The election of Barack Obama on November 4th was a resounding victory for liberalism on many levels. The chance to turn back failed economic policies, failed diplomacy, failed foreign military policy, and outright criminal activities has allowed the United States to work towards regaining its ideal of a "City on the Hill"--if not in fact at least in attempt.
Of course, there we not victories on every front. Voters in California and Arizona voted to deny some couples the right to marriage, and voters in Arkansas voted to deny some couples the right to adopt children. Those rights will be denied based on the arbitrary measure of the gender of the couple.
As bad as those losses were, on another, lesser-heralded front, voters in three states turned back attempts to restrict a woman's right to choose.
In California--the same state that voted to deny same-sex couples the right to marry--voters denied an attempt to limit a woman's right to choose. South Dakota voted similarly. And in Colorado voters turned back an attempt to define life as beginning at the moment of conception--an "entering wedge" issue law that almost certainly would have allowed anti-choice activists to use the legal system for all sorts of monkey business, such as bringing assault or murder charges against women who choose to terminate their pregnancies.
The South Dakota vote was the second time their citizens voted against pro-choice limits, and while the battle against the anti-choice folks is not over, there are signs that the tide may be turning.
The Washington Post is reporting this morning that some anti-choice activists are "shifting their focus" away from legal challenges and bans, toward more socially progressive activism in their attempts to bring down the number of abortions.
Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.
I'm not going to argue that the game is won--not by any stretch. There are still fanatics on the far-right who would like nothing more than to force every single woman to carry a foetus to term, regardless of the conditions under which conception occurred, regardless of the danger posed to the mother, and regardless of the mother's wants and desires.
However, we may be at a singular moment. Pro-choice folks have always made the case that nobody likes or wants abortion. However we also recognize that there are many circumstances in which the mother simply has to be allowed the choice of terminating her pregnancy. We also recognize that for many mothers, a continued pregnancy will bring with it a life of enduring hardship, both for her and for her baby.
As social progressives we also support a fairly wide array of social services, not just for the poor, the destitute, or the otherwise helpless. We also recognize that for many women carrying a foetus to term will result in serious health risks, an unbreakable cycle of poverty, and long-term problems for both mother and child.
However, some of the anti-choice crowd now seem to be turning toward the "progressive light."
Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies.
As a pro-choice progressive I couldn't be more encouraged by this. We all want to reduce the number of abortions, without at the same time taking away a woman's right to choose. Providing increased social services for these women is the best of both worlds, and if the anti-choice crowd is coming around to these ideas, we need to give them all the support they deserve.
Two notes:
Their efforts, they said, reflect the political reality that legal challenges to abortion rights will not be successful,
and
"If one strategy has failed and failed over decades, and you have empirical information that tells how you can honor life and encourage women to make that choice by meeting real needs that are existing and tangible, why not do that?" said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Kmiec, a Catholic who opposes abortion, was criticized by some abortion foes because he endorsed Obama.
We agree. Poll after poll and ballot measure after ballot measure have reconfirmed that most Americans favor a woman's right to choose, especially in cases of incest, rape, or the health of the mother. Support for strict bans on choice have always been confined to the fringe of American politics, and if "middle of the road" anti-choice people are beginning to recognize this, it may be a sign that we have--maybe, just maybe--turned a corner in the fight.
Another sign:
The new effort is causing a fissure in the antiabortion movement, with traditional groups viewing the activists as traitors to their cause.
If this fissure can be exploited, it should be. I suspect that the moderate anti-choice faction was always sort of mushy on the issue anyway. They're more concerned with pragmatics ways to cut down on abortions, and more concerned with social justice anyway.
Have we turned a corner? I'm not sure. I see an opening here, though. And it's one that I hope the pro-choice crowd can exploit.