THE TRAP. As a follow-up to J.'s post below, I actually have a certain grudging respect for the position expressed by Brownback. The rape and incest exemptions favored by many anti-choicers give away the show; they make it clear that what's doing the work is not the moral status of the fetus but the moral status of the sexual behavior of the woman. Although Brownback is wrong, I think that his position is actually more coherent and defensible than the marginally more "moderate" one. From a strategic perspective, I would abjure the "Rapists' Fatherhood Rights" label not so much because it's inflammatory -- anti-choicers dish it out, they can take it -- but because it's a trap. The obvious response to this objection is to "compromise" by supporting rape and incest exemptions. The gain to pro-choicers here is negligible; in practice, states determined to prevent (some classes) of women from obtaining abortions can create procedural hurdles that make them essentially worthless, and it also makes an immoderate position (a de facto ban) look moderate. Of course -- and I don't mean do suggest that J. and I disagree here! -- the fact that so many anti-choicers favor rape and incest exemptions is instructive, but the implication of this impulse is not that there should be rape and incest exemptions but that abortion should be legal.
--Scott Lemieux
