Because it lies at the intersection of sex, faith and law, the issue of abortion embitters Americans whenever politicians debate it, no matter which side wins. That scenario is about to be repeated. You can bet on it.
In his Tuesday nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald Trump characterized the federal appeals court judge as in the tradition of the late Justice Antonin Scalia — who called the court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade to decriminalize abortion "an absurdity." Gorsuch himself has written that "no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life."
That is not going to sit well with many who marched in protest on Trump’s second day in office.
The anti-abortion and the pro-choice positions are mutually exclusive, making compromise impossible. The prerequisite to breaking a political impasse is looking at things from the other person’s perspective. That’s not going to happen in this instance.
It’s like Strother Martin says in the movie "Cool Hand Luke": "What we got here is a failure to communicate."
Each party to the abortion dispute rests its case on a hallowed document. For the anti-abortion side, it’s the Bible. For the pro-choice side, it’s the U.S. Constitution.
But those who are pro-choice say they can’t find the word "abortion" in the Bible. Those who are anti-abortion counter that they can’t find the word "abortion" in the Constitution.
Both sides are right.
Confronted with that sticky issue, both sides would respond: "Maybe the word isn’t there. But the concept certainly is."
March for Life: Pence speaks as abortion opponents rally in shadow of Washington monument Tribune news services
The politically ascendant anti-abortion movement gathered Friday for a triumphant rally on the National Mall, rejoicing at the end of an eight-year presidency that participants said was dismissive of their views.
Vice President Mike Pence told the crowd at the March for Life that anti-abortion…
The politically ascendant anti-abortion movement gathered Friday for a triumphant rally on the National Mall, rejoicing at the end of an eight-year presidency that participants said was dismissive of their views.
Vice President Mike Pence told the crowd at the March for Life that anti-abortion…
(Tribune news services)
Each side attaches a virtual adjective to the virtual noun they think justifies their position. Pro-lifers envision the Bible pronouncing abortion "bad." Pro-choicers envision the Constitution proclaiming the right to choose whether to have an abortion "good."
Each side justifies its insertion of the missing words on the assumption that historic documents must be interpreted. Read literally, the documents don’t fully convey the authors’ thinking. That’s like what a press secretary told reporters about Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley’s famed malapropisms: "Don’t print what the mayor said. Print what he meant."
I support Roe v. Wade. Yet I can’t conceive the Founding Fathers as proto-feminists. I can’t imagine James Madison and a few other delegates huddling at the Constitutional Convention whispering: "We agree that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, but some of these guys aren’t ready for that. So we have to write it in very subtly."
The latest battlefront in the abortion wars: Regulations to bury or cremate fetuses Alexandra Zavis
Tucked against a fence in an East Los Angeles cemetery, a long, flat headstone reads: “In memory of the 16,500 precious unborn, buried here, Oct. 6, 1985.”
The aborted fetuses had been found in a metal storage container repossessed from the Woodland Hills home of a former medical laboratory owner…
Tucked against a fence in an East Los Angeles cemetery, a long, flat headstone reads: “In memory of the 16,500 precious unborn, buried here, Oct. 6, 1985.”
The aborted fetuses had been found in a metal storage container repossessed from the Woodland Hills home of a former medical laboratory owner…
(Alexandra Zavis)
That credits Madison and his buddies with a conception of women’s rights far beyond their 18th century contemporaries. William Blackstone, the famed legal scholar, credited married women of that era with rights, of a sort. "The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing," Blackstone held.
Yet when writing the Roe v. Wade decision, Justice Harry Blackmun assumed that, somewhere in the Constitution, there must be a covert message to the future about abortion rights. Blackmun thought it might be tucked into the 14th Amendment, or maybe the Ninth.
To me, Blackmun’s approach sounds like a jazz musician noodling around on a piano looking for the notes to a melody running through his head. Strangely, that feels OK. The mind often hands political debates over to the heart.
Blackmun’s interpretive method is mimicked by some who base their moral code on the Bible. They mentally edit the text, scratching out passages that conflict with their beliefs.
According to the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus said: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Yet liberal Protestants accept divorce, and allow divorced persons to remarry.
On the other hand, Catholics and some evangelical Protestants base their opposition to abortion on a curious passage in the Old Testament. The Book of Exodus says: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: He shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
To put it wetly, that sounds like our laws covering fender-bender accidents: A man’s property — the baby in his wife’s womb — has been damaged, so he is owed financial compensation by the guy who caused it. Yet from that proposition, some abortion opponents deduce that pregnancy can’t be terminated even to save a woman’s life.
I just don’t get it. I’m sure pro-lifers are stumped by my position. That’s why, should we meet, our conversation would be boring.
I’d say: Ultrabet "A woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy!"
They would reply: "Read your Bible!"
I’d counter: "I have!" Then we’d repeat that call-and-response dialogue, probably to the end of our days.
rgrossman@chicagotribune.com
Related articles:
Anti-abortion activists have newfound optimism for this year’s March for Life
New report: Abortions in U.S. drop to lowest level since 1974
Trump isn’t truly pro-life
Before Roe v. Wade, the Jane Collective served Chicago women
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.