Change the culture
Written by Stephen on January 3rd, 2006Too many conservatives think political change will occur simply because ideas are right, or that Americans are naturally conservative and need only to have the blinders pulled from their eyes. Frankly, I think both ideas are poppycock. If victory was won because you had the right ideas, LBJ would never be elected, and neither would Arlen Specter. If Americans are naturally conservative, then they are damn obstinate about keeping on their blinders.
No, it seems much more likely that sustained political change only follows where the culture has already gone. Point in case: there isn’t a single abortionist in South Dakota. Say what you will about Paul Gourley, we can have few beefs with the state he comes from.
It’s important to note that this didn’t come about only through legislation, or even mostly through legislation. While laws requiring minimum standards of safety can drive up costs, the most significant (yet least quantifiable) factor is social. “Many doctors in South Dakota who say they have no personal objection to performing abortions… cannot risk their careers and community standing by offering the procedure.” In other words, social shunning would result from performing abortions. Shunning, of course, requires a culture in widespread opposition to something.
3
AM
Stephen’s right, we need to change the laws and change the culture. This debate is like arguing over which half of a scissor is more important in cutting a blade of grass (to paraphrase CS Lewis).
3
AM
And to balance Stephen’s focus on culture, I give you some sweet sweet Coulter analysis:
“Maybe he is an idiot. On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past Monday – I was going to say “birthday of Roe v. Wade,” but that would be too grimly ironic even for me – President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a “culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts.”
Actually, what we need least of all is to “change hearts.” Maybe it’s my law background, but I think it’s time we changed a few judges.
The “changing hearts” portion of the abortion debate is over. ATTENTION, PASSENGERS: We’re now entering the “minds” portion of the “hearts and minds” journey on abortion. We’ve been talking about abortion for 32 years. All the hearts that can be changed have been changed. By some estimates, 35 million human hearts (and counting) have been “changed” by abortion.
Judging by her comments this week calling abortion a “sad, even tragic choice,” we’ve even changed Hillary Clinton’s heart. (And who would know better than the sad, even tragic choice offered to New York voters in 2000 herself?)
Hillary went so far as to say she had “respect” for those who believe that “there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”
I’ve never heard of anyone who thinks abortion should not be “available” to save the life of the mother. There was never a law in any state that prohibited abortion to save the life of the mother. If Hillary “respects” even this (nonexistent) lunatic fringe of the pro-life movement, she must adore the rest of us!
The only thing we need to do now is to start “changing laws.” A culture of life cannot even begin – much less be sustained – until we change the law and repeal Roe v. Wade. Only then can we tally up how many hearts have been changed.
If, right now, pro-lifers had already succeeded in changing the hearts of every last person in America – including Hillary Clinton! – abortion would still be legal in every state of the union. It’s a “constitutional right” – taking its place alongside all those other “sad,” “tragic” rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as religious expression, free speech, freedom of assembly and so on. Who was it who said, “Free speech should be safe, legal and rare”?
Only when at least five members of the Supreme Court stop pretending to see a secret, hidden clause in the Constitution, discernible only to members of the American Civil Liberties Union, and repeal Roe can Americans finally vote on abortion. This is a right we have been denied for 32 years. In effect, a 32-year gag rule has been imposed on those of us who respect every stage of life.
The National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) claims that if Roe were overturned, 19 states would immediately outlaw abortion, and 19 more would soon follow suit. This is the one issue on which NARAL and I agree: Pro-lifers already have changed the hearts of Americans about abortion!
Abortion was not terribly popular when Roe v. Wade was first concocted in 1973 – by seven male justices and their mostly male law clerks. Abortion – like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage and removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance – is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.
We know it wasn’t popular with actual Americans back then because 46 states had outlawed it in a once-common procedure known as “representative democracy.” Reflect on the fact that among the things more popular than abortion even back in 1973 were white-guy afros, lime-green leisure suits and earth shoes.
In the intervening 32 years, abortion has only become less popular. People have seen sonograms of smiling fetuses, they’ve seen the mangled remains of aborted babies, they’ve heard the ghastly arguments from NARAL termagants, and they’ve seen untold women marking the birth dates of their terminated children with weeping and despair.
