There are some good points in Will Saletan's latest missive to pro-choicers and pro-lifers -- in particular, it's good to see him identify a crucial contradiction with abortion "centrists," who simultaneously emphasize the importance of limiting abortions to the first trimester and support any number of arbitrary regulations that make it more difficult for women to obtain them in a timely manner. His overall project reminds me of deficit commissions from people who have proved conclusively that they don't care about the deficit.
In the abstract, it might be possible to generate a strong consensus by combining a legal regime of legal, safe, accessible abortions with measures dedicated to reducing unwanted pregnancies (and hence the number of abortions). But in the current American political universe, this deal isn't going to happen. As people who favor abortion criminalization become increasingly concentrated in the Republican Party, the GOP has if anything become more hostile to providing adequate support to poor mothers and expanding access to contraception. The evidence is overwhelming that given the choice between reducing abortion rates and regulating female sexuality, American pro-lifers will choose the latter. Any analysis American abortion politics that doesn't recognize that the organized opposition to abortion is not just about protecting fetal life but is bundled up with a whole set of reactionary assumptions about gender and sexuality isn't going to get you very far.
The other problem I have with Saletan's argument is that (at least) No. 1, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 of his points to pro-choicers consist of arguments for more moralist hectoring of women. I suppose this isn't surprising; without the unattractive conservative moralism, his suggested compromise would just be the mainstream pro-choice position. But this focus is a fairly obvious pundit's fallacy. Whatever one thinks of Saletan's position on the merits, it's hard to see the causal logic where repeatedly criticizing women who have abortions for reasons Saletan considers inadequate is going to increase support for the legal access to abortion that is a central part of the alleged compromise. When solutions to seemingly irreconcilable political conflicts magically involve endorsing one pundit's preferences almost across the board, it's a pretty safe bet that we're not really talking about forging consensus.
-- Scott Lemieux
