Main Edition
US
FR
The "safe, legal and rare" message has fallen out of favour. Jason Connolly/AFP/Getty Images
In 1992, while the ascendant evangelical Right was pushing to roll back abortion rights as part of its “family values” platform, the Democratic party stumbled on a pro-choice message that would not only win the presidency but also define the party’s position for years to come. It consisted of three words, first spoken by then-presidential nominee Bill Clinton, and ultimately heard so often that they started to take on the air of catechism: an incantation whose mere utterance rendered a politician rhetorically bulletproof.
Safe. Legal. Rare.
For those whose interest in the American Left only goes back as far as the Obama administration, it’s hard to explain what a triumph this was. Not only did the phrase create a big tent under which even people who felt morally ambivalent about abortion could comfortably gather, it also forced Republicans into insane, reactionary counter-positions. As well as safe and legal abortions, the Democrats were promoting comprehensive sex education and contraceptive access, which would help prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place — and Republicans, rather than make common cause with their enemies, mostly opted to argue against these things.
And so, for a brief but magical moment, the Democrats could reasonably claim to be the party of fewer abortions and more shagging, while conservatives were left to take the deeply unpopular position that all non-procreative sex was bad, actually.
Caitlin Flanagan of The Atlantic has observed the remarkable staying power of “safe, legal, and rare”, which “translated into language the inchoate sentiments of millions of Americans so exactly that they had to hear it only once for it to become their firmly held position on abortion”. The message was so effective that Hillary Clinton even resurrected it in 2008 during her first (ultimately unsuccessful) play for the Democratic presidential nomination. Two years after that President Barack Obama explicitly identified the phrase as “the right formulation” when it came to discussing abortion.
And yet, in the past 10 years, “safe, legal and rare” has fallen out of favour, as arguments emerged in the more language-obsessed corners of the Left that the “rare” part was unduly stigmatising. “It posits that having an abortion is a bad decision and one that a pregnant person shouldn’t have to make”, one activist wrote last year, in an essay demanding the phrase be retired.
It’s hard to overstate the utter self-sabotaging lunacy of this argument, which not only undermined one of the most popular lines of party messaging in decades but is also farcically nonsensical: “safe, legal, and rare” are surely a solid and desirable set of criteria for any medical procedure that is both unpleasant and unplanned, as abortions (but not only abortions) invariably are. And yet, the argument prevailed: by the time Hillary ran for president in 2016, the word “rare” had been excised from the Democratic party platform.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI still have no idea where this confected outrage is all coming from. Isn’t the decision about the legality now in the hands of elected officials instead of unelected judges. British elected politicians put the Abortion Act through in the 1960s. If Americans have no political will to do the same then that’s tough.
Precisely. And It of course shows that their favoured argument as to the sanctity of democracy is a sham – only ever to be rolled out when it suits.
It is hardly confected; it is about the definition of fundamental human rights – what is included in the constitution and therefore beyond the reach of (temporary) politicians and what is not.
You have to remember that the US consitution is explicit about the fact that the US government (Congress) ONLY has the powers granted by the constitution. Moreover, in many areas, explicit constraints on what the government may do are stated (such as the First Amendment that guarantees that the government cannot bar speech other than in strictly limited situations).
The issue with abortion is that the elected politicians HAVE acted – to severely limit abortion, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they have the constitutional right to do so.
So for years (since Roe vs Wade) women had a right to abortion access that states could not remove. That is no longer the case.
There is unlikely, in the near term, to be Federal law to solve this. There is also no prospect of a constititional amendment.
I beleve there are a few potential developments:
1.) Court packing by the democrats. Deeply dangerous move, though.
2.) A Federal law that provides at least some rights to women (e.g. the right to travel for an abortion) which would probably get through the SC on the basis of inter-state commerce law.
3.) An ugly patchwork of provision arounds the edges of states which have enacted bans.
It may be that a new wave of cases will make their way to the SC, and a new, stronger precedent will be set (pretty much everyone accepts that RvW was creaky). Don’t hold your breath for this though.
I followed you closely and with agreement till you got to the point that “elected politicians HAVE acted”. This phrase presents the facts in a false narrative that all women everywhere are affected by these decisions. They are not. Just as every nation in the world has a different ruling on abortion, so now, does every state. US states are much more like countries than like UK counties. What goes in Kansas is totally different from what goes in New York.
Secondly, what ‘bans’? Each state has enacted laws which permit abortions in some restricted ways and ban it in others. That’s not a ban. That’s emotional talk. Unless you believe that a woman has a right to abort until the baby is breathing air, then there will always be restrictions. A restriction is not a ban.
You and I would certainly agree on some cases where abortion should be safe and legal, and I expect, on cases when it shouldn’t. Being able to talk about it makes the country vastly less polarized, which overturning Roe and Casey has achieved.
I genuinely don’t understand why you thnk I am suggesting that “all women everywhere are affected by these decisions”. I merely point out that some states (in the US) have enacted law that will significantly curtail abortion access. I think you are somehow reading my argument as far more black-and-white that it is.
I am not for a moment opposing every and all regulation of abortion. Buit, it is the case that some states are now enacting or have enacted law that is pretty draconian by (say) UK standards.
I am also fully aware that States make their own laws (in some areas). But no state can make law that contradicts the US Constitution.
I hope I gave no impression that I see this as anything other than a subject that warrants deep and intense debate – including by men.
You elide a step in there. State politicians have acted, yes. But, as those selfsame politicians are elected BY THE PEOPLE OF THIER STATES, we forget that the will of the people, in those geographic areas, has been satisfied.
I am a pro-choice US citizen, but I am happy Roe fell. It was a poison on the nation, not allowing the people to have a choice in this, and freezing a deeply need conversation at a point of rancor and not conclusion. The Democrats had 50 years to codify their wants and needs on this issue, and in that time had complete control of the national gov’t 4-5 times. And yet, they did nothing. Trying to satisfy the activist base while still staying on the side of the mushy middle is hard, and they wanted the courts to do their dirty work for them. Well, this is what happens.
“those selfsame politicians are elected BY THE PEOPLE OF THIER STATES, we forget that the will of the people, in those geographic areas, has been satisfied.”
