To be straight up, I was taken aback at the tone of the
attacks on NARAL before their ad...and taken aback at the tone of
attacks after they pulled it. Now, I've got no problem with folks being critical of any and all organizations within our coalition...or, for that matter, of me and what I write...that's part and parcel of politics, and healthy debate actually makes us a better and stronger party.
But one thing I just don't get in all of this, is how a sense of solidarity seems to have left some folks' minds entirely. You see, solidarity is our start point, not some bonus value that we tack on if we're all feeling the rosy glow of victory.
Speaking for myself, I've got more loyalty to women fighting for their essential rights than I do with the abstract notion of a Democratic victory that promises to protect women down the road but doesn't much act like it today...
Some things are essential; control of one's own health and body is one of those things. It would be the same for gay rights or civil rights or for labor law. When the chips are down, you stand with your brothers and sisters, or you don't stand for anything at all.
What the anti-NARAL folks are asking us is that we cooperate in betraying the fight for reproductive rights by disassociating ourselves from the "we" that is in solidarity to defend them.
Now, since we're talking about abortion, and I've read too many casual statements about how overturning Roe is inevitable or beneficial or both...let me just make the picture clear. In practical terms we're talking about poor women in "red" and "purple" states who'll suffer the brunt of our casual acceptance of the rollback of reproductive rights: women of color, poor women, women in abusive relationships, women trapped by poverty, religion, family and circumstance who will pay the price for our acquiescence.
Now, these women aren't some abstract "serves them right" interest group that's outlived its political usefulness. To me, and to anyone who believes that solidarity means something, which I think is the majority of us, those women are us...they are we...and if we sell them down the river by "accepting" the inevitability of their loss of reproductive freedom, if you ask me, we've sold our soul.
Does that mean we accept whatever NARAL does or doesn't do? No. Does that mean we engage in a forthright discussion of strategy, and disagree if we must? Yes, of course, and we may have just such a situation in Pennsylvania. It is clear to me, however, that pro-choice solidarity in our coalition should actually mean something.
The standard we should demand of any Supreme Court nominee is that they accept the consequence of Roe and Casey as settled law...that they agree that abortion, as defined in Roe and Casey, should be safe and legal in all 50 states. That is a majority view in this nation. It is most people's common sense understanding of the law of the land. It is also most people's understanding of the position of the Democratic party. And that's what we should demand of John Roberts.
In my view, if we demand that pledge of a Supreme Court nominee, we should ask no less of Democratic candidates as well, whatever their private conscience or public position on related issues, that, like parental notification, may or may not have majority support.
This is a position that a clear majority of Democrats can and should take. It's not rocket science. But a language of acquiescence has crept into how we talk about abortion, a subtle shifting of our "we" has elided our basic solidarity...and I find it troubling. Take this quote from a writer I admire:
For the pro-choice advocates, the stakes could not be higher. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, they are looking at spending years -- decades -- fighting tooth and nail in places like Alabama, Missouri, Utah and Mississippi to try to win back for women the rights they have had for the last 30 years.
I know that some people think that's a radical and unlikely outcome, and I can't figure out why. It is quite clear that a fairly large number of states are going to make abortion illegal and very quickly too. While some Democrats blithely discuss whether it wouldn't really "be better" if the states handled abortion and allowed the local people to decide such a thing (never mind that the woman who needs an abortion and can't just jump on a plane to California will just have to take one for the team) for pro-choice advocates it means that they are going to have to ramp up their advocacy to unprecedented levels, hire huge staffs to begin the legal challenges and defenses that are going to be required in probably at least 25 legislatures and courts.
They are rallying their troops in hopes that they will be able to stop that horrid eventuality, but if they can't they are going to need lots and lots of help and they know it.
And all the while the constitutional right to privacy that undergirds the entire panoply of reproductive freedom issues is going to remain under assault. I would suggest that any young lawyers out there who are sympathtic with this cause study up on the history of abortion law in your state and begin to think about strategies. It's highly unlikely that Roe vs Wade is going to stand.
Now, I think Digby has tried to be fair in regards to NARAL. He's tried to see their strategy from a sympathetic point of view, and his writing has had the positive effect of giving some folks who were ranting... pause. My beef is not with Digby per se. However, it's because Digby is otherwise so good that this quote highlights two things I find cut to the core.
First, I find shocking his acceptance of the inevitabilty of Roe being overturned. Digby may be speaking more as pragmatic prognosticator here than as strategist, but I find this attitude chilling and highly problematic. It may or may not be an inevitability that Roe, despite the court's 5-4 reaffirmation in Casey and Clinton's subsequent nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, will be overturned as a matter of law...but if this attitude of resigned acceptance is the best we in the blogosphere can muster, why do we exist?
I, for one, don't take reversal or rollback as inevitable. And even if it were likely that Roe were to face a Supreme Court challenge in a "new court"...I cannot be so sure as to predict that the decision would be written so as to reverse Casey.
One thing I do know, for the good of our democracy, the pro-choice majority in this country damn well should have something to say in all of this. We should have something to say about whom any President nominates. Nomination is a political process. In the context of George Bush putting John Roberts forward to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, I find this blogosphere "inevitability talk" to be strategic horse manure of the highest order.
Nothing related to the Supreme Court and its decisions happens in a political vacuum. Nothing. If the Roberts nomination succeeds in the context of this Democratic acceptance of the overturning of Roe, and a blogosphere set on attacking and isolating pro-choice activists within our own coalition...we may well have laid the foundation for just such an eventuality.
Second, I have to confess that though I understand what Digby is doing rhetorically in referring to "pro-choice advocates" from a distance...essentially trying to help folks understand where NARAL is coming from...that turn of phrase gets to the core of this essay.
The very fact that Digby has to use this "distancing" to garner some sympathy for NARAL says profound things to me about the state of the blogosphere. You see, this distance, in the context of the scathing, and frankly misogynist, attacks on NARAL elsewhere, has the effect of glossing over that reality. When one of our best writers talks about "pro choice advocates" as if they are somehow other people it puts into clear relief how pro-choice activist and women's right's groups have been moved outside of the "we" of the blogosphere. Why is this so? It's a significant question.
Why has the Roberts nomination engendered, more than it's done anything else on the blogs, the occasion for a widespread attack on NARAL?
What is the meaning of our 'we'? That's my question for my fellow Democrats and blog readers. I've read too many folks talking as if their 'we' would fit comfortably inside the majority male membership rolls of the major liberal blogs...talking as if the loss of reproductive rights would be something that happens to 'other people.' ...talking about the overturning or erosion of Roe as if it would be something one might read about in the paper, from the sidelines, with a sense of mournful detachment. That's not my 'we'.
For myself, I certainly would include the folks at NARAL, pro-choice activists and the millions of women whose rights they're fighting for in my 'we.' Hell, I would even go so far to say that when it comes to reproductive freedom and the right to privacy it's all of our issue, something that is woven deeply into all of our lives.
I'm sure the vast majority of readers of Democratic blogs, insofar as they are pro-woman and pro-choice can understand that stand point. Solidarity should mean something to us.
In my opinion, and especially in the context of the Roberts nomination, it's time for the blogosphere to start talking like it.
This essay first appeared on my blog, k/o.