by David Montgomery
David Brooks is the kind of writer who has to be read on two levels. On the one hand, you have a conservative who deeply buys into the myth that the essence of American liberalism is an elitist disregard for the majority of the country. This sounds ridiculous and offensive to Grinnellian ears, though in ignoring it we should be careful not to ignore its pervasiveness.
If, however, you filter out this constant theme from his New York Times columns, Brooks occasionally makes interesting points. No matter how much I may ultimately disagree with his conclusions, I often have to admit that he’s made some very good points. One example of that was in his April 21 column.
Brooks is a firm pro-lifer, and thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. His argument on April 21, however, was not based on the “sanctity of life.” Rather, he said, Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned because it has contributed to the radicalization of American politics.
The reason he was writing was in support of Republican efforts to appoint staunchly pro-life judges to federal courts by eliminating the Senate filibuster. Consider the reason that Republicans say they’re determined to eliminate the filibuster: that practically no judicial nominee has ever been filibustered.
That seems strange, from today’s point of view. After all, there have been embittered minority parties in the Senate in the past. No one ever thought to exercise their authority by filibustering judicial nominations?
Apparently not. And while the exact situation we have today doesn’t have too many historical parallels, consider the fervor with which we consider judicial nominations. Every single judicial nominee is the center of a huge partisan fight, not because of how they might rule in criminal cases, or economic cases, but over their views on abortion.
Could there be a better way to do this? I think it’s important that women are able to get safe abortions, but the current political climate seems a bit ridiculous. Both sides are firmly convinced that their position is rooted in fundamental human rights, and both are liable to put enormous resources into the abortion battle.
David Brooks’ solution to the political pitched battle over the courts was for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the matter to the states, where normal legislative action on the state level would determine the legality of abortion access.
I don’t like this, though I suspect the results will be better for pro-choicers than we dread. Regardless, all that does is transform one huge federal problem into fifty pesky state problems. It’s better in that it removes some of the rancor at the federal level, but it also means some states will have abortion outlawed.
We could also see a reversal: liberals fighting to nominate pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court with the goal of reinstating Roe v. Wade.
So while I’ll agree with David Brooks about this problem, I reject his solution. That’s without even considering the political upheaval that it would take to get to the point where Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Can anything be done?
I’m not an expert on constitutional law. But I think we need some sort of national abortion compromise even if it meant curtailing abortion access to a certain degree.
This compromise would need sacrifices from both sides. Those fiercely opposed to abortion would need to allow legal abortion during the first part of pregnancy, and an exemption for the health of the mother at any time. On the other hand, people—like me—who believe that the right to have an abortion is essential would probably need to accept severe limits on abortions later in pregnancy, and probably also some form of mandatory counseling.
I don’t like these concessions. But I think it’s possible to support women’s health and freedom without requiring the country to tear itself apart. In a perfect world, abortion would be, to borrow from Bill Clinton, safe, legal and rare. The status quo right now means our government is bogged down in a social war that is poisoning the atmosphere in Washington. This empowers radicals on both sides, and that’s not good for the country.
Arts | News | Opinion | Features | Sports | Archives | About Us