Excellent point about the hypocrisy, Kenji. But it's not clear to me what that ought to tell us.

I would have thought that if there's a current reticence about sex it follows a period of decades where the subject has been talked about in an extremely open (to the "too much information" point) fashion, if not necessarily consistently honestly.

But supposing your right that sex needs to be talked about (again?) in an open and honest manner, what is it that you think needs to be said?

The R's have the "wolf by the ears" with the abortion issue. The issue is necessary to hold their political advantage, but if they soften their grip, the religious conservatives are likely to turn on them.

Few people remember that when Reagan was Gov. of California he once supported state funded abortions (presumably because it reduced the cost to the state of paying for pregnancies for the poor). When he decided to make his run for President, he figured out that he needed the religious right in his corner to get elected. Now the R's are stuck with that big tent. They can't afford to offend the prolifers (just like D's can't afford to offend the NAACP on affirmative action).

Although I agree that an open discussion about the use of condoms and access to birth control would result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, alarm bells start ringing throughout the Bible Belt whenever government instructions conflict with their moral guidelines.

I suspect Roe v. Wade will be further eroded in my lifetime. Although it protects fundamental rights that I believe in, I must admit that it was a poorly reasoned case. I'm bracing for the day when states are allowed to outlaw second trimester abortions.

Sad, but not the end of the world.

<h1></h1>

Outside of serendipitous accident, the only way to solving a problem is, in the first step to recognize a problem exists, and in the second step to identify its growth and the seed that germinated it. Often the seed is consumed and spent in its process and by the time the outgrowth is extended enough to see and trace along, reaching back to its origin, every vestige of the seed is obliterated. If not, where there's seed to see, then sterilize it, which sunshine does nicely. (That metaphor suggests setting our problem(s) in the open to be seen, admitted, confessed, confronted.) If instead the seed is gone, then pull out the problem by its roots, (erase the earliest mistake we find and start over at that point), or if the roots are in the systemic, as a parasite on a host, then bend the growth or break it off, (if the problem is irremedially in the nature of an individual or a group, then change the direction of development, break the habit, succor from a different source).

Seeing the general in the specific, an example:

a woman's right to choose is under great threat

I see it otherwise. A woman's right to choose is supported and sustained unthreatened in democray's majority. It is democracy which is under great threat, and that from the tyranny of this administration by its dictatorial oppression. Spend no energy on supporting democracy's flower but apply all energy in uprooting and cutting off the poisonous weed clinging on the subject to choke it, and disengender the kill seeds from the fertile bed.

We lost the election.... It's time to get involved.

Most respectfully, we did not lose the election -- it was stolen. The importance of seeing behind the outcome back to the proper cause becomes vivid in another example: When our car keys are missing, maybe we lost them and maybe someone took them. Decide which before deciding what to do to recover them. When our possession is really valuable, such as the car itself or a full ballot box, it is less likely we 'lost the car' or 'lost the election' and quite likely it was stolen for its resale value. Don't buy crime's proceeds.

And, we are involved, here and now. (I'm writing and you're reading this -- that's involvement.) The seed idea is Where to be involved. My positions: For the election, Ohio's Blackwell must give public testimony under oath, to questions raised. Bring the seed out into the sunshine. For the 9/11 hoax which is the root of the war dictator's power, same thing: Administration figures must give public testimony under oath, separate and standing, (especially ones who in the event were hidden unseen in a bunker), to questions raised. Refusal to "faithfully" submit, and not "preserve" Constitutional open democracy, is violation of oath of office.

Being involved in diffuse side issues, (Social Security 'battles,' abortion rights 'battles,' concentration camp internment without arraignment 'battles,' etc.), is only and only meant as bleeding away energy involved at the root. Until the roots and seed of nine eleven crime is pulled from its underground tunneling and brought to light, no involvement in paring and pruning the shoots and branches can ever arrest the 'take-over and dominate' pathologic creed of certain bushes ... which pull strain on democracy's flowerings with the unmistaken and unmistakeable intent to kill it.

(Those of us involved are stronger by coordination, and are coordinated by a common language. Just so, define the 'neo' prequalifier in 'neo-conservatives' as meaning "nine eleven op;" substituting those words for that one in our thoughts and talks directs more involvement at the roots. This administration lied in dictating us to war and wanton killing. The seed lesson in that is that they lie, lie and kill by their nature, that's their character, and no extent of restraining trellis or traction can change that in them -- it's in their heart.)

