Today he writes of how President Obama has been working to remove the cultural arrows of abortion and gay rights from the Republican issue quiver. He correctly identifies Obama's move to let the states tackle the issue of gay marriage (an issue that is slowly moving away from outright bans as state after state legalizes it). On abortion, he is correct that Obama is working the middle to find common ground with anti-abortion crusaders to reduce abortions in the US without having to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Where he's wrong, however, is in his labelling the pro-choice movement as Constitutionally inferior to the other side:
The pro-life movement is arguably more comfortable with the language of rights and liberties than its opponents. Abortion foes are defending a right to life grounded in the Declaration of Independence, after all, whereas pro-choicers are defending more nebulous rights (privacy, autonomy, etc.) supposedly grounded in “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution.Of course, this is all about when "life" begins, which is at the heart of the right-wing's opposition to any abortion. Pro-choice advocates are no less interested in the rights of people to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's just that they don't want any legislation to infringe upon the rights of people who choose not to become parents, inadvertently, unwittingly or unwillingly. The Fourth Amendment is not a "penumbra" from the Constitution. It guarantees that people have the right to their own persons. An embryo or fetus is not a person, as far as I'm concerned, but merely a potential person.
Still Obama will, as Douthat surmises, win by ultimately ending the culture wars. He has attracted the support of young Evangelicals who are now more concerned about the environment than the contemplated rights of an embryo or fetus. Reality, it seems, interjects when one's personal survival is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment