Republicans Were for Abortion Before They Were Against It

For us young folk it's easy to blame the whole history of anti-abortion sentiment and political action on Republicans - after all, for most or all of our lifetimes, they have been the driving force behind efforts to limit or ban a woman's right to choose.

But a recent article from Yale Law School professor Linda Greenhouse (with Reva Siegel) shows that republicans were actually for abortion before they were against it. It wasn't until the 1972 presidential election that the Nixon campaign added a pro-life agenda in an effort to sway Catholics and social conservatives away from the Democrats.

Interesting bit of history, that. The article can be downloaded as a PDF at the link below.

Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions About Backlash

Linda Greenhouse
Yale Law School

Reva Siegel
Yale University - Law School

Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming
Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 228

Abstract:
Today, many Americans blame polarizing conflict over abortion on the Supreme Court. If only the Court had stayed its hand or decided Roe v. Wade on narrower grounds, they argue, the nation would have reached a political settlement and avoided backlash. We question this court-centered backlash narrative. Where others have deplored the abortion conflict as resulting from courts “shutting down” politics, we approach the abortion conflict as an expression of politics - a conflict in which the Supreme Court was not the only or even the most important actor.

In this essay, we ask what escalation of the abortion conflict in the decade before the Supreme Court decided Roe might teach about the logic of conflict in the decades after Roe. To do so, we draw on sources we collected for our recently published documentary history, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling (2010). We begin our story at a time when more Republicans than Democrats supported abortion’s decriminalization, when Catholics mobilized against abortion reform but evangelical Protestants did not, when feminists were only beginning to claim access to abortion as a right. We show how Republicans campaigning for Richard Nixon in 1972 took new positions on abortion to draw Catholics and social conservatives away from the Democratic Party. Evidence from the post-Roe period suggests that it was party realignment that helped escalate and shape conflict over Roe in the ensuing decades.

The backlash narrative suggests that turning to courts to vindicate rights is too often counter-productive, and that adjudication is to be avoided at all costs. We are not ready to accept this grim diagnosis at face value, and we urge further research into the dynamics of conflict in the decades after Roe. The stakes in understanding this history are high.

Citation:
Greenhouse, Linda and Siegel, Reva B., Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions About Backlash (March 23, 2011). Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming; Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 228. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1798222

Tags: Before, After, Roe v. Wade, New Questions About Backlash, Linda Greenhouse, Yale Law School, Reva Siegel, Yale University, Law School, Nixon, 1972, Republicans, Democrats, abortion, law, Politics, choice, Supreme Court, abortion conflict

Choice

Posted at Rolling Stone -- the most devastating abortion ad I have seen, from either side.

Tags: pro-Choice, Palin, McCain, abortion, culture, ethics, rape

ACLU - Protect Access to Health Care

Here's the issue - it's not about favoring abortion, it's about preventing pregnancies and "back alley" abortions. More info here.

Protect Access to Health Care

The Bush Administration has proposed regulations that could seriously undermine the ability of American women to get basic reproductive health care, including birth control and abortion. The regulations put politics above women’s health care needs.

As currently written, the rule leaves open the possibility that based on religious beliefs institutions and individuals can deny women access to birth control. It also permits individuals to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic heath care services. And it expands existing laws by permitting a wider range of health care professionals to refuse to provide even referrals for abortions.

For years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care. The proposed regulations appear to take patients’ health needs out of the equation, leaving millions of Americans who depend on federally funded reproductive health care services with no protections.

Tell the Bush Administration to Reinstate Patient Protections and Stop the Health Care Refusal Regulations.

According to researchers at the Guttmacher Institute -- a nonprofit think tank on sexual and reproductive health -- without the contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics, there would be 46 percent more unintended pregnancies (1.4 million more) annually in the United States than currently occur.

At a time when more and more Americans are either uninsured or struggling with the soaring costs of health care, the federal government should be expanding access to important health services, not undermining existing protections or interfering in programs that have successfully provided services for years.

Take Action: Tell the Bush Administration to Reinstate Patient Protections and Stop the Health Care Refusal Regulations.

Go here to send a message opposing this legislation.

On August 21, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released proposed regulations that could seriously undermine access to basic reproductive health services, including birth control and abortion.

The rule leaves open the possibility that -- based on religious beliefs -- institutions and individuals can deny women access to birth control. It also permits individuals to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic heath care services. And it expands existing laws by permitting a wider range of health care professionals to refuse to provide even referrals for abortions.

The public comment period on these insidious regulations is open until September 20. Help generate a massive outcry. Submit your public comments to HHS by using the form below.

This is important - sign the letter today -- and forward this to those who want to protect a woman's access to health care.

Tags: ethics, abortion, Health, ACLU, Protect Access to Health Care, Bush, Department of Health and Human Services

Roe v. Wade Is No Longer the Battleground

If you pay any attention to these things, you knew the fundamentalist right wasn't going to to give up on making abortion illegal. Overturning Roe v. Wade seems less likely as Bush's presidency winds down and there is a good chance Obama, a pro-choice Democrat, might be the next president.

So, what do they do now? The make the zygote a "person," with full rights under the law, and they make contraception equivalent to abortion. Hmmm . . . how do they propose to pay for all the new babies running around who were never wanted or intended?

Anyway, according to the Washington Post, Colorado is doing their part by defining a person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

If voters agreed, legal experts say, it would give fertilized eggs the same legal rights and protections to which people are entitled.

The ballot initiative is funded by Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-roots antiabortion organization. Its purpose, initiative sponsor Kristi Burton said, is to lay a legal and legislative basis for protecting the unborn. Its passage would also open the door to modifying other laws for the same purpose, she said.

As to what laws could then be modified, Burton would not elaborate. "We try not to focus on some of the issues that will be taken care of later on," she said, repeatedly saying that the amendment is not aimed at outlawing abortion.

Oh yeah? If passed, the simple egg and sperm joined into zygote would be a "person," the killing of which would be considered murder.

"If we give fertilized eggs legal rights, abortion could be considered murder and a woman could be sent to jail for making the difficult life decision to terminate a pregnancy," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, spokeswoman for Protect Families, Protect Choice, a coalition of medical professionals, community groups and religious leaders who oppose the amendment.

The measure also could expand the reach of the law into other arenas, legal experts say. For instance, if a woman miscarries, she could be held responsible if it were found she caused it, even unintentionally. If she smoked or drank while pregnant, her behavior might be considered negligence. Damaged eggs might be eligible for monetary damages. The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide.

"Because this amendment would define a person in a given way and expand the universe of who persons are, it expands the reach of laws that deal with persons," said Bill Araiza, a law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles.

The amendment also calls into question pregnant women's medical access, said Scott Moss, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. "If a pregnant woman is really two people with exactly equal rights, then it is not clear the pregnant woman can undergo any medical treatment that jeopardizes a fertilized egg," he said, adding that the amendment would generate a flood of litigation.

Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? And that this is the future battleground for anti-choice factions?

The Bush administration is taking another approach -- it seeks to make some forms of birth control equivalent to abortion.

As reported in the New York Times:

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”

“We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women,” Ms. Gallagher said.

Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.

By this definition, the birth control pill is defined as a type of abortion. If the government can make this definition a part of how it dispenses funding, it sets the precedent for expanding this definition into other areas of law.

Oh wait, maybe this is more insane. Is that possible?

All of these angles are based on religious beliefs, as are all anti-choice arguments, and therefore should be disallowed under the Separation Clause. It's that simple.

Tags: culture, abortion, Religion, Constitution, Roe v. Wade, Colorado, zygote, Bush Administration, contraception, Department of Health and Human Services, pro-choice