Multiple Choice

The nomination by the Republicans of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the Vice Presidency has thrust in America’s face the uncomfortable question of abortion. It is not a matter that we handle well.

Many Americans really don’t know what they would do when confronted with the question of carrying a child with Down’s Syndrome to term. What they do know is (1) it is a choice they never want to have to make, and paradoxically, (2) if they are ever in the situation, they want to be able to make a choice. They may even be willing to extend that choice to women not in an economic position to pay for an abortion themselves (some out of common decency, and some because they’ve calculated it would be cheaper in the long-run).

I’m not so sure that many Americans are that pro-choice on the question of a pregnant 17 year-old. And when I say that, I am speaking not only of "pro-lifers".

First of all, there are some parents who, whatever their position on abortion, have problems with anyone administering a medical procedure on their child without their knowledge.

But, I am going further than that. In the circles I travel in, I know many parents who feel that they would never permit their 17 year old to carry a child to term, no matter how the child felt about the matter.

I think calling such a position “pro-choice” verges upon the Orwellian.

The Palin family (presuming arguendo, the possibly erroneous proposition that Bristol Palin was the one who made the “choice” to carry her child to term) has shown an admirable moral clarity in living by their beliefs; unfortunately, this clarity burns so brightly that they are willing and eager to impose those belief upon others who do not share them, as well as upon those whose beliefs will not really be clarified until they themselves are put to the test.

Some may actually prefer having the government make these tough decisions for them, as it will absolve them of moral responsibility for resolution of the initial question.

What it will not do, however, is absolve them of the moral responsibility for all that follows this original decision, which is why we have terms like “abuse“, neglect”, “delinquency” and “child support.“

Given the lack of moral clarity and consensus, one would think that abortion would be an area where politicians would tread carefully, if at all. Would not it be better to leave such decisions to individuals? Groups who would like to change behavior could instead expend their efforts in the marketplace of ideas, and if successful, their efforts to legislate would be rendered unnecessary by their efforts to persuade.

Politicians generally share the public’s ambivalence. For all the hue and cry about the courts usurping of the legislative function, abortion is one of those areas where, for legislators, judicial preemption is the equivalent of blessed relief. And the more room left for politicians to actually act for themselves, the more they tend to make the matter into a pig’s breakfast.

In much of the heartland, legislative efforts in this area are a matter of creating test cases by legislating just beyond the edges of the latest court decision. The result is that, in many states, Roe v. Wade is already a matter of history, with little left of the actual right to choice but the box it came in. In South Dakota, doctors at the State‘s one and only abortion provider must read women a statement about the medical consequences of abortion that is largely fictitious.

Here in the northeast, matters are different, though abortion providers still face acts of harassment which serve to restrict their number, and local enforcement often varies with the culture of the area. Having a little experience in the matter, I can vouch that police in Brooklyn Heights and NOHO tend to be far more zealous in protecting the rights of patients not to be harassed, while the precinct in Sunset Park tends to be more interested in protecting the rights of intrusive demonstrators.

Funny that.

While there are pols who take principled positions on either side of the issue, many tend to have muddled stances owing to personal ambivalence, political expedience, or both.

The tendency is New York, especially in areas where there is not a consensus on the matter, is for pols to say they are “personally opposed” to abortion (usually unexplained is what being “personally opposed” actually means to a male politico), and then to either despair of Roe v. Wade as “the law of the land”, or reluctantly embrace it, and then go though what issues remain as if they were some sort of a Chinese menu, with little thought about intellectual consistency.

For an example of how this plays out in actual practice, there is probably no better example than the 13^th Congressional District on Staten Island and Southern Brooklyn.

Both candidates, Steve Harrison and Councilman Michael McMahon today qualify as “pro-choice” on the broad question of legalized abortion. And both have been heard to say they personally oppose it (whatever that means).

Harrison seems in the last five years to have taken a personal journey on the issue, from near one extreme to near another, although his campaign has taken pains to obfuscate about this until matters came to a head. McMahon seems always to have supported abortion’s basic legality, whatever his rhetorical hedges, but to have been far less clear on some of the individual issues a legislator actually faces, and to have been inconsistent when lack of clarity was no longer an option.

One would think they would then both have an incentive to keep the issue off the table.

One would seem to be wrong.

The candidate NOW endorsed was Harrison, citing “McMahon’s record opposing abortion”.

McMahon’s campaign understandably went mad: "It defies common sense that NOW has endorsed Steve Harrison…Mike McMahon has.. been a consistent proponent of women's issues, Steve Harrison's only constant on women's rights has been his inconsistency since he ran as the pro-life candidate for City Council in 2003.”

