Holding The Line

by digby

Firedoglake, Pandagon and many others have been writing about NARAL’s inexplicable decision to take a “neutral stance” on one of those move-the-goalpost pieces of legislation which are designed to normalize anti-choice talking points for future consideration:

“…the awkward phrasing of “20 weeks past fertilization” classifies a woman as pregnant even before implantation of the egg in the uterus. That’s the type of legalese that could redefine certain types of birth control, like Plan B, as abortifacients.”

I do not think NARAL understands its function anymore. It is not a politician from a conservative district who won with only a few percentage points and needs to pander. It is not a political party that needs to gloss over differences to come to consensus. It is an advocacy organization. Its job is to hold the line and then move the debate their way.

Ezra explains it so that even the comatose Washington establishment can understand it:

One thing groups like NARAL have a tendency to do is accept vaguely acceptable-sounding or politically popular bills in an effort to remain in the center, believing their group’s moderate credentials — see also their early endorsement of Lincoln Chafee — somehow important.The alternative strategy — practiced by the NRA, among others — would be to wage all-out war on even these minor encroachments, thus fighting to shift the center left.

This strategy of trying to join the center rather than move it is a damaging one. If NARAL were totally dogmatic and absolutist, that would make life much easier on Democrats who could occasionally show their “centrism” by voting against NARAL-opposed legislation that actually doesn’t much matter. Instead, however, to demonstrate independence on choice, Democrats end up supporting much more onerous and repulsive legislation, because just aping NARAL’s priorities line doesn’t win them any points in the media. Elected politicians, after all, often have to remain “in the center.” Independent interest groups, on the other hand, can spend their time trying to redefine what “the center” is.

That’s exactly right and NARAL’s decision illustrates something very important about a new and disturbing dynamic on capital hill.

Democratic leaders cited NARAL’s position when they decided against trying to influence the vote. Democratic leadership aides said yesterday that they are leery of Republicans charging that they are already out of touch with mainstream values, even before they assume power.

That means NARAL is now in the business of giving cover to Democratic Leaders who are trying to bullshit pro-choice liberals into thinking they aren’t selling them out. (We saw this same ploy in Connecticut earlier this year.) Apparently, it sees itself as an inside player helping the Democrats keep from having to go out on a limb on the abortion issue. They are allowing themselves to be used as a shield against their most ardent supporters.

That is, to say the least, a very unusual strategy. They have to know they have dramatically lost credibility with those of us who consider the right to choose a fundamental matter of personal liberty. And if NARAL doesn’t represent us, it represents nobody.

On a purely political level I’m sympathetic to the Democrats’ desire to finesse the issue of abortion. It would be just terrific if everyone would just leave it alone so we could deal with issues that don’t make people feel all icky. If the right would respect the status quo, that might even be possible. But anyone who thinks that they can quiet them with a few compromises like this hasn’t been paying attention. They will not rest until they have given the fetus full citizenship, repealed Roe vs Wade and outlawed abortion. It’s not like they are hiding their agenda.

This vote didn’t matter all that much except to the extent it showed how this is going to play out in the future. If the Democrats need to sacrifice something on the alter of “bipartisanshipandcentrism” it’s looking like they are prepared to negotiate away ever more pieces of the right to choose.They have decided that being pro-choice, despite being a majority position and one based on fundamental principles, is not “mainstream.” It’s now a bipartisan poker chip and NARAL is apparently willing to ante up.

If you want to see what’s really up behind the scenes, check out the 95-10 plan which came out of the Third Way and Democrats for Life camp and is being endorsed by good guys like EJ Dionne. (This evangelical outreach plays into it too.)

The problem is that tucked in the details of their compromise plan that features all kinds of neat stuff about providing contraception for poor women and better sex education, there are a bunch of pernicious anti-choice and anti-science elements like federal money for ultrasounds in clinics and (incorrect) information about fetal pain among other things. (And you certainly see nothing about expanding beyond the 14% of American counties that now provide abortion services.)

There’s no free lunch, right? Acces to birth control and sex ed comes at a price and that price is the idea that women can make this decision without first being forced to sit through a bunch of propaganda designed to make her feel ashamed and then being “offered” an ultrasound that shows the adorabletinybaby inside her tummy begging for its little life, after which they will also “offer” her some anesthetic for the poor little tyke before they go ahead and kill it. (If she’s still selfish and cruel enough to go through with it, that is.)

What we are seeing is a new pincer strategy, with a slow, relentless mainstreaming of the liberal pro-life(and cowardly politicians’) rhetoric which is intended to make abortion a source of shame and guilt so they can tut-tut about it in church — and the ongoing onslaught of the conservative anti-choice agenda which is intended to enshrine the fetus as a full human with rights that trump the irrelevant vessel it lives inside of. The woman with an unwanted pregnancy is getting squeezed by everybody now.

“NARAL” kind of sounds like “NRA” but they aren’t even in the same league:

In May 1977, the NRA began a rightward shift after controversy erupted within the organization over the possibility of banning “Saturday night specials.” In the so-called “Cincinnati Revolt”, more than 2,000 NRA members met in the Cincinnati Convention-Exposition Center until nearly 4 AM. Harlon Carter, a member of the NRA’s Executive Council who had been fired as political action director, was elected the new leader of the NRA.

Since this change, the NRA has consistently opposed any proposed legislation that purports to limit access to guns by law-abiding citizens.

In the late 70’s it was a matter faith among liberals that handguns would be outlawed and other guns would be strictly regulated. It was just a matter of time. Within 20 years the NRA had killed the issue. Gun control is no longer even on the menu outside the biggest cities and even then it’s dicey.

The NRA said that Americans had a right to bear arms. Period. They didn’t bargain or negotiate. And they were successful because when your raison d’etre is protecting a fundamental right, you have to be absolutist or you lose the moral authority of your argument.

Abortion is a messy fight, nobody disputes that. I’m all for contraception and sex education and all the other things that these abortion “reducers” are pushing. But it appears to me as if that’s mainly a political ploy to appease the pro-choice crowd into believing that if they just give up a little here and there, the basic right will be preserved. It will not happen that way. With all this talk of “reducing,” and “rare” and fetal pain and snowflake babies and all the rest, they are helping the right prepare the ground for a full outlawing of abortion if Roe is overturned. They aren’t even trying to make the fundamental argument anymore.

I’m a good Democrat and I’m also someone who likes to think strategically. As I argued above, I think it’s a huge mistake for advocacy groups that represent fundamental rights to ever negotiate (leave that to the politicians.) But I could theoretically support any strategy that would ensure a woman’s right to choose. On the substance, however, this is no more subject to compromise to me than habeas corpus or torture or slavery. It defines what it is to be an autonomous human being. If every woman in this country doesn’t own her own body then she is not free.

I’ve never trusted politicians on this issue and now it looks like we can’t trust one of the premier pro-choice advocacy groups either. They are no longer effective. But there are plenty of others that can use my money and I’ll be sending it to them rather than NARAL from now on. We need savvy people doing this right now.

.