Tuesday, January 31, 2006

No surprises

Alito's confirmation is a consequence of there having been no penalty for 11 Democrats' (David Boren, OK; John Breaux, LA; Dennis DeConcini, AZ; Alan Dixon, IL; J. J. Exon, NE; Wyche Fowler, GA; Ernest Hollings, SC; J Bennett Johnston, LA; Sam Nunn, GA; Charles Robb, VA; Richard Shelby, AL) vote for Clarence Thomas.

Pro-Choice or Pro-Access?

I started reading a borrowed copy of the Nation and was impressed, as usual, by Katha Pollitt. Her essay takes to task the most recent installment, this one by William Saletan in the New York Times, in the decades-old running push to get the pro-choice movement to declare itself more and more anti-abortion.

An abortion is a medical procedure like a wisdom tooth extraction. While I've met a few women who considered abortion personally empowering, most seem to regard abortion as being about as much fun as a root canal. There isn't much of a lobby to begin with to increase the number of abortions for its own sake. But Saletan wants the pro-choice movement to agree that the ideal number of abortions is zero. This is a really slippery concept because of its inherent ambiguity. Would we say the ideal number of root canals is zero? Yes, in the sense that if you could genetically engineer a race of humans that never needed them, the experience of drilling would not be missed. But also no. In the sense that you would like to see 100% of those in need of the procedure get ready access to it, lest the pain go on and on, and more drastic oral surgery become necessary down the line.

As Pollitt points out, the ideal of zero abortions is a pipe dream. It only redounds to the moral impugning of women who avail themselves of the procedure. As Pollitt also says, that women choosing abortion have nothing to be ashamed of, whatever the reason behind the decision.

I agree with all this, and choice is certainly the issue. Nevertheless, this discussion gives me the idea that "choice" is not the aspect of abortion that it is most politically astute to push. I may be entirely wrong about this, but for sake of discussion, let me go ahead and propose this. What about "access," a term that pro-choicers already use a lot? Wouldn't it be better to be "pro-access?" Ultimately it means the same thing because granting unhindered access grants unhindered choice; granting hindered access grants hindered choice. Going back to the notion that abortion is like a wisdom tooth extraction, for many women the "decision" to get an abortion is like the decision to see a dentist -- it's only a decision in a theoretical sense, it is so clear and obvious that that the conception, unplanned, unwanted, and abounding in negative consequences, should be ended, that it really is felt more as a necessity than a choice. Those who don't think a jot about the fetus are entitled to just as much respect as those who have to wrangle with their beliefs. "Access" does not emphasize the decision, but rather the connection with all other forms of health care. The flip side of choice is coersion, but the flip side of access is exclusion, which is just as hot a button, and draws a link to other disenfranchised groups.

Just an idea.

Monday, January 30, 2006