Of course, as charges collect between the good earth and the Cloud-Nine offworld, there's always the possible random lighting bolt of serendipity.

And, as I've witnessed sowings reaped: First the blade, then the ear, then the full blade in the ear.

<h1></h1>

Very interesting story yesterday on OPB Oregon Considered, although I couldn't find it on the website.

When Allison Frost (I think it was) asked the woman from Right to Life (not Gail A. but someone else) about common ground between opposing sides on this issue, the woman sighed into the microphone and then said "I guess they both believe they are doing what is best for women". When asked about contraception as a way to limit abortion she said her group was split on that.

I think a very effective tactic is to make these people be specific. My response (due to my knowledge and involvement) to the general question "Do you support parental notification" is "Depends on how it is worded--I supported Wisconsin's Abortion Prevention and Family Responsibility Act of 1985 but opposed SB 1126 back about a decade ago which would have created a cause of action called "failure to adequately notify". I know one reason the bill died is that tort reform advocates opposed the bill for the same reason".

Most who oppose abortion don't know what to do with that response. Some seem more driven by hatred for anyone who says "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land" than by real concern for actual children after they are born. There was a Catholic nun on TV not too many months ago saying such people who don't show concern for poor families and parent/child nutrition are merely "probirth", not prolife

And if a a friend or relative (like my nephew in law) says something like "how could anyone work for Planned Parenthood and be a religious person because abortion is against the law of God", there are a couple of good responses. The first, obviously, is that the origin of Planned Parenthood was about contraception. And not everyone realizes that prior to the Griswold decision of more than 30 years ago (right of privacy meant states could not outlaw married couples being in possession of birth control)there were places where it was illegal for families to plan children if contraception was illegal. Is the attitude of RTL that any married couple should be prepared to have children within the first year and they shouldn't get married if they can't provide for children within a year after a wedding?

The other option is "Oh, so you are saying that at the moment of conception a woman loses the right to make certain medical decisions--is that what you are saying? ". Many who oppose abortion have not thought that far.And they get uncomfortable being asked questions about male responsibility in case of pregnancy.

Finally, statements like "it is so nice to hear you are pro-life, tell me about your volunteer work with Moms and kids" really knock some people speechless.

If they think that protests are "pro" anything, telling them that the dictionary definition of "pro" is supporting and of "anti" is opposing sometimes makes them stop and think. And being told that there have been Democrats who oppose abortion and capital punishment and nuclear weapons while supporting programs for children and families (Hubert Humphrey being the best example) really startles some of them.

Thanks, LT...Those are some excellent tools!

I wish I could say something encouraging about the upcoming abortion battle, but I can't. The mechanism for overturning Roe has been around since SCOTUS made the decision. The basis of Justice Blackmun's decision is the right to privacy emanating from the penumbra of the Ninth Amendment. Declare that the right to privacy either doesn't exist, or that it is more limited than we've interpreted it to be, and poof!, there goes Roe. The decision rests on the willingness of the judiciary to accept abortion is needed in a modern technological society. I think that the Bushites will do something to put their imprint on domestic policy the same way they are putting their imprint on foreign policy with the war on Iraq. The focus during the election was putting gays "in their place." But, it could easily shift to affirmative action, the income tax or abortion. I don't believe the Right can accomplish regression in all those areas, so I expect the one or two that have the most chance of success to be selected.

Mari, thanks for posting this entry. Perhaps I will shake myself out of the post-election doldrums and write a follow-up about the legal issues in Roe.

BTW, deos anyone know what became of the name plaintiff? The last I heard she had taken up with Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion.

Thanks, Tim. I was hoping Norma had desisted, but apparently not. She is one of those people who succumbs to attention and (pretend) adulation. The anti-abortion movement has given her the validation she believes the choice movement did not.

I agree with you that state constitutions can guarantee abortion. Though many laymen don't realize it, a state constitution can offer greater protection to individual rights than the national constitution. The question will come down to willingess of legislators to stand for something that might be unpopular in many states. I suspect that some regions, such as the South, would have swaths that outlaw abortion. We could end up with women having to travel across the country or to another country just to get an abortion.