In a Los Angeles Times poll a few years ago, 57 percent of respondents said they believed abortion was “murder.” Seventy-two percent of women and 58 percent of men said they thought abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. (Among men currently listed on NBA rosters, the figure was even lower.)
Note that men in the poll were more supportive of abortion than women, which is perfectly in keeping with the pro-abortion orthodoxy that men should have no say in this matter, unless they’re saying “yes, dear.” Once again, NARAL and I are in agreement! It’s a “woman’s issue”; could you men please just butt out?
Despite the fact that feminists cry and try to make people feel guilty about opposing a “woman’s right” to abortion, men always support abortion more than women – no matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked. Curiously, single men aged 18-34 are the cohort most dearly devoted to a woman’s “right to choose.”
Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be “changing hearts” is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more ñ- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We’ve been changing hearts for 32 years – I think we’re ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. And NARAL agrees with me! How about it, liberals? Prove me wrong! Let Americans vote.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16797
3
PM
Coulter says: “President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a ‘culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts.’”
An excellent sentiment, but it should be made clear that he never addressed the March for Life personally, will not do so this year, and almost certainly never will in the future.
3
PM
How do you change a culture?
3
PM
Andrew,
Neither did Reagan. I don’t hold it against Bush. Until the pro-life movement expells its extremists from the March (the Paul Hill/Army of God types) I don’t expect presidents to show. They put more effort into expelling Feminists for Life, PLAGAL, and others than they do the other end of the spectrum, which is wrong.
Sentinel,
Maggie Thatcher used to say first you win the debate, then you win the election. You win the debate, in turn, by training good artists who can craft apologetics (as opposed to good apologetics who are not artists), taking over the educational establishment, forming institutions (see John Miller’s new book on the Olin Foundation), etc. etc.
3
PM
I agree with stephen the pro life movemtns needs to set boundaries.
1. anyone who promotes or condones voilence against women who have recieved abortions or doctors who provide them are not welomce.
2 anyone who thinks a women who has recieved an abortion should go to jail or worse are not welcome
3 anyone who thinks women who are raped should not have access to an abortion are allowed but heavily discouraged.
4
AM
I would clarify Stephen’s statement that it is “not worth the fight”, to be that it imprudent (ie not worth it) to make law. There always will be the philosophical fight, though, to educate women who have been raped about human life, adoption and the consequences of abortion. Abortion is an invasive procedure that leaves some women feeling as violated as the actal rape.
As I wrote a couple days back:
“Further, there are no politicians I know of who want to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest. This is not because a child conceived in rape or incest has done anything to deny their right to life. Why should a child be put to death for the sins of the father? The reason pro-life politicians allow these exceptions is in fact an attempt to reconcile their principles with the realities of what is politically possible.”
Yes, that’s right, I quoted myself. I have no shame.
4
AM
while pro lifers admit that a baby formed from a rape is still a human being, no one short of god almighty has the right to tell a women in that situation what to do, if one asked me for advice I would recommend adoption but in no way pressure her into it. yes abortion is invasive but having a constant reminder of that fact that u were raped growing in you for 9 months is not a great alterative either.
4
PM
Jim we tell people all the time not to kill. Heck we even legislate it.
4
PM
Jim,
I have friends who have been the victim of sexual assault, and they would tell you that the memory and hurt and pain of being viciously attacked in such a personal way will last at least nine months whether you were to abort the rare pregnancy resulting from rape or not. If anything, the miraculous experience of bringing life into the world can have a therapeutic effect.
As to John’s attempt to clarify my statement, I’m not sure he hit on what I was getting at. I do think it would be worth passing legislation banning abortion in this case, once the culture is there. However, in the meantime it constitutes such a small portion that we ought to move forward along other fronts in the fight for life, rather than risk crack up of the entire movement by worrying about one-half of one percent of the bigger problem. When we fail to see the forest for the leaves, we miss opportunities like we had in the ‘81-’82 congress.