Abortion Memo

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/o...ompromise.html

The Abortion Memo
David Brooks FEB. 1, 2018

To: Democratic Party Leaders

From: Imaginary Democratic Consultant

Re: Late-Term Abortions

Dear Democratic Leaders,

Last week I watched as our senators voted down the Republican bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. Our people hung together. Only three Democrats voted with the other side. Yet as I was watching I kept wondering: How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us? How many progressive priorities are we giving up just so we can have our way on this one?

Let me start with some history. Before Roe. v. Wade, the abortion debate looked nothing like it does today. Many leading anti-abortion groups were on the left. The first pro-life rally on the National Mall was organized by the National Youth Pro-Life Coalition, which a co-founder described as “an extremely liberal group.” The National Catholic Welfare Conference endorsed a platform that included a right to a living wage, a right to collective bargaining and a right to life from the moment of conception.

In 1971, Ted Kennedy could declare, “Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.” And in the 1960s, conservative states like Mississippi, Georgia and Kansas passed laws legalizing abortion.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade changed all this. At first, people didn’t understand what the decision meant. “Plainly,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand.”

But then everything polarized. The pro-life movement grew on the right and withered on the left. Republicans introduced an anti-abortion plank into their platform in 1976. A new electoral coalition was born.

The G.O.P. became an alliance between its traditional pro-business wing and its burgeoning pro-life wing. Millions of Americans became single-issue voters. They consider the killing of the unborn the great moral issue of our time. Without pro-life voters, Ronald Reagan never would have been elected. Without single-issue voters who wanted pro-life judges, there would never have been a President Donald Trump.

I understand that our donors (though not necessarily our voters) want to preserve a woman’s right to choose through all nine months of her pregnancy. But do we want late-term abortion so much that we are willing to tolerate President Trump? Do we want it so much that we give up our chance at congressional majorities? Do we want it so much that we see our agendas on poverty, immigration, income equality and racial justice thwarted and defeated?

Let’s try to imagine what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The abortion issue would go back to the states. The Center for Reproductive Rights estimates that roughly 21 states would outlaw abortion. Abortion would remain legal in probably 20 others. There’s a good chance that a lot of states would hammer out the sort of compromise the European nations have — legal in the first months, difficult after that. That’s what most Americans support.

The pro-life movement would turn its attention away from national elections. Single-issue anti-abortion voters would no longer be automatic Republicans. The abortion debate would no longer be an absolutist position on one side against an absolutist position on the other.

Roe v. Wade polarized American politics in ways that have been fundamentally bad for Democrats. If you don’t believe me, compare the size of the elected Democratic majorities in 1974 to the size of the Republican majorities in 2018. Without Roe v. Wade the landscape would shift.

We need to acknowledge our vulnerability here. Democrats support the right to choose throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy. But babies are now viable outside the womb at 22 weeks. As Emma Green wrote in The Atlantic, scientific advances “fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion.” Parents can see their babies’ faces earlier and earlier.

We’re learning how cognitively active fetuses are. A researcher from Britain recently found that fetuses prefer to look at face-like images while in the womb. Early in the pregnancy they can recognize and distinguish between tastes. Late in the term they can recognize words, tunes, languages. They seem to begin crying, for example, by the 28th week. It could be that one of the current behaviors that future generations will regard as most barbaric is our treatment of fetuses.

We also shouldn’t take millennial voters for granted. Boomers saw the pro-choice movement as integral to their feminism. Millennials do not. In 1991, 36 percent of young voters thought abortion should be legal in all circumstances; now only 24 percent do. Young voters don’t like the Republican total ban. But they don’t like our position, either. Moreover, young pro-choice voters are much more ambivalent or apathetic than young pro-life ones.

I’m asking us to rethink our priorities. What does America need most right now? One of our talking points is that late-term abortions are extremely rare. If they are extremely rare, why are we giving them priority over all of our other issues combined?

Sincerely,
Your Imaginary Consultant

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on February 2, 2018, on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: The Abortion Memo.

Reading the comments to this article tells you what is wrong with the DNC. Too many Dims think having an abortion up until the moment of birth is socially and morally correct. It's astounding.

Hurry up and get your abortions.

Reading the comments to this article tells you what is wrong with the DNC. Too many Dims think having an abortion up until the moment of birth is socially and morally correct. It's astounding.

Hurry up and get your abortions. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Too bad we are not allowed after birth abortions...I'm sure your folks would have opted for that choice after your ignorant ass popped out!

Too bad we are not allowed after birth abortions...I'm sure your folks would have opted for that choice after your ignorant ass popped out! Originally Posted by WTF

Damn WDF that is about as witty as a junior high retard!

At least Rey doesn't need to post Smilies in his post, which you do constantly so "something" will laugh.

Reading the comments to this article tells you what is wrong with the DNC. Too many Dims think having an abortion up until the moment of birth is socially and morally correct. It's astounding.

Hurry up and get your abortions. Originally Posted by gnadfly

And wht makes me laugh, is most of those same useful idiots who think that, are also against the death penalty. SO ITS ok in their eyes, to kill an unborn kid, someone who's innocent of any wrong doing. BUT its morally reprehensible to kill a scumbag murderrer...

and before someone says that the same people who will execute a criminal would not terminate a nonviable tissue mass. A criminal gets a set of rights handed to them just because they exist. They have thousands of people who work to guarantee those rights. They have judges who will review the sentence and court proceedings before an execution is carried out. Give those same rights and resources to an unborn child and you may have an argument.

They choose to not acknowledge those facts.

Damn WDF that is about as witty as a junior high retard!

At least Rey doesn't need to post Smilies in his post, which you do constantly so "something" will laugh. Originally Posted by gnadfly

You think a Smilies are something that can laugh?

and before someone says that the same people who will execute a criminal would not terminate a nonviable tissue mass. A criminal gets a set of rights handed to them just because they exist. They have thousands of people who work to guarantee those rights. They have judges who will review the sentence and court proceedings before an execution is carried out. Give those same rights and resources to an unborn child and you may have an argument. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Trump was wanting to kill 5 people who were later let out of prison.

Hmmmmmm.....kinda shoots your argument to shit.


Acknowledge that 2dog
.

You mean Trump wrongly convicted and sentenced 5 people to death? Wow! Can you tell me which states those people were in where he did that?

Trump was wanting to kill 5 people who were later let out of prison.

Hmmmmmm.....kinda shoots your argument to shit.


Acknowledge that 2dog
. Originally Posted by WTF

How bout the guy in San Antonio that had his ( forbidden topic ) sentence commuted by odummer back in 2015 and was caught 18 MONTHS LATER with 2 Kilos of ( forbidden topic ) ????? How 'bout THAT lyin' LIBERAL " success story " !

They choose to not acknowledge those facts. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Cause the left never acknowledges facts, just feelings!

You think a Smilies are something that can laugh? Originally Posted by WTF

You're not going to give up your title of Prime Minister of Derpistan easily, are you?

A lot of people are against abortions, they also do not support taking care of the kids.

You mean Trump wrongly convicted and sentenced 5 people to death? Wow! Can you tell me which states those people were in where he did that? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

New York, New York