Harrison’s campaign initially tried to stick to the party line, and bloggers on its behalf have been especially aggressive, branding McMahon as "pro-life" and denying Harrison was ever anything but 100% "pro-choice", and calling anyone who says otherwise a liar. Typical is “Daily Gotham’s Mole333:

“Harrison is 100% pro-choice. Ask him publicly and you will get a straight answer, publicly and unequivocally, on the issue. I know many who personally find abortion disturbing but are 100% pro-choice. I believe Harrison falls into this category and I have heard him say so many times…May I suggest that Gloria Steinem has carefully considered Harrison's stand on choice and found it perfectly acceptable.”;

and

“His stance is NOT wishy washy on anything. Hearing it straight from his mouth, he says up front that banning abortion will kill women. He says it up front that banning abortion is anti-Life. So there is no wishy washy. The fact that he clearly doesn't LIKE abortion is natural. Who does? Who, fundamentally, thinks abortion is GOOD except in the context of saving women's lives…So you are dead wrong on the abortion issue. Face up to that.”

Confronted with a statement Harrison gave in 2006 to the Brooklyn Paper ““I fall somewhat in the middle, I think a woman has the right to choose, but not to rely solely on abortion for birth control.” A Harrison supporter stated that this was an expression of being “personally opposed” rather than a legislative position, even though the use of the word “right” would seem to imply just the opposite.

Also implying the opposite was a lingering web-post from Harrison’s 2006 Communications Director, Roy Moskowitz, who back in 2007 before Harrison’s campaign decided to re-write history, said, “Steve is not a right to lifer. He believes that there should be some restrictions when it comes to abortion…”. Others at the time echoed that line, before it looked like Harrison would face a primary opponent with a perfect "pro-choice" record (Dominic Recchia).

But the McMahon folks had apparently done their homework, confronting Harrison with evidence of his past stance not available on the web.

As a result, Harrison has had to acknowledge reality in his usual candid manner, “I took a centrist position with respect to abortion. I always said there was a right to choose, but there were some exceptions that had to be made..”.

This is an interesting way of putting it, since, as reported in the Staten Island Advance, Harrison has said as recently as 2003 that the exceptions to when a women should be allowed the right to choose are in each and every instance where her life is not in mortal danger.

Thus, by Harrison’s logic, Sarah Palin, who holds exactly that position, could qualify as “pro-choice“, but somehow, Mike McMahon is still “pro-life”.

In fact, according to the Advance, when confronted with the truth of McMahon’s actual position, Melody Drnach, NOW’s “Vice President of Action” “bristled” when pressed about what specifically in McMahon's record prompted the organization to deem him as "opposed to choice."

Actually, though, I’m glad Harrison changed his position. He even has a coherent rationale, if not for the switch from his original stance, then at least from his less than perfect "pro-choice" stance of two years ago. “I took a centrist position with respect to abortion. I always said there was a right to choose, but there were some exceptions that had to be made,” Harrison said. “Since then, I’ve recognized that I cannot hold that position and translate it to public policy for a variety of reasons.” Explicating, Harrison added,  "I realized the only way you can be fair to a woman is to say everybody can have an abortion or nobody can have it, then you have a situation where a woman will die, so it has to be legal for everybody."

Folks, this is called progress. It actually sounds sincere, even if, given the prior stonewall of denial, I suspect that it is more the product of opportunism.

But, let me go further. It does not even matter if the reason for Harrison’s “evolution” is purely self-serving, for that is progress as well. Apparently, pro-choice forces have now become formidable enough that even politicians on Staten Island have revised their positions to cope with the new realities.

The whole purpose of organizing on an issue is to get politicians to change their positions to your side. Persuading them is nice, but scaring them will do just as well. And while it is nice to have electeds who do your bidding because they actually agree with you, smart advocates understand that they are just as obligated to be supportive of politicians they scare into submission.

However, given that McMahon started out far more pro-choice than Harrison, and essentially seems to hold something like the stance Harrison had as recently as a year ago (not that either campaign displayed enough clarity on the matter to know for sure), it would be nice if Harrison and his campaign showed a little less self righteousness about Harrison's newly acquired and still squeaky feminist credentials.

But Harrison at least seems to understand his current stance.

Exactly what the parameters of Mr. McMahon’s current stance is, beyond “pro-choice” and “personally opposed”, seems to be a well-guarded secret (his campaign is invited to clarify and have me print a correction).

Moreover, Mr. McMahon’s method of reconciling this dichotomy, something I think intelligent politicos are at least capable of attempting, seems to have been more a matter of splitting the difference than intelligently wrestling with the issue.

Take McMahon’s disgraceful “No” vote on a bill requiring pharmacies post information concerning emergency contraception.

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.

Councilman, as I once said to Governor Pataki, sometimes splitting the difference does not put you in the middle ground; sometimes it puts you in the ground, or leaves you groundless.

The gyrations of Michael McMahon and Steve Harrison, two politicians who seem to have little commitment on the issue of abortion beyond landing in a safe place, serves to underscore why this issue should be resolved in homes, churches and medical offices, rather than in legislative chambers.