And those people include women, a majority of whom are against late term abortions.
It’s interesting how feminism has grown to mean that women don’t have a right to be heard unless they agree with the officially approved stance.
I too am a pro-choice US citizen, but I am NOT happy Roe fell. It was – I understand from those who know constitutional law bettter than I – poorly-reasoned law. But it was an important protection for women’s rights. I agree it woudl have been better had the issue been sorted out and properly codified in the interim, but it was not.
The US Consitution affords us mechanisms for changing it (hence the existenmce of the amendments.) And the intepretation of the constitution is subject to long, slow political change with a “wavelength” of about 15-20 years.
The constitution is written deliberately to prevent (temporarily) elected governments making certain classes of changes in the US law. Examples are the First and Second Amendments. At now time in the past 50 years have the Democrats – or the Republicans – been in a position to pass a major constitutional amendment (I don’t count the 27th; it was trivial).
So yes, I pointed out that legislatures have already acted here. The question is whether the SC was legally or ethically right to allow them to do so. Merely to argue that it is “the will of the people” is not good enough when we live in a society that accepts constitution tempering of political action.
@ R Wright: The problem is that in many US States, the politicians who would codify abortion rights at State (or even Federal) level can’t get elected because the current republican politicians in power have gerrymandered the voting districts to completely distort them so as to retain power – and the US judiciary has allowed this.
Why the US cannot have mandated independent boundary commissions to update electoral districts fairly is bemusing. Letting politicians make decisions on voting district boundaries is like letting Billy Bunter be in charge of a sweet shop – action will always be taken in ways that suits themselves and not fairness for the voting public!
Please don’t focus on the spec in my eye and ignore the plank in yours. Gerrymandering of congressional districts is an insidious practice in most states, blue and red alike. The difference being that the insane district lines in blue states are deemed honorable whilst the insane district lines in red states are abhorrent in the eyes of the media. Look up the congressional districts in the state of IL, for a jovial example. Darkest of blue states.
I would seriously recommend this to anyone who wants an impartial legal and Constitutional breakdown of Roe and Dobbs by an actual lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPsIaYmh-bo
Some of the biggest protests are happening in states where abortion access will be completely unaffected, like California. The response is more motivated by FOMO than actual political action.
EXACTLY!
The outrage comes from the facts that, first, the Left has never had to to justify its current position on abortion, and second, at least some in leadership realize they have no capacity for presenting this in any way that will be at all persuasive to the general public.*
The Left is so habituated to distorting the plain meaning of words, when they aren’t using them as verbal clubs, that they no longer have any capacity to communicate with normal people.
And not one bit of that has any intellectual rigor behind it, some of it is outright lies, and none is remotely plausible to a great many people who are quite willing to accept abortion up to a reasonable point in fetal development, or in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity.
I expect that over the next few years we’ll see the majority of states implementing laws allowing abortion up to 15 – 20 weeks, in the event of rape or incest, and in enumerated medical circumstances. Despite Democrats and the extreme Left doing everything they can to block it.
*A third reason for the screaming is that this disestablishes the federal Judiciary as a “Super Legislature” that can be used to ram through policies that could never be enacted legislatively. But that’s a topic for a different post.
I posted a comment yesterday under the transgender article which relates just as well to this article. I suggested women’s rants against pregnancy ‘ironically’ presented in contemporary woke language in the article contribute to young females’ rejection of their own bodies. I also pointed out the left’s doublethink surrounding pregnancy and abortion. As a society, the left expect us to view an unwanted pregnancy as a foetus without personhood to be destroyed and forgotten, and, at the same time, to join in the mourning of the loss of a baby through miscarriage: a baby who will not only be mourned but probably named and buried or cremated and receive some kind of commemoration. Meghan Markle, the queen of the woke, wrote at length on the misery of her miscarriage in an opinion piece in the New York Times and has been interviewed by Vogue magazine where she voices her repugnance at the overturning of Roe versus Wade. The underlying principle seems to be the loved and wanted are valued and have personhood, the unloved and unwanted have no value and should be exterminated: the death of the former a tragedy, the death of the latter a necessity.
Interesting point. The woke are pretty selective in their treatment of the living too. If you belong to a loved category (with the right opinions, of course) then anything that might conceivably upset them (in the woke’s opinion) is an outrage but in turn if you belong to an “oppressor” category anything can be said or done however upsetting or harmful to them is fine and justly deserved.
I know – logic, science and statistics tie them in knots. They cannot support all racism is morally wrong because of their extreme anti-white rhetoric so they talk about punching up and punching down. Punching up is fine but punching down is victimisation. White privilege places every white person at the top so racism against white people is impossible. According to a recent government enquiry, the group occupying the very bottom tier of British society is actually white working class males so according to their logic, white working class males are incapable of racism.
It is good to be black but very bad to be black with the wrong opinion. To the woke blacks have to think woke – no deviation allowed. Hence the racist attacks on Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas following the overturning of Roe v Wade outlined here:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/06/26/clarence-thomas-and-the-racism-of-the-woke-elites/
Yep. Hence the pejoratives coconut (white on the inside) and adjacent white (Asians who are accused of thinking like white people as if white thought is homogenous).
I first read Plato when I was young. I knew I didn’t really understand his writing and yet I recognised he was a genius. I was looking for guidance and had a vague idea I would one day write philosophy. Plato believed it was necessary to study maths and not embark on philosophy until the age of fifty. I took this as advice. My ability to think logically has been honed by studying maths and I have a far greater understanding of Plato. I understand the importance of logic in destroying the arguments of the modern day sophists.
I am afraid I never read Plato and have only basic knowledge of mathematics but as a schoolboy I did read Ogden and Richard’s “ Meaning of Meaning” and Stuart Chase’s popular work on semantics which helped subsequently not to be bamboozled by semantic sleight of hand or tongue. I do regret that I was not taught statistics as many bogus ideas fall apart with even a basic knowledge of statistics. A sense of proportion is often lacking in ideological views.
