MY LEAST FAVORITE PHRASE: “The abortion issue.” I don’t know exactly why, but this particular phrase always feels, to me, as if the speaker were annoyed that he even had to talk about this distasteful, best-left-unsaid, you’ll-never-convince-Those-People, why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along albatross. It feels distanced, as if abortion is best understood as a “wedge issue” or a polling question rather than a decision by a woman (with varying levels of “help” from family and friends) to take her unborn child’s life. So whoopee, now that the Republicans have their Senate majority, it’s time to talk about The Abortion Issue. Or not talk about it, as Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds would prefer. It is merely One Issue Among Others, and the least pleasant to discuss, so… how ’bout some tax cuts?

Anyway, here’s a rambling post on various thoughts sparked by this Washington Post story.

Amy Welborn summarizes my gut reactions. And Peter Nixon rightly points out that technology, federalism, and public opinion combine to make a pro-life strategy that focuses solely or even primarily on overturning Roe vs. Wade pretty much useless. However, the pro-life strategies are more varied than Nixon implies (public opinion is slowly, slowly swinging our way; there are somewhere between three and four thousand pro-life pregnancy centers in the USA, as compared to just over two thousand “abortion providers”), and overturning Roe is good for the unborn and even, I think, good for the Republicans (as the default less-pro-abortion party). Some scattered thoughts on both halves of that statement:

Among the most important things you can do to prevent abortion: Reach out to women in need. (In case it’s useful for people, here’s a quick list I wrote with characteristics of a great pregnancy center.) Support marriage-based education. Feminists for Life’s college outreach program is one of the best efforts–it changes minds, and also provides immediate practical help for women at high risk of abortion. Be a mentor–work with young people. Young women–and their boyfriends, very much so–need someone they can talk to when they’re facing an unwanted pregnancy. And they need someone they can talk to about their relationships, or simply someone to provide a model of responsible and loving womanhood or manhood, so that the unplanned pregnancy doesn’t happen in the first place. If you’re an employer, be sensitive to the needs of families; I’ve seen several high-achieving women feel like they had to choose between their children and their future, and no matter which they choose it’s not pretty.

What happens on the Supreme Court does change minds. Court decisions can’t stop abortion in America (no kidding…), but they can help create a climate in which respect for the unborn is considered standard rather than extreme. Certainly what we have now is awful–the highest court in the nation has signed its name to some truly destructive ideas about the nature of law and the nature of human rights. Clearing that junk out of the way will help us promote a culture of life.

And: Roe shouldn’t only be overturned because its practical policy result is evil. It should be overturned because it’s bad law. (Its successors, especially Casey, are worse, but they really only play out the logic of Roe.)

Mickey Kaus puts it well, and since he doesn’t have permalinks, I’ll quote his entire post: “What Bold Bush Agenda? Part 3: In the course of hyping the coming ‘philosophical revolution in the courts,’ conservative court-watcher Bruce Fein admits (WaPo reports) that ‘the courts will let stand the landmark Roe v. Wade decision because undoing it would be “too wrenching.”‘ So how big a ‘revolution’ could it be? … Update: Instapundit gives the Court’s likely refusal to overturn Roe what is to me a semi-ominous gloss, arguing that even conservatives don’t want to set the precedent that Court-declared rights can be overturned by political and popular ‘pressure.’ Upholding Roe, in this theory, emphasizes the Court’s ratchet-like infallibility — so if conservative judges now declare some new ‘property’ rights, don’t try to get them to change their minds! … The result could be a sinister form of constitutional log-rolling — you get to create your far-fetched rights if we get to create our far-fetched rights. Rights pile up like silt, everything becomes a clash of rights, and as a result everything gets decided by the courts. … That’s why democrats (and Democrats) should be for overturning Roe.”

As I argued in my Jewish World Review column, it is possible to argue against Roe without reference to the moral evil of abortion. If those who are pro-life band together with those who are solely pro-Constitution on this one, the pro-Roe forces are left with a decidedly difficult argument to make. The pro-Roe side then must stake its claims on Americans’ willingness to affirm the moral righteousness of abortion–something I don’t think Americans are ready to do–whereas the anti-Roe side can discuss both the wrongness of abortion and the rightness of the Constitutional order. Politically, a debate in which “follow the Constitution” Republicans face off against “abortion–it’s in the fine print somewhere!” Democrats would be a big PR bonus for both the GOP generally and pro-lifers generally; philosophically, such a debate is desperately needed in this country; morally, of course, such a debate is only a way station, a moment in the unending task of building the culture of life. But I think it’s a moment we need right now, and I think we can get it.