The dichotomy in politics between what people say they favor and the contents of their actual agenda is often striking. Take the so-called “Right to Life” movement. As an article by Russell Shorto in today’s NY Times Magazine makes clear; the real agenda of many “Right to Lifers” isn’t preventing abortions, but preventing sex. That is not to say this is the agenda of all “Right to Lifers”. I have a gay Catholic friend, who when confronted with the dichotomy between his opposition to abortion and his sexual libertarianism, always smiles and says “blow jobs don’t kill babies”. And certainly there are outspoken "Right to Lifers" like Nat Hentoff who strongly advocate access to contraception and comprehensive sex education as part of an effort to prevent abortions.
Encouraging the use of birth control to reduce the number of abortions certainly seems like something everyone, outside the lunatic fringe, should support. I have no desire to, and see nothing productive in, consigning the leadership of America’s largest religious denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, to the fringe, but it appears, that by their actions, they have done it themselves. Moreover, they’ve done it at the cost of “life” itself. The recent story concerning the firing of an unmarried pregnant Catholic school teacher reveals that “life” is not the highest priority for some in the Church’s hierarchy. If preventing abortions (a mortal sin) was really seen as more important than preventing pre-maritial sex (a venal sin), then they would have publicly given this brave young woman a medal and sent her out on forty state speaking tour. The message they’ve chosen to send instead will not encourage many young women to “chose life”.
The “anti-sex” movement has a two-pronged attack; the first prong is publicly highlighting and focusing public discussion, wherever possible, on the most difficult and troubling issues in the abortion debate like late term abortions and parental notice. Whatever one thinks about these issues (and I tend to the most extreme "pro-choice" positions on both), the “pro-choice” positions on these issues are largely unpopular in middle-America, and except for the faithful, require defenses full of complications and nuance. Meanwhile, the “anti-sex” folks push their real agenda in private, whether it be decimating international AIDS prevention efforts, undermining the integrity of the Food and Drug Administration, or preventing easy access to emergency contraception.
They are able to get away with such tactics largely because most Americans, including a substantial number of unyielding "pro-choicers", are basically ambivalent about abortion. While many "pro-choicers" openly question the sincerity of politicians who, in Bill Clinton’s words, say that they want to make abortion “Safe, Legal and Rare”, "SL&R" is clearly what most Americans desire.
But, many politicians who embrace the middle position clearly don’t get it. George Pataki stands out as one who mouths the words, but can’t dance to the music. As a state legislator, Pataki was a near-perfect “Right to Lifer”. As Governor, he was nearly perfect in the "pro-choice" position. Now that he’s running for President, he’s felt a need to pander to the right. But, finding himself with a record supporting even the least popular "pro-choice" positions, and not really understanding the issue’s moral dimensions, he’s grabbed the first pander he could find, and vetoed a bill facilitating easier access to emergency contraception. So, George Pataki now finds himself virtually the only politician in America who supports Medicaid abortions, but opposes access to emergency contraception. With this veto, George Pataki has managed the neat trick of actually being “pro-abortion” and “anti-choice” at the same time. Pataki's position on emergency contraception would be a stunning example of baldfaced opportunism if it weren't so pathetically wrongheaded. Not one "pro-lifer" in Iowa or New Hampshire will be moved to support him because of this stance. "Pro-choicers", who previously liked him, have been alienated. But, most pathetically, the sincere middle-ground types should be the most appalled. Those who actually mean it when they say they want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" look at emergency contraception as a keystone of this concept; emergency contraception prevents abortions. Governor, sometimes splitting the difference does not put you in the middle ground; sometimes it puts you in the ground, or leaves you groundless.
So what does “Safe, Legal and Rare” (SL&R) mean?
1) No woman should be forced to have a child.
2) No woman should be forced to have a child, or an abortion, because, contraception, regular, or emergency, or information about either, was not readily available.
3) No women should be forced to have a child because she can't pay for an abortion.
4) No woman should be forced to have an abortion because programs were not in place allowing her a helping hand so she would be able to care for a child if she chose to bear one.
The one New York politician who actually seems to be giving "SL&R" some thought is Tom Suozzi, who recently implemented a plan in Nassau County which has the support of both Planned Parenthood and the local Catholic diocese. However, since he introduced the plan, Suozzi’s drawn so much fire from "pro-choicers" outside his county that he’s gone mum, refusing even to clarify his stance on emergency contraception. He should do so at once. His whole campaign relies upon people believing that he is “the real deal”. He cannot be the real deal if he is unwilling to facilitate access to pharmaceuticals which would do more to prevent abortions than any six priests. He should explain that a right to have an abortion is meaningless to a woman who wants to keep a child, but cannot find the resources which would allow her to do so. He should explain that "pro-choice" means making sure that people actually have choices. He should explain that there is nothing wrong with teaching kids that abstinence is the only fool-proof method of contraception, but that it is also foolhardy not to teach kids about birth control. By his continued silence, Suozzi only facilitates the Spitzer campaign in its efforts to unfairly paint him as a social reactionary. He needs to show New York that he is a real Clinton Democrat.
Perhaps New York, which is safely "pro-choice", is the wrong place for a candidate to thoughtfully outline the "SL&R" platform. But "pro-choicers" who dismiss "SL&R" lightly ignore its benefits in ensuring that “pro-choice” means real choice; and, even if they dismiss it as a political tactic for New York, they should be mindful that it remains the best political strategy for ensuring the availability of safe and legal abortions in most of the country.