Adding Consent to Choice in the Abortion Debate

The abortion debates are characterized by confrontation, sides polarized one against the other, as James Taranto notes in his essay on “The ‘Roe Effect’.” What is more, most agree, including Taranto, that Roe is a “study in unanticipated consequences.” In Taranto’s case, he defines that study as the “nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion.” Specifically, he analyzes the practical consequences of abortion as one that reduces the number of eligible liberal voters, which then has the unanticipated political consequence of reducing the number of voters who are likely to support abortion rights. This linking of the practice of abortion with the politics of abortion has generated concern among a number of prominent national analysts. At the forefront of these thinkers are not only those who look at the demographic consequences of the framing of abortion rights in Roe on the Due Process Clause guaranteeing individual privacy in relation to the state, but also journalist William Saleten. In his perceptive book, Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War, he buttresses the view of those, such as Taranto, who see the advantage in the abortion debates tipping inexorably toward the pro-life side. In the case of Saletan, however, he attributes the unanticipated positive consequences for opponents of the Roe decision as due to the failure of pro-choice activist groups, such as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) to develop a proactive vision of women’s reproductive rights. Instead, he argues, even the most staunchly pro-choice activist groups were cast early on into reactive, defensive positions, developed as a serial response to the politics of the moment, the day, or the place of particular campaigns. The result was that, beginning in 1986 in Arkansas, when Bill Clinton was governor, groups such as NARAL repackaged abortion rights to appeal to conservative voters. Abortion rights activists, “instead of talking about women’s rights . . . portrayed abortion restrictions as an encroachment by big government on tradition, family, and property.” The consequence of this political tactic has not been a ADDING CONSENT TO CHOICE IN THE ABORTION DEBATE