Of all places, National Catholic Register features an editorial against the South Dakota abortion law. Unfortunately the editorial is not online (at least not yet). The piece is written by Mark Stricherz, who blogs at In Front of Your Nose. Stricherz has practical objections to the law, not categorical ones. In essence, he thinks it's bad politics. His major points.
1. Since Americans don't support banning abortion in the "hard cases" (rape and incest), this bill makes it harder for pro-life candidates. "Saddling pro-life candidates to support such unpopular standards will only hurt their chances of getting elected or re-elected." He uses relatively pro-life Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) as an example. Representing a pro-choice state, Smith will undoubtedly face harsher scrutiny of his pro-life position because of this bill.
2. "What's more, the South Dakota bill needlessly energizes the other side."
3. "Nor is the South Dakota legislation likely to succeed in the courts."
4. "Losing at the ballot box and in the courts is simply not what the right-to-life movement needs."
5. "The reason the movement starting winning [in the 1990s] was that after Casey, pro-life leaders made a conscious choice. They ditched their radical strategy, such as a trying to pass a human-life amendment. In its place they adopted an incremental strategy, one that limits abortion but does not ban it." This put the pro-abortionists on their heels and forced a slow change in opinion on abortion (i.e., most people look on abortion unfavorably, however they think it should be dealt with legally).
6. "Those advances were made not by a radical strategy, but by an incremental one. And more incremental steps need to be taken. Congress ad the states should fund sonogram machines, pass laws mandating parental involvement, and prohibit abortion for all health and economic reasons. Those are battles pro-lifers can win."
I find it interesting that a conservative Catholic publication publishes a piece against a ban on abortion. To be sure, next week, the paper announces, they will publish a piece entitled "Defending South Dakota," but here is a movement with self-reflection and able to tolerate disagreement. Good for them.
Recent Comments