I would encourage you to read Plato. His prose is some of the most beautiful writing ever produced. His writing on love in the symposium has never been bettered though equalled by Paul writing to the Corinthians. Platonic love is generally misunderstood. It is not just sexless love, it is the love generated by the joy and delight in the debating, developing and sharing of ideas. Plato’s Republic is probably the greatest political work ever written. Plato is much more accessible than people realise. There are a few people who stand head and shoulders above the rest of humanity, Plato and Shakespeare are two of them. They demonstrate the universality of human nature and its consistency through time.
Thanks. I will put him on my bucket list.
Must get Meaning of Meaning.
Biblical wisdom also helps. We’ve been down this road many times before with “sexual revolution”. Each time it turns out bad and a revival takes place. So there is hope.
Sadly the post modernist woke don’t believe in truth, logic, or evidence, so they won’t engage with you.
I don’t think they don’t believe in logic, I suspect they are terrified of it, with good reason. Hence the name calling and refusal to engage or discuss.
You have summarized the liberal left’s mind. Complete and utter hypocrisy at every turn. Along with a few 180’s along the way.
Very well said. Abortion has and always will be the most selfish act. So many I know have been adopted or chosen adoption for their unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately an aborted baby can’t be interviewed but a baby who survives an abortion or is conceived via rape both cherish their lives. Who has the “right” to take that away from anyone?
But now try to explain your idealism to the hapless Berkowitz family, who adopted an unwanted baby boy who later turned out to be Son of Sam. That genetics has been misused by dictators does not negate the fact that it remains a set of very real scientific facts. Rape and incest remain as primary justifications for abortion.
Thanks for this comment. This is exactly how I see it too.
I applaud you for your well worded comment.
As with everything – give them an inch and they will take a country mile, and keep going.
Also notice that whenever there’s a development that detracts in the slightest way from their designs to capture every aspect of life they literally scream murder.
They will never, ever, ever accept anything until they have complete, unopposed control over it.
I assume that you are referencing the US Republican party?
No, you made an extremely poor assumption. Improving your knowledge base and reasoning skills will help prevent that.
The ACLU tweet shows how wildly undisciplined and out of touch they have become. As Bill Maher put – doesn’t this issue really impact – you know – breeders the most.
I didn’t know the ACLU existed at all until, the other day, I read an article with a link to one of their tweets. I didn’t know whether they were talking in jest or not, but I can see now that they comedic value is impressive.
Yes, almost as if Titania McGrath had taken over their tweets.
They have woke themselves into obscurity. They were once a force for good, but now they are a sham.
Yes, I am saddened by what they have become – irrelevant and stale.
AMEN! I left them because of their shift from adherence to the Constitution to dogmatic advocacy.
Yeah, when I heard about that tweet, I knew that the ACLU had formally jumped the shark! I mean, gays and lesbians more affected by a pregnancy-related issue than heterosexuals????
It’ll be all those lesbians having coerced consent sex with Trans lesbians.
No they jumped the shark when they supported book burning.
”Like most medical procedures, abortion is a solution to a problem.” Except that most medical procedures are done to save a life, not take one.
Reading the article inspired me to propose the following Three Point Plan for abortion:
Lower class women: they get all the abortions they want, on the NHS or Medicaid, up to the moment of natural birth. Margaret Sanger would approve, I think. Something about the “elimination of the unfit.”
Middle-class women: Just apply the good old common law: no abortions after “quickening.”
Educated class women: No abortions for you, honey. If you are practically perfect in every way then you would never descend to the indignity of an abortion. I mean, you would never make a mistake that would result in an unwanted pregnancy. Because you are special.
Indeed, and you could title this “A Modest Proposal”!
Very droll. And mostly I would agree, except I do know a woman who falls clearly into the third category and, guess what? Teenage pregnancy. Had the baby, and he grew up to be a lovely fellow. What a tragedy if he had been aborted.
Imagine that you’re the tyrannical leader of a very large authoritarian state, and have found yourself in charge of the ruthless cabal which seized power a hundred years ago. Imagine you’ve got geopolitical ambitions to be the dominant global power by the middle of the century. Imagine that you are very patient and prepared to play a very long game.
Imagine that you have no ethical standards: that you will do everything necessary to retain and project your power, even if – perhaps, especially if – it causes widespread human suffering and misery.
Imagine that you have an enormous well disciplined army, Air Force, navy and conventional and nuclear ballistic missiles sufficient to deter any pre-emptive military attack on the territory which you hold, and enough credibly to threaten a hot war with your main global rivals but probably not sufficient to win it, at least not yet, and certainly not without huge risk to your domestic power.
Imagine also that you have an even bigger army of millions influencers on the ground inside your rivals’ societies – in their governments, media, corporations, universities etc – and in the international organisations that you’ve spent decades infiltrating, who are willing and able to extract info on what makes your rivals’ societies tick, where the political fault lines are, and to form a united front to push whatever narrative you give them to push. And imagine that at home you also have an even bigger army of real and automated social media trolls and bots ready and willing to do the same thing.
Now, you think to yourself, how can I weaken my rivals and strengthen myself, geopolitically and militarily? Well, maybe be we can persuade our targets to harm themselves. Let’s con them into shutting down their societies and productive capacities and following our authoritarian lead by collaborating in the development and potential release of a nasty virus and exaggerating its threat to life. Oh, and look, they’ve decided to inject all their soldiers with a novel concoction that has no long term safety record – shall we do that too? No, let’s pass on that and see how it plays out for them first.
But that’s not enough. What we really want to do is weaken them politically, and even more so, demographically. How can we make it so that they are at each other’s throats *and* that they stop having so many children? Well, there’s this really divisive set of issues around the role of women, sexuality, gender, family, and abortion. And there are people on both sides of various debates around those issues who seem to respond really aggressively, and without much by the way of analytical thought, to some very basic cues. And there’s this particularly angry group of people on one side of the debates who seem to believe in unfettered freedom from any form of unchosen obligation – including from using (or even having) female reproductive systems – who don’t seem to be able to think at all for themselves and who therefore seem particularly gullible and ripe for manipulation. Perhaps that’s because they’ve never learnt the moral and philosophical grounding on which their individualism is based.
