perhaps in part because so few readers were in possession of their temper by the time they’d finished scanning the headline.
The fact that the paper’s normally judicious headline writers – not exactly grab-the-reader-by-the-lapel types, in my experience – saw an argument for self-interested tolerance as indistinguishable from a call to overturn Roe was only one indication that when it comes to this subject, subtlety is out of the question, and middle ground very hard to stand on.
When some of the women I interviewed for my book about what women want in a president first spoke about feeling unwanted in the Democratic Party as dissenters on abortion rights, I thought that was interesting, but not something I had ever experienced personally.
The over-the-top reaction to the op-ed changed that, though; Google me now and you’ll come away convinced that I spend off-hours throwing rocks at pregnant teenagers. Though none of my critics on either side – the National Right to Life took exception, too – seemed to have gone to the extreme of cracking open the book the op-ed was based on, its pages are actually filled with women expressing all points of view. (Because, perhaps poignantly, the object was never to come up with six easy ways to win the women’s vote; it was to help us understand one another a little better, and maybe even see that, as Barack Obama says, there really is more that unites us than divides us. Or so I’d like to think.)
Among those I met along the way were opponents of choice who said they’d never be happy Republicans, but found it hard to stick around and subject themselves to abuse from fellow Democrats. And in my new life as an abortion concern troll, I now know what they were talking about.
Yes, I am Catholic, and try to hang in there with my church – except when I don’t. Or won’t. So I happen to oppose abortion, same as I do the death penalty and the war in Iraq and the truly immoral disregard for the already born. (And while we’re obsessing over Roe, isn’t the Supreme Court busy overturning everything else we thought was nailed down?) After 35 years at the barricades, it’s clear that this is an issue that will never be solved by either the Congress or the courts. Or that most politicians even want to be shed of, since it has been so darned good for business in both parties.
I sympathize with those on both sides of this debate, and rue that we are so busy doubting each other’s motives and calling each other names that the mothers and children we all say we care about end up quite beside the point.
As far as I can see, the only actual result of the whole baby-killers-versus-women-haters craziness is that it keeps those who genuinely fear for the health and safety of women and those who genuinely see “termination’’ as an Orwellian name for a thrown-away child -- considered less than human just as slaves once were -- from ever working together to help anybody, other than those who raise cash whenever we clash.
Which is why I have long since had it with the leaders on both sides of this electric fence; they carry right on fighting and raising vast sums on the backs of women in trouble, while the abortion rate remains ridiculously high – whether you see it this way or this.
-
sponsorship
Sam Brownback feels reassured about Giuliani's stance on abortion. No surprise there--in addition to whatever Giuliani said to Brownback in private, he has made it clear that he will appoint Supreme Court justices in the overturn-Roe mold. When does he go from being a pro-choice candidate to a pro-life one, in terms of the impact he would have as president and the way in which voters should evaluate him? Are we already there?
-
sponsorship
Emily, I think you are right that Hillary uses the language of “choice” in a really fascinating way. When I covered her Senate race against Rick Lazio in 2000, I was immediately struck by the way she used that word to explain everything from her position on abortion to her decisions about parenting, her marriage, religion, and policy preferences. I think it was one of the central features of her rhetoric then, and it still offers a rather amazing contrast to the language of the Nancy Pelosi's and Laura Bush’s – who tend to say they were chosen for public service but not that it was their own choice.