I’ll lay my cards on the table: I’m pro-life. In fact, I’m so pro-life that I think conservative women should add nine months to their date of birth whenever anyone asks how old they are. (Men should do it, too, but the idea’s funnier with women.) Full disclosure: To me, transforming America into a nation that’s not only pro-life legally, but where the pro-life argument has captured the hearts and minds of the citizens, is a good thing.
And I think we can achieve that outcome. Seriously! But we’ll have to change our tactics.
What I’m about to propose with dismay and offend some pro-life readers — and for good reason: The sanctity of life is a moral issue. And there’s something to be said for never, ever compromising on moral issues.
After all, whenever you’re forced to choose between two evils, it necessarily means your choice was evil.
It’s an intellectually consistent vantage point; it’s logical and straightforward. Besides, there’s something noble and awe-inspiring in staking morally intractable positions and damning all consequences. It’s heroic. There’s a reason why it’s been the go-to storyline in a million-gazillion Marvel movies.
Captain America himself said so in the comics:
Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the whole world tells you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the River of Truth, and tell the whole world — “No, YOU move.”
Of course, this tends to work best as a plot device, sowing the seeds of the hero’s tragic demise. (Indeed, in the example above, Captain America later regretted his position and was shot in the head, but there were secret clones and he lived… eh. Let’s not get into it.)
In politics, there’s seldom a clean choice between perfection and evil. All the easy, politically popular proposals have already been voted on! Instead, each new piece of legislation has its strengths and minuses, and the evaluation is more of a balancing act.
If you only voted for “perfect” bills, you’ll never vote yes on anything. (Which, come to think of it, might not be a bad idea at all!)
Bottom line? If you can’t stomach horse trading, then politics isn’t the right racket for you.
As an end result, very little actually changes, and our brave, fearless politicians are incentivized to punt the football on moral questions, deferring to the Supreme Court and/or executive orders. This works out very nicely for cowardly, spineless politicians because moral questions are wonderful wedge issues that drive your base out to vote in your (almost always safe) district.
The trouble with this approach is twofold: First, the other side wins elections, too. If you wait long enough, eventually all your policies will be reversed. Today, the pro-life movement is ascending; four years from now, this might not be so.
And second, the status quo incentivizes extreme voices, radicalization, and political scare tactics. It creates a climate where compromise and resolution will never take place. So abortion continues to be one of our nation’s most polarizing issues.
That’s not good for Republicans.
But what if there was a third option — one that would FINALLY change the debate and force ALL Americans to think about abortion differently?
Roe v. Wade was overturned. Abortion is a states’ rights issue once again. And even though Trump repeatedly told ‘em that he didn’t support a national abortion ban, Democrats still don’t believe him and are utterly terrified. In poker parlance, they’re on tilt.
Which means we’d be negotiating from a position of strength.
This is why I’d make the following offer to Democrats: Join us on a bipartisan bill where our goal is to lower by 10% the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions each year.
And each year, you renew the bill.
Whatever the budget is, give the Democrats half and the Republicans half. If GOPers wanna spend it on abstinence-only programs, fine. If the Democrats wanna waste it on free condoms, fine. It’s a small price to pay as long as we focus on the objective of lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions by 10% each year.
It’s a palatable position for Democrats, because (by definition) an “unwanted” anything is bad. More importantly, it would change their mindset from slavishly defending abortion (including through the ninth month) into thinking about it as a net negative that must be reduced. Furthermore, with the Democrats in the minority and terrified about MAGA Nation, they could conclude that this deal is better than potential alternatives.
I think they’d take it.
In the grand scheme of things, funding their silly social programs is a small price to pay: It’s just horse trading, folks.
And look, if you still find horse trading unappealing, let me point out an uncomfortable truth: 25 years ago, if our country was focused on eliminating the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions by 10% annually, there would’ve been MILLIONS fewer babies killed in abortions by now.
And MILLIONS is a really, really big number.
My plan isn’t perfect: Abortion would still exist. If you’re a moral purist, this plan is a non-starter.
But if you’re a horse trader, this would be the trade of a lifetime.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member