Anyway, whatever, let’s connive with corporate interests who might benefit from widespread medical intervention where none is necessary to encourage and help facilitate that angry group to bring the demonisation of womanhood and life-giving pregnancy into the mainstream of those societies’ politics. Let’s try and poison our rivals’ political discourse to destroy any prospect of nuanced, complex, compassionate, and respectful discussion and in particular to make it very hard for anyone credibly to support the idea of strong family life in which two parents raise grounded happy children who grow up to be strong, resilient, responsible adult individuals who know who they are individually and culturally – and who would, if necessary, be willing to fight to defend themselves and their societies against future attacks.
Sounds like a plan to me. Thoughts?
This stinks of paranoia but is nonetheless quite plausible. Folks will not find consensus and agree on a common interpretation. Great idea that’s doomed by individual egos.
I’m not sure about the extent to which the hypothetical thought experiment that I invite here reflects the truth in the real world. It would be naive, in my view, to believe it is not at all true in any way (given the indisputable evidence that hostile nation states have attempted, with quite some success, to interfere with the domestic politics of their liberal democratic rivals); it would be equally naive to believe it explains everything about what is happening. I humbly hope that it just might provoke some of those who might read it to think again, ask slightly different questions, and look at the debate from a fresh perspective.
You have described the devil.
I have indeed.
Wang Huning, is that you?
Why is there such outrage that the US Supreme Court have decided that it is down to the legislators of the individual states in the Union to decide what abortion rules should prevail in their states? Are they against democracy? Don’t they think they can win their arguments in most if not all states? In Europe there are countries that ban abortion and most restrict it to the first 12-14 months. Different rules prevail in different states. The population of each state can seek to change their rules through democratic means rather than the diktat of 9 individuals which was what Roe v Wade provided. What is the problem?
As for the ACLU’s tweet suggesting lesbians and male gays are disproportionately affected by the demise of Roe v Wade – completely ideological bonkers. It is like Stonewall captured by mad ideologs.
I hae yet to see a country that allows abortion any later than 9 months 😉
Quite right. My edit button seems to have disappeared for this post. I will have a go later.
Well, if you’re an aficionado of Peter Singer’s version of “bioethics,” you would extend abortion well into the postnatal period.
Of course it is not “against democracy”. There is legitimate discussion and concern about (say) whether the right to complete bodily autonomy is covered by the US Constitution. Neither the States nor the Federal government are entitled to pass law that breaches the Bill of Rights.
It is the SC’s job to devide this of course, but it is widely regarded as shocking that they have intepreted the constitution this way.
Personally I would not support legislation that banned abortion, but I find it hard to believe that the US Supreme Court’s decision should be regarded as shocking given that Roe. V Wade relied on a contorted interpretation of the Constitution that even such a progressive as Ruth Bader Ginsberg regarded as legally unsatisfactory. Where the Constitution has not clearly set out the rights of citizens it is for the legislature that answers to the people to set out the rules. We manage this in Europe without drama. Ireland recently amended their rules in this area through legislative means without the intervention of 9 wise individuals to guide them.
Well stated.
I, as many Americans, envy the European system. I hope that America will one day resemble the EU, and Texans can make laws for Texas the way Poland does for Poles, without anybody calling anybody else a Nazi or a communist or a baby killer.
“ without the intervention of 9 wise individuals to guide them.”
I am sure you realise that the UK has a Supreme Court, and that we are part of ther EHCR? They are, procedurally, pretty much the precise equivalent of the 9 wise individuals you refer to.
You have it backwards. The U.S. Constitution is not a grant of enumerated rights. It is a grant of enumerated powers and the extent to which those powers can be used to infringe upon individual liberty.
Yep. There was a hooley in the Dail the day the vote was in. Why on earth would grownup legislators celebrate the right to abortion? They were delirious with delight.
The SC examined the line of precedent and rightly concluded that there was not, and never had been, a constitutional right to abortion. The Left’s anger is that their tactic of reading into (ie inventing) the constitution ‘rights’ that were simply not there has been undone. Rights not enumerated by the Constitution are reserved to the States. For fifty years, the Left imposed its position on the entirety of the US by circumventing the democratic process and legislative process. Like the adolescents they resemble, they are no sulking that their bullying tactics are no longer effective. Now politicians and people can address these issues through the institutions in the States and arrive at considered outcomes that better reflect the views of their electorates. Abortion until birth which Roe v Wade permitted is barbarous and far more extreme than all bar one or two communist states’ positions.
Was it also shocking when they overturned slavery or segregation in schools?
Technically speaking, the Court never formally overturned the Dred Scott decision. It was effectively overturned by the Union’s victory in the US Civil War, and by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Much better legal scholars have long argued that Roe basically created a “right to abortion” out of whole cloth, and tortured the Constitution to do so. My feeling is that SCOTUS corrected a historical and legal wrong with their recent decision, and has returned the question to where it belongs: state legislatures.
And Brown vs. Board of Ed. did not establish a new rule at all. It simply overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson, which established the separate but equal doctrine, something that is not found anywhere in the relevant 14th amendment. Plessy was a terrible decision that had stood for even longer than Roe. Of the two examples you cite, one is not relevant at all and the other is logically more like the decision to overturn Roe than it is like Roe itself.
It was anti-democratic to have 5 judges create the legality of abortion in the first place. The SC does not create law, but it did in Roe.
It is always the left that actually does the anti-democratic work and then charges the dupes on the right with claims of being anti democratic.
5 individuals. It only takes a majority to shift the tectonic plates.
12-14 weeks?
Indeed. We seem to have a time limit on the edit button now so the obvious error remains incorrected.
Self destruction among the Left much like 1990’s GOP is not limited to abortion. Trump Derangement Syndrome has induced knee-jerk rejection of many policies which are widely popular among Americans — enforced immigration, energy independence, parental rights, etc. Trump’s platform almost mirrors that of JFK 50 years prior. Dems won’t recover until Party leadership turns over to a new generation that’s capable of defining their own vision beyond the shadow of Donald J. Trump. Until then we’ll have a scarecrow at point with Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete pulling up the rear.
Brilliantly put!
And whereas I may quibble with the author on whatever line in the sand society puts on the fetal age limit or restrictions for a “safe, legal, rare” abortion, America has just entered the phase where reasonable adults can now negotiate on “OK, so how rare is rare?”