Jenson and LT make some interesting points, including the suggestion (if I understand them) that there may be some common humanitarian ground between people on opposite sides of the abortion debate. Nevertheless, their points are poorly framed owing in large part to their misunderstanding of how the majority of their opponents see the question.

For example, Jenson writes as if the information he or she provides ought to be something of a revelation to “goody goodies.” He/she says “Solve the problem of deadbeat dads and I guarantee that abortions would go down… is that Christian enough for you?” Probably most Christians would answer, “Well, duh!” -- along with non-Christians who have similar ideas about personal responsibility and “family values.”

It’s part of the regular program of Christianity to insist on sexual responsibility, and the responsibility of fathers has been given great emphasis within that program in recent years, exactly because of the problem Jenson mentions. Who has a stronger, more unequivocal position on this subject than they do? (I don’t at all mean to imply that there aren’t great numbers of non-Christians and non-religious people who have similar views about responsibility.)

I don’t know where Jenson gets the idea that the majority of abortion opponents are “suburban yuppies.” I’m sure there are much larger cohorts in lower income socio-economic strata. But there’s still a grain (maybe a half a grain) of truth in the suggestion. People who have an ethic of sexual responsibility are not going to be affected by something they’re not going to do! Also, intact families are less likely to fall to the lowest economic strata – and for the reasons that Jenson cites.

Jenson doesn’t say how he or she would solve the problem of deadbeat dads, but at least calls to attention the need for personal responsibility: “Take care of your family and the people around you and you won’t have this problem…”

Jenson also implies, though doesn’t emphasize, the responsibility of the women who “need” an abortion. No such blame appears in LT’s post. Rather, abortion foes are to be made guilty for failing to take responsibility for these women’s difficulties. LT has some clever ideas for embarrassing abortion foes and exposing some supposed inconsistency. She thinks highly of the example of the nun who sardonically quipped that “such people who don’t show concern for poor families and parent/child nutrition are merely ‘probirth,’ not prolife.”

But the nun’s complaint is fatuous. It may say something about a deficiency of charity on the part of the people she criticizes, but it says nothing about whether they’re right or wrong on the issue of abortion. If abortion is wrong then presumably the nun would be happy that these somewhat uncharitable people (if she’s right) at least got that important question right.

But consider the logic of the nun’s statement in light of Jenson’s critique: There is a high incidence of child abuse in the lower economic strata of our society. If one doesn’t show “real concern,” presumably by financially underwriting programs like the nun’s or volunteering, can one not reasonably still be against child abuse?

Certainly there’s nothing wrong with encouraging charity. But whether and how much people ought to divert their own families’ resources to solving problems of others’ making is a separate ethical question than whether abortion is right or wrong and what people in general ought to think about it in the context of social policy.

Furthermore, there’s something a little twisted about seeking to shame people who are most likely kept quite busy with the serious responsibilities that they have embraced rather than focusing – as Jenson rightly does – on those whose irresponsibility has actually caused the problem.

Jensen:

"Solve the problem of deadbeat dads and I guarantee that abortions would go down."

If, by this you suggest that more aggressive enforcement of unpaid child support will magically transform uncaring men into caring men, I don't see the connection. First of all, the child has already been born, so the re-appearance of some extra money in their home simply makes their life easier. Second, women who make choices to become pregnant by irresponsible men are not magically become wiser about their future sexual selections. Third, some men (in my experience, perhaps as much as 10%) slip into deadbeatness because the mother so aggressively drive them away.

Fundamentally, I think it is a question of character -- and maturity. And where do teenagers learn that?

I have met some of the male responsibility people (Promise Keepers comes to mind). Most of them are older, with established families.

How do we reach the young?

Does anyone have any stats on the numbers of women who, having had an abortion, choose to not have one again? It is a very tough personal decision to make and live with.

And don't forget that women get pregnant through no fault of their own -- rape or incest. Not likely that the male in that situation would ever be welcomed back in the life of the woman, deadbeat or not.

Perhaps rather than fighting the battle over Roe, progressives ought to aggressively fight for increased access to contraception knowledge and supplies.

