Gonzales v. Carhart/Planned Parenthood

» NYT: Postures in Public, Facts in the Womb (David Brooks)
» Beliefnet/Sojourners: Abortion - From Symbol to Substance (Jim Wallis)

A somewhat atypical reaction to reading David Brooks for once: agreement.

In short, when you focus on the fetus, you see a process of emerging life that begins with small biological clumps and culminates by the third trimester with a creature who is not significantly different from a living baby. And the obvious mystery is: When in this continuous process does human life begin?

And yet when you look at the abortion debate that grows from this mystery, you find that over the years, adults have built these vast layers of argument and counterargument, and the core issue is buried far down below.

The Carhart case, which the Supreme Court decided last week, is prompted by revulsion over the practice of killing late-term fetuses. Yet for reasons having to do with political tactics, the law that was upheld wouldn’t even prevent a single late-term abortion. It would forbid doctors from crushing the skull of the fetus, but would permit them to poison and dismember it. Furthermore, the reasoning Justice Anthony Kennedy used to uphold the law — about mothers who may come to regret their abortions — is not only bizarre, but far removed from the original revulsion that prompted the whole issue.

Agreement, at least, as it pertains to the root of the problem. Brooks goes on to balance this take with a remark that since the Democratic Presidential pack cannot bother to use the word "fetus" it therefore follows that they aren't any better. Last I checked, it was the dissimenation of talking points on both sides that devolved this debate. Demanding that one's own favorite word or viewpoint be mentioned is not prima facie evidence of devaluation.

Brooks also concludes with his own desired end-state:

If we could get this issue away from the abortion professionals and their orthodoxies, we could reach a sensible solution: abortion would be legal, with parental consent for minors, during the first four or five months, and illegal except in extremely rare circumstances afterward. Instead we get what we saw last week. A law that doesn’t address the core issue, a court decision so tangled in jurisprudence as to be impermeable to the outside world, and howling protests by people who can’t face the central concern.

I've spelled out my own here. Jim Wallis runs close to parallel in that view - at least as it pertains to the 95/10 Initiative supported by pro-life and pro-choice Democrats alike.

What's fundamentally missing from all of this, however, is realization that for any change in law to truly take a lasting effect, it will have to have the buy-in of a bipartisan swathe of support. Of course, I could argue that the activists on each side might cheer on whatever temporary victory they can and will see over the years. But if anyone's actually interested in doing something that's lasting, effective, and meaningful, they'll have to break through the partisan blinds that restrict progress on this front.

As much as I might agree with the outcome of this case, there's no argument that can be made that this eliminates one single solitary abortion from taking place. Likewise, the input of the case leaves a confounding legacy. I mean, we've finally established Supreme Court precedence for restricting activities by which we may - I repeat, may - later regret. I once bought a brand new Oldsmobile Acheiva. I regretted it about 3 years later. Good thing the company went belly up before Anthony Kennedy got around to reviewing the matter.