The Academic Left has raced headlong for extremism over the last decade in a mind-blowing attempt to blow itself to smithereens and take Western Civilization down with it. It’s awoken a sleeping giant.
Just as with other issues, I think that a lot of masks have fallen over the past few years. The current hysteria on the Left in the US over this is quite revealing, and that’s a good thing.
The author mentions the “Repeal the 8th” campaign in Ireland. This refers to the fact that there was a constitutional ban on abortion in Ireland (“The 8th amendment to the Constitution, in fact), which prevented women from having an abortion often in life-threatening situations. We were told that abortion did not belong in the constitution, that it was better off left in the hands of legislators. The electorate accepted this argument, repealed the said amendment to the constitution, and the legislators subsequently legislated for a limited regime where an abortion can be had up to 12 weeks without reason given, albeit that a three-day waiting period is required between an initial consultation and a termination.
Now I am very confused. I personally accept the argument that a constitution is too rigid a place for the regulation of such a thing as abortion. But now pro-abortion campaigners are telling us that the US constitution is precisely the place for abortion to be regulated, and that it should be taken out of the hands of lawmakers.
The left always argues for the courts to create laws when they can’t win legislatively. But they accuse the right of being anti-democratic.
The same could be said of the right, some times. Dred Scott? Plessy v. Ferguson? Recent decision on EPA or gun control?
“It’s a battle that is poorly conceived and ultimately unwinnable in its refusal to acknowledge the truth: that abortion access is vital and necessary, but abortion itself is not a good thing.”
Seems a reasonable stance, I wish it didn’t happen but it will. Safe, legal and rare is something we can compromise on.
Why are some pro-choicers celebrating something that surely is a tragedy?
Good article, but why do pro-abortionists never engage with the key issue – is there another human being involved here? Clearly they believe there isn’t, so why not provide evidence for that view?
Because that acknowledgment might just be too cognitively dissonant even for the most ardent pro-aborts. That’s why the pro-abortion movement HATES prenatal ultrasound; it reveals a very uncomfortable truth.
I am anti-abortion myself, but in fairness this is not an issue that can be decided by evidence. Pre-conception there is pretty clearly no human being involved. Once a baby is capable of surviving independently (which could be a fair while after birth, in one way of seeing it) there pretty clearly is. In between it is a matter of how much human dignity and rights are due to an n-week-old fetus, as balanced against the rights of the mother – and how either choice will influence how we otherwise organise society. That is a matter of ethics and morals, not of facts.
The notion that the value of a baby in the womb depends entirely on the attitude of the mother carrying it is unpersuasive: if a mother is assaulted and the unborn child is killed, that assailant may be guilty of foetal homicide subject the laws of the jurisdiction. Yet if the mother decides to abort that child, no crime is committed. Either an unborn child is of intrinsic value or it isn’t. Abortion is at a minimum a momentous act to be carried out in rare and limited circumstances.
Oh, I agree with you. Just that it is not something that is susceptible to evidence.
If abortion had been as available, legally, in the fifty years prior to Roe vs Wade in 1973, then how many great artists, singers, musicians, scientists, pilots, engineers, and mothers might America have missed out on?
How many familiar names may have never come to be? One or two such names might today even grace the sleeve cover of record albums in one’s collection. (Many a musician was born in miserable or unfortunate circumstances).
How many interesting lives have been lost in the last fifty years? Since 1973? Lives lost to humanity.
“No woman sets out to have an abortion; nobody wants one on its own merits.”
I suspect that this statement will not age well.
plus it is worthnoting that the Mississippi law at the heart of Dobbs is less restrictive than the law in several European nations such as France or Finland (though in the latter there seems to be considerable winking at people skirting the law)
In Mississippi it’s a bit more complicated: https://www.sos.ms.gov/index.php/press/mississippi-abortion-notice-published-administrative-bulletin
But ‘safe, legal, rare’ is fundamentally a contradictory position to take. It can’t just be a bit wrong for big people to kill small people. So it’s inevitable that this position will eventually eat itself. And you straw man the pro-life position here.
This demonizing of pregnancy fits in with the new new genre of books about the misery of pregnancy and motherhood. They are part of a feminist project, almost, of contradicting the “myth” of motherhood as generally desirable and ultimately enjoyable. They dwell on the physical trauma and exhaustion of being a mother and even seem to demonize the baby itself as a greedy little monster whose non-stop needs reduce previously strong and independent women to helpless and resentful slaves. In this context, it’s not surprising that the more radical dialogue around abortion is that rather than being “rare” it should be as frequent as possible and that it is a choice made with eagerness and confidence that will allow a woman to get on with her life. A feminist I heard interviewed last week said she is “sick and tired” of hearing abortion described as a “sad choice” or something that women often wish that they didn’t have to do. “No regrets” seemed to be her mantra.
Good point. It is also now being subtly
woven into the ‘climate change emergency’ hysteria. It is evident that there is a growing coalition of forces talking down motherhood, pushing for abortion on demand and disparaging the notion of family and the having of more than one, perhaps two children. These are not accidental coincidences. It’s concerted
Exactly what I’ve been thinking. And let’s not forget the downright hatred of men that is only growing stronger. It seems ridiculous to say “I have a right to have sex, get pregnant and choose to abort” while in the next breath saying “men should have no say in this issue and should in some cases be forced to have vasectomies.” If you hate them so much, why are you having sex with them? I wish people could take a step back and recognize the ludicrousness of it all.
I have always found it interesting, as an outsider, that in the US the abortion debate has seemed to be an all or nothing issue. One side would be happy to see a woman go through with an ectopic pregnancy (where both she and the baby would die) and the other appears to think hat an abortion is on a par with having a rather unsightly mole removed (and if it grows again have it removed again, and again and …). These two extremes bewilder me. I am of the opinion that abortions are a moral issue, if one has an abortion it has a moral dimension, and is a failing rather in the way that we often fall short in other areas of life; it doesn’t make a woman evil, and sometimes that woman can be in a very difficult position where not to have an abortion would require a high level of courage. I have never been put in the position, so I don’t know how I would fare, and I do not judge those who have had to make this decision, however, I do wonder about a woman who has had multiple abortions.
The number of pro-choice people who believe that mothers with ectopic pregnancies should be allowed to die is few to none, I would suggest.