I see several misconceptions here. Most women who have abortions are middle-class. A high proportion of fathers of teenage girls' babies are grown men. (0ften in their 20s, or older.) Teenaged pregnancy has actually decreased. Furthermore, there is no correlation between being religious and not having premarital sex, and, possibly, an abortion. The subject is much more complex than many people think.

Mac Diva,

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

Some of what you say seems uncontroversial. For example, age difference between male and female sex partners would account for "a high proportion" -- perhaps even a majoity "of fathers of teenage girls' babies" being among males of majority age (i.e., "grown men" of 18 or older.)

Also, declining rates of teenage pregnancy have been widely reported.

However, I doubt it's the case that "most women who have abortions are middle class." Do you have a good source of abortion statistics that includes economic background? From what I've seen at the CDC Web site, that information isn't included in the information (which is supplied voluntarily by patients). Perhaps some extrapolations could be made from geography and ethnic background, but I think the CDC data readily available is by state rather than county or municipality , so one can't see what the statistics are for prosperous versus poor neighborhoods.

Regarding race, white women have the most abortions, but at a rate disproportionately small compared to women of other races. Probably there are both more rich and poor whites than other races, but it's probably significant that black women have three times as many abortions and non-white/non-black women have about twice the number as white women. The CDC also says that a certain number of hispanic women report themselves as white (reasonably enough).

With regard to your your contention that "there is no correlation between being religious and not having premarital sex, and possibly, and abortion," I suspect that you're overstating the point. It wouldn't surprise me that huge numbers of religious affiliated young people indulged in pre-marital sex. I think such practices were winked at in rural America to a significant extent historically.

At the same time, it seems clear that, since abstention requires effort, those who have religious principles that encourage them not to indulge are more likely to abstain. Of course now it becomes extremely hard to measure. Religious affiliation might be reliably recorded, but "being religious" (your phrase) is not. So while high numbers of religious-affiliated young people might indulge, it seems likely that at least some number is still more likely to abstain in greater numbers than those with no religious affiliation (and no social pressure against pre-marital sex). But those young people who are genuinely religious -- i.e., they take the principles of their religion seriously --are far more likely to abstain.

I would imagine that in the national population there is likely to be a greater degree of variance between fidelity to religious principles on a geographic basis owing to cultural factors. Perhaps some of this could simply be called hypocrisy, some of it more defensibly the result of peer pressure resulting from the surrounding cultural environment. It is interesting, however, to compare two places where the cultural environments are fairly clear. New York City has its pockets of rural Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, etc., but the general cultural environment is permissive. Idaho is pretty homogeneously Christian (including a high proportion of Mormons). Abortion rates in New York (2001 statistics) were 767 per 1,000 live births. In Idaho they were 36 per 1,000 live births (the CDC makes the comparison).

That is an astounding disparity, and one that clearly demonstrates a religious factor in play.

Hillary Clinton weighs in against Mac Diva (for what it's worth!):

"Mrs. Clinton said that faith and organized religion were the "primary" reasons that teenagers abstain from sexual relations..."

www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/politics/25cnd-clinton.html?ei=5065&en=2ea311e2ab8121f3&ex=1107234000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

I wouldn't post material if there wasn't evidence for it. However, I notice that Anthony's outlook seems to be more an effort to exonerate people he identifies with, i.e., whites, conservatives and the religious, than information. Since he has previously held forth on the 'cultural factors' he believes make some sorts of people better than others, I can't say I'm surprised.

I will use the example of comparing alleged (he offers no proof) abortion rates in Idaho and NYC. The differences between Idaho and NYC extend well beyond religion. The Pacific Northwest has a comparatively low level of immigration, older population, and a less brutal kind of poverty than NYC. In addition, it is much easier to get an abortion in NYC. As Tim and I were discussing above, areas with high rates of conservatism, such as Idaho, purposely make hostile environments for family planning, including abortion. Planned Parenthood has had to wage continual court battles in Idaho to keep its clinics open and funded. The option of an abortion in that state is less available, both because of the difficulty family planning clinics have operating there and pressure on would-be patients not to have abortions. It would be interesting to know how many women from Idaho travel to neighboring states for abortions. There may be a worst state to compare to NYC in regard to abortions, but Idaho is among the most restrictive.