7.12.00
Liberal Second Thoughts

7.12.00
Don't Let Schools Off the Hook

7.11.00
Jane Austen & the First Gen Y

7.11.00
Hillary's Real Threat

7.10.00
Payback Time For Bill

7.10.00
Clintonian Dedication to Privacy

7.06.00
Gore's West Coast Dilemma

7.06.00
Au Courant!

7.05.00
Wait a Nano-Second…

7.05.00
A Bear in the Bullpen

7.05.00
Al's Way or the Highway?

7.03.00
A Battle Lost, A War Won?

7.03.00
Ignorance & American Liberty

7.03.00
The EPA’s Gas Problem

7.03.00
The British Are Groaning

7/12/00 2:40 p.m.
Liberal Second Thoughts
The issue of partial-birth abortion has changed the politics of abortion in America.

By Peter Wehner, a writer living in McLean, Virginia

he issue of partial-birth abortion has changed, perhaps permanently, the politics of abortion in America, despite the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Nebraska's ban on the procedure. For an example of why, turn your attention to a recent Richard Cohen column in the Washington Post ("Reasons to Shudder," July 4).

The piece was admirably honest. It's not often that you read a liberal columnist expressing misgivings about his abortion position. But that is precisely what the pro-choice Cohen did when he conceded that he "shudders in revulsion" at the partial-birth abortion procedure, and when he admits that the "antiabortion people are on to something" in their opposition to late-term abortions.

Cohen begins his column by declaring, "I am pro-choice. I think the government has no right telling a woman she must have a child she does not want." But he later asserts that "We ought to say, in short, that this procedure cannot be used — that late-term abortions cannot be permitted at all — unless we absolutely have no choice."

For the sake of the argument, however, assume that a woman decides she wants a partial-birth abortion and uses as her rationale not the health exception, but her absolute right to abort a child at any point, for any reason, during her pregnancy. Mr. Cohen indicates that in this instance he would say "no" to the woman's claim. He is willing, in short, to allow the state to ban a particularly gruesome kind of abortion — which means, of course, that he has undermined his first assertion ("the government has no right telling a woman she must have a child she does not want"). Cohen believes that in some circumstances government does have a right to tell a woman she must deliver a child she does not want; he is simply drawing the line at a very late stage of pregnancy, whereas many pro-life people draw that line at a very early stage in pregnancy. What Cohen is saying, in other words, is that at some point during pregnancy the rights of the child supercede the woman's right to abort.

Cohen therefore places himself on a continuum — "pro-choice" for sure, but now with important qualifications. The next logical step he (and those who think like him) must take is to determine what is a morally and medically defensible criteria by which to decide when the rights of the child supercede the rights of the woman. Cohen would draw the line when the baby is moments away from being delivered. But why not draw the line at viability? Or when the child has the capacity to feel pain? Or when certain functions begin (e.g., the development of the brain, spinal column, nervous system)?

It seems to me that it is incumbent upon those who place themselves on an abortion continuum to explain, in relatively precise terms, what criteria they are willing to employ — as well as the moral and medical basis for their stand. Surely we have a right to expect more from them than to say, in effect, "Let's put a stop to partial-birth abortions because it seems too gruesome — but let's allow abortions before, say, 16 (or 12, or 10) weeks." On what (non-capricious) grounds do they decide on one, but not the other?

This is the question that abortion-rights advocates cannot answer. There is no argument for gradually conferring moral worth and legal rights to an unborn child that is not fundamentally arbitrary. In moments of candor, those who are pro-choice will admit that they are mystified when it comes to determining when "potential" human life ends and when "meaningful" human life begins. Amidst such empirical and epistemological uncertainty, there is an obligation to err on the side of caution (as well as decency and social justice) — which in this instance means granting legal protection to unborn children.

Note, too, that Cohen's differences with pro-life advocates are less than he might imagine. Both they and he shudder at abortion — though pro-life advocates do so at a much earlier stage in the development of the child. Cohen may disagree with them on exactly when to shudder in revulsion, but it is difficult to portray pro-life advocates as "extremists" merely because they choose a different, earlier point to object to abortion than he does. They believe that what happens when a child is aborted in the early weeks of pregnancy is deeply troubling. And as we learn more about what happens during even the early stages of pregnancy, the more compelling case pro-life advocates have. Modern science, and common procedures like sonograms, are manifestly friends of the pro-life movement.

Pro-life advocates, Richard Cohen, and liberals who agree with Cohen all believe that piercing the skull of a child and removing that child's collapsed skull from the woman is a brutal, indefensible act. They are willing to say: There are some types of abortions we simply cannot countenance. As I mentioned, Cohen would draw the line at a different point in pregnancy than do most pro-life people — but the line-drawing concession is an important one. The debate, therefore, is no longer whether we should draw a line, but where it should been done. Which means that both sides now occupy some important common ground.

In recent years the Supreme Court has delivered grievous blows to the pro-life movement. At the same time, polling data suggests that the moral sentiments of more and more Americans are moving in the direction of sympathy for, and a willingness to grant legal protection to, unborn children. The partial-birth abortion debate is unmasking the abortion-on-demand movement. A great revelation is now taking place. And it is causing honest liberals like Richard Cohen to express, at long last, serious reservations about siding with those who so fiercely and mercilessly defend the "culture of death."

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home