Like many other hot button social issues in America, I would argue that the news media have done a lot to paint at least one side (pro-life) as the extremists, when in fact I suspect that a goodly number would grudgingly accept some access to abortion, just with restrictions (as in most of Europe); many polls confirm that opinion among Americans. But the pro-abortion movement has walked away from “safe, legal, and rare” and is increasingly extreme in its demand for NO restrictions, even up to abortion well into the ninth month. And virtually NO ONE I know who’s pro-life would argue for restrictions in cases where a mother’s life is truly in danger, such as ectopic pregnancy. That’s more extreme than even Roman Catholic teaching (see “Double Effect”).
This exactly. The pro-life lobby is portrayed as demons who insist on birth regardless of terrible frailties/deformities, forced conception, or danger to the mother. There seems to be little nuance to this debate at all.
One of the more intriguing aspects of life is the attitude of those living with what the norm would call disabilities. Two that came to my attention in the UK recently. The Deaf who are not happy at having their children undergo surgery to make them hearing and the wonderful Ellie Simmonds, who has Dwarfism, and who argued passionately that her Dwarfism was what made her life what it is and what she is. So she was unsure she could comfortably support a process that would eliminate dwarfism.
The second life in this debate is often overlooked, and the fact that a ‘disabled’ child is considered sufficient excuse to abort seems not up for discussion. Yet many a time a surviving disabled child on becoming the adult is delighted to have avoided abortion.
One thing that is surely agreed upon, is that pregnancy can in many circumstances be a terrifying thing for a mother, and courage is needed. Perhaps we should be looking for more ways to support and nurture courage to carry to term if it is fear that drives the choice of abortion. At least before opting for what in the short term appears to be the best option – abortion or getting rid of the problem.
The consequences of that may come back to haunt the woman in those circumstance for the rest of their lives. The natural abortion of miscarriages certainly did so for my mother yet there was nothing that could be done until science had progressed enough to deal with her body’s rejection of a male foetus.
I’m not sure it is so black and white there. Roe v Wade permitted abortions til full term – essentially infanticide – and not only
to preserve the mothers life. Some Democrats are pushing to permit it post partum. This is why some pro-life types express such horror . The US pro-abortion position is much more extreme than that of all European nations. This is also why the debate appears so visceral- the constraints one sees in Europe are not necessarily in place.
The political left are quite, quite mad, and very sick indeed.
Well, yes.
I firmly believe that it’s the woman’s choice. I have no objections to abortion however I think the supreme court was right. My understanding is that they haven’t banned abortion they’ve simply allowed individual states to make up their own laws. That seems a good thing to me.
Couldn’t you argue that it is more democratic or at least a finer grained type of democracy? I’m British and live in the UK but I wondered if something similar could happen in Europe. Poland has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe but suppose the EU as a whole decided that was wrong. The EU is already penalising Poland because it objects to various aspects of it’s laws. This against a democratically elected government in Poland. I think it’s right that the individual states in the US should make up their own minds.
By the way there was an interesting article on this subject by the “Free-Range Economist”
https://dvwilliamson.substack.com/p/overturning-roe-v-wade-overturns
There is nothing inherently undemocratic about having a constitution that embodies fundamental human rights that no transient government can remove.
Not wishing to change the subject, this was at the heart of my objection to EU membership: various governments of the day made major changes to our constitutiuonal franework (including transferring lawmaking powers to foreign entities) without explicit democratic consent.
Basic rights – such as bodily autonomy and the freedom of speech – should, I think, be encoded in a scheme that is far, far harder to change than is it merely to chaage the complexion of a government.
I see what you mean but isn’t there an argument about whether the fundamental human right applies to the mother or the baby if there’s a conflict? Is that the reasoning behind the Supreme Court Decision – that the constitution doesn’t resolve the issue and therefore it’s up to individual states to decide?
I agree with you about the EU.
Well, that’s the point – what gets aborted is NOT a baby by any accepted scientific and reasonable standard. If it were, then SCOTUS would also need to immediately shut down the meat industry, for the animals murdered to make your steak/chicken nuggets are far more sentient and complex than 99% of human foetuses aborted by women. The only way that an aborted foetus = baby is if you subscribe to Christian metaphysics, which has no basis in scientific fact. These are the same people who would proscribe masturbation for the reason that it constitutes sin. The claim that the abortion debate is about babies’ rights is a cynical diversion from the real conflict over who gets to control women’s bodies, women themselves or Christian theologians. SCOTUS’ ruling essentially tells us that it’s okay for state legislatures (themselves gerrymandered to death – and therefore not really democratic – with SCOTUS blessings) to forfeit fundamental individual rights and autonomy in favour of baseless religious dogma.
I am not sure you are correct about there being no baby in the uterus until it makes an appearance at birth. Modern scientific instruments can reveal a creature with all limbs present, moving in the womb, sucking a thumb, reacting to sounds and so forth. What’s metaphysical about that?
I’m afraid that this is a very poor argument. What is aborted has all the huge potential of a human being, and, as Michael Askew points out, shows plenty of signs of ‘sentience’ in the womb. We stomach abortion (though it’s best not to think too hard about the actual process of the tearing to pieces of the unborn child in later abortions), simply by adopting an ‘out of sight (in the womb) out of mind’ view of this growing human being. Unless they are rape victims, women can avoid conception if they CHOOSE to do so. If they then don’t want the baby they have brought into being, they can have the child adopted. An ‘unwanted child’ then becomes deeply wanted. And I’m intrigued by your statistic of the 1% of aborted human foetuses who apparently ARE ‘more sentient and complex’ than the animals slaughtered to provide food. Perhaps you can explain that?
“…what gets aborted is NOT a baby by any accepted scientific and reasonable standard.”
I am not opposed to abortion rights; I believe they should be endoded in a bill of rights or equivalent. But I also think your argument is absurd.
“The only way that an aborted foetus = baby is if you subscribe to Christian metaphysics, which has no basis in scientific fact.”
This is just plain wrong. Leave a wart on your finger as long as you like, it will never become another human. Leave an ‘unborn’ embryo / baby in situ for about 9 months and it will almost always do so. The courts recognise loss of potential life when they award damages to people injured. Women who have miscarriages usually grieve – whether they subsrribe to Christan metaphysics or not.
Oh dear! Herein lies the great delusion.
There is indeed such an argument (about whether the fundamental human right applies to the mother or the baby if there’s a conflict). How such rights are codified and interpreted is a tough challenge in a democracy that has representative and resposive government and also which has to guard against wild swings. It is arguably the reason the Supreme Court membership is selected the way it is: lifetime appointments at random intervals. The make up of the court, then, is supposed to reflect the ‘sum’ of opinion and attitude over longer ‘wavelength’ periods. [There are unusual circumstances, such as the number that Trump got the appoint in one term.]
Thed question of whether the SC was right is one on which everyone is entitled to an opinion, though some people know a great deal about constitutional law (I am not one of them). My guess is that a compelling argument for complete bodily autonomy will be found that will be accepted by the court, and at that point abortion rights will be reinstated. But it will take time to get there.
The left has no issue with destroying any institution that stands in their way. They want it both ways, they want their cake and the ability to eat it too.
Steve, that’s exactly what the majority on the SCOTUS meant in overturning Roe. The issue should have always been one debated and decided at the legislative level, and now the issue will return to the various states for that process to occur. A lot of legislators won’t like being on the hot seat, but at least in the USA, a lot of them at the state and Federal level have managed to avoid doing their job by lateraling such issues to the executive or judicial branches. Too bad for them, now they have to legislate. As an American, I think that federalism (the states being “laboratories of democracy”) is a good thing. If CA wants to be abortion Disneyland, and states like ID or TX want restrictions (not unlike most EU countries), have at it.
I have always been and remain pro-choice, but I still believe that the recent decision was the right one. The SCOTUS has always been an undemocratic feature and has been used many times to accomplish goals by judicial fiat that could never be accomplished by the legislative process. Sometimes the results are good and sometimes bad, but regardless of the ultimate result, bypassing the legislative process creates resentments that linger and suspend the process of public debate and consensus building, crystallizing the issue and placing it forever on a single, easily-toppled, pillar, eliminating the possibility of nuance, subtlety, and legislative compromise that could end with a broad, stable consensus that might endure changing political tides.
“And so, for a brief but magical moment, the Democrats could reasonably claim to be the party of fewer abortions and more shagging, while conservatives were left to take the deeply unpopular position that all non-procreative sex was bad, actually.”
How the actual f**k can you think this is the 2 positions. Just get married and relax about having kids, or not.
“that abortion access is vital and necessary, but abortion itself is not a good thing.” If only. Not sure why constant redefinition of nearly everything ends up in substantial excess of overreach ad absurdum. Why should women be forced into corporate drones because men?
I think Kat fails to understand that abortion, like marriage, free speech, religion and guns, had always been a matter left to the states until Roe v Wade.
After Roe, politicians could say whatever they wanted about safe, legal and rare abortions but what actually mattered was what the Supreme Court said. And for a generation and more the Court set no limits at all on abortion and aggressively struck down every state law that limited abortion in any way.
The Democrats cheered all this but they had no control over what the Court might chose to do in any given case beyond encouraging Department of Justice and the solicitor general in Democratic administrations to oppose any state action that limited abortion in any way. The result was abortion for any reason that might arguably diminish the mental of physical well-being of the expectant mother.
The Democrats always relied on the perpetual existence of a majority on the Court that could both tolerate and rationalize abortion on demand. But nothing lasts forever not even majorities on the Supreme Court.
The inconvenience of a pregnant woman being forced to drive a few hours to a neighboring state as a wrist -slapping for getting drunk and being too stupid or lazy (or intent on trapping her prey) to use birth control versus the death of a fetus — well, it seems like a sort of justice to me.
…I think Kat would say because it is not ‘good’ in and of itself.
‘
excellent article very balanced.
So the US Supreme Court has ruled that legislators should decide the abortion question, that it’s not for the legal profession to impose its view.
Huh. Seems reasonable and proper.
It seems that feminists want lawyers to perform an end run around politicians because it’s the easier solution.
Yes, it’s terrible. One must either support abortion up to birth or countenance obliging even rape victims to carry through their pregnancies to full term. All other positions are condemed from both sides.
Haters gonna hate, killers gonna kill.
Perhaps we should see the yet-to-be-born foetus as a Heisenbaby: whether it is dead or alive depends on the perspective of the viewer.
The people getting rich out of this will be lawyers as there will be a whole host of lawsuits.
As someone who was a teenager in the UK when abortion was illegal, I remember my best friend at school had an illegal abortion when she was 15. She was terrified of what her parents would do and thought they would throw her out. She miscarried in her bedroom upstairs and her sister put a pillow over her face so Mum and Dad watching TV downstairs wouldn’t hear her screams of agony. It’s something I won’t forget hearing about for the rest of my life.
Hard cases make bad laws.
Perhaps they should try ‘Safe, legal and frequent’ and see how that plays out.
The statement that one is “pro-choice” is to immediately cast the writer or speaker as one of moral and linguistic dishonesty.
Much like “Safe, Legal and Rare”, it’s a very effective PR tool designed to make the opponent seems unreasonable without exploring the issue.
You are either pro or anti the issue and you either have the moral certainty and strength to take a position on one side or the other or you do not.
The use of such PR phases immediately devalues the debate and, for my money, casts the user as someone of marginal intellect, no moral fibre or an odious blend of the two.
I am worried about this too. Right now, a majority of Americans favor legalizing abortion in some form. But Democrats are currently allergic to straight “cis” woman (if you’re not queer, you must be a Republican) and, remarkably, have not hesitated to re-frame the abortion issue as a trans issue. They are unlikely to want to find common cause with Republicans who back abortion rights but oppose trans women competing in woman’s sports. This greatly decreases our chances for getting national abortion legislation. Next Fall is likely to offer a number of races in which one candidate favors abortion rights but won’t say the word “woman” and insists abortion is an LGBTQ&c. issue, and the other candidate is happy to say what a woman is, and vows to protect woman’s sports, but opposes legalizing abortion.
Thank god for British feminists is my comment.
Great article and I agree 100%!!!
I used to volunteer with Planned Parenthood and donate to them, but since they came out against acknowledging the reality of female biology and started embracing the mindlessly cruel slogan “sex work is work” I have stopped donating and hope they are defunded. We can do better with our tax dollars than to fund another woke postmodern doctrination machine.
If Planned Parenthood wants to be a trans rights or anti-racist organization rather than a women’s organization, fine. But I will save my time and my donations for an organization devoted to the rights of women’s reproductive freedom – which should include the right to choose to have a child without starving to death as much as to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
It’s not a choice if you’re forced to terminate a pregnancy out of economic desperation.
I was kicked out of the Texas Handmaids for questioning the grotesque “shout your abortion” attitude and the science denial of trans activism (nope – men can’t have babies. Trans men can, but that’s only because they are female).
It’s no surprise to me that Roe was overturned. The Second Wavers were the only feminists with any real sense, and they’re the only ones who made any genuine improvements to the lives of women. When the “free the nipple” feminists started attacking Second Wave feminism, I knew Roe was finished – you can’t chop your legs off at the knees and expect to win the race.
Anyway, great essay.
Abortion is never something to celebrate, and the only thing worse than making abortion legal is making abortion illegal.
Hey, Kat. I am a fan of your fiction writing and your essays – so please hear me when I ask you to question your certainty about the “innocence” of Woody Allen and the guilt of Mia Farrow, her adult daughter Dylan Farrow, and her adult son, Ronan Farrow (I just watched your interview on “On The Edge”)
Like your mother, I was also an adult when the allegations against Allen came out, and like many fans, was disappointed but not surprised by them. Any man who would start an affair with his 15 year old step daughter would do just about anything (yes, she was an adult when the affair was exposed, but when did it start? When did he first have access to a young woman with a learning disability who lived on the street for years as a child prior to being adopted? I work with children like this – they are extremely vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation).
Everyone I knew at the time (Midwest working class & poor) laughed when Allen married Soon Yi as a PR move (For the rest of her life, this young woman would never have any other romantic partner except this ugly little man she met as a child who is decades her senior). No one I knew was stupid enough to believe this was “true love” and are still not stupid enough to believe it.
It can be painful for people who are educated and of the professional class to admit they’ve been fooled. It feels much better to roll your eyes at the untalented victims and refuse to identity with them – it feels so much more enlightened and “above it all” to side with the brilliant and the powerful. I get it. Please understand that I do get that. I would love to be able to do that, but I know too much about sexual abuse.
It is a very human tendency to side with perpetrators over victims. Because perpetrators almost always have more status than victims (the gap in status between Dylan and Woody are immeasurable), siding with perpetrators helps to preserve our status in the “tribe”.
Please consider the possibility that believing Allen over Dylan could be as much about preserving your ego and not wanting to admit that you enjoy the work of a sexual predator as it is about logic and reason (I am also a fan of Allen’s work, but he does demonstrate a contempt for sexual integrity and compassion in his movies – it’s fairly blatant and may be a reflection of how he genuinely feels – maybe).
If you haven’t already, please read Judith Herman’s brilliant book “Trauma and Recovery”; this book may help you to understand why the media portrayed Mia Farrow as the “hysterical woman” and Allen as the victim of her accusations. It also explains why so many people of a certain class believed Allen and ridiculed Farrow.
Anyway, as I’ve said, I am a fan of your work, but your interview made it clear that you don’t have a lot of knowledge about the dynamics of sexual abuse within families or of how society has historically treated those who make accusations of sexual abuse (the #MeToo movement is significant because it is an EXTREME historical anomaly – yes, it has gone too far at times, and that must be corrected – but the status quo prior to #MeToo has destroyed far more lives and done far more harm than any of #MeToo’s excesses – returning to that status quo is unacceptable).
Victims are very uncool, and you do have a “cool girl” persona of invulnerability.
Please don’t let that persona harden your heart to the vulnerable.
Sorry for the rant.
Take Care.
If I may?
Whatever Woody Allen did with Soon Yi, and at what age, the accusation is about molesting Dylan Farrow. Only the people present will ever know the facts for sure. The rest of us have to go by the evidence, and AFAIAC Woody Allen is not only not guilty beyond reasonable doubt on that particular count, he is innocent on the balance of probabilities.
As for Soon Yi, she has been married to Woody Allen for decades now. However dodgy the beginning may have been, surely that is long enough that one could ask her whether she is happy with the outcome. She is adult and sane. Do you really think that you know better than herself what is in her interests and how her life ought to be? Would you persecute Brigitte Macron for child abuse too?
“ Safe. Legal. Rare.”
If it’s safe and legal, why should it be rare?
Because if it’s commonplace you end up with millions upon millions of dead babies – murdered overwhelmingly because it was inconvenient to provide for them.
That was my point. If it’s safe and legal, it will never be rare, and ‘safe, legal and rare’ always had that likelihood built into it. It was never a moderate rallying point – it merely sounded that way.
Big money making business – baby parts. No one mentions this end of it.
You mean vital medical research with embryos to save lives don’t you.
This doctor doesn’t. He means counting how many arms and legs you have removed during the abortion, as leaving any baby parts behind may kill the mother too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXQBhTszpU
In that case we should round up the men who did a runner, jail them and perform a vasectomy on them so they don’t do the same to another woman. How does that sound,?
Why not just kill the man?
Perhaps the ultimate option for those who see abortion as a method of birth control should be a hysterectomy?
Many things are safe, legal, and rare:
Amputations, defamation suits, adoptions, …
Abortions would be if you had to pay a fortune to have one, which is the case with defamation suits, as for adoptions, I expect they are rare because abortions aren’t. Then finally amputations,IF the Tavistock clinic in the UK and the trans-movement gets their way, there are going to be a rise in amputations, mostly performed on young girls.
Because it should be seen as a vital service, but not one to which society turns other than when strictly necessary. So, legal and safe – but ideally rare as it would be better if contraception and sex education successfully minimised the incidence of abortion.
There were 682,000 live births in the UK in 2020. There were 211,000 abortions in the same year in England and Wales. We are a long way from ideally rare.
The same people who ban abortion also want to ban contraception.
Do the same people who demand abortion, demand abolition of the death penalty for murder?