I’m not talking politics, I’m talking basic human decency. In a Post article describing how many anti-choice groups feel partial birth abortions are over-hyped, we find this comment by a Focus spokesperson:

Doctors adopted the late-term procedure “out of convenience,” Minnery added. “The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”

As a number of commentators have pointed out, this is explicitly saying the life of the mother doesn’t matter, that her ability to have future children doesn’t matter, and that all that matters is the life of the fetus.

It just highlights the hypocrisy of this so-called pro-life movement. It explains, in a single paragraph, why any group would oppose an HPV vaccine for women, or why they are against medical exceptions for abortion restrictions. These so-called pro-lifers are sacrificing women to further their political crusade. That’s just evil.

Update: AAAAGH, this is pissing me off still. Think about what he said: reducing “danger of internal bleeding” == “convenience”. WTF is wrong with this man and why is he and his organization looked up for moral guidance.

You can read more over at Pandagon, where Amanda reminds us, once again, that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because a pregnancy has gone very badly. Not that you’ll read that in much of the reporting on this issue.

Atrios linked to a post by Jane Hamsher that raises two interesting questions about abortion I’ve never thought about.

First, “if a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic, who do you save — a Petri dish with five blastula or the two year-old child?” If you believe that life begins at conception, is that a hard decision?

Second, knowing “that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in a woman’s normal menstrual cycle in the first 7 days after fertilization,” how would you answer this dilemma:

If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined.

For the devout Christians reading, do they all go to heaven? As Hamsher asks, does that mean that 60-80% of the population in heaven are all blastocytes? It would probably be higher than 80%, as some percentage of the population won’t make it into heaven (all of us heathens, for example). Oh, actually, they have yet to be baptized, so do they all go to hell?

I’m being silly with the last paragraph, of course, but it gets at a serious concern: Do people consider the implications when considering these ethical questions? It often doesn’t seem that way. When I say that these moral decisions are deeply personal and difficult, it’s not because I don’t want to argue the affirmative case for abortion. It’s that I look at the wide array of ethical and moral issues and recognize that different people, even of the same faith, can honestly and truthfully come to different moral conclusions. It is part of recognizing and respecting the faith, morality, and beliefs of those around us. On this particular question, one that depends nearly 100% on morality alone, I don’t have the answer for you. No one can, and no one should try to answer it for me.

People will try to answer it for all of us, though. South Dakota just passed a new abortion law that will set up the perfect test case to go to the new, Big Government Supreme Court of Roberts and Alito.

I’ve been reading bits and pieces of the debate between William Saletan and Katha Pollitt about whether pro-choice people should advocate reducing the number of abortions to zero. Heidi and I have this debate in some form every now and again. Both of us are pro-choice but we arrive at that position from different directions. Saletan (who is closer to my position) and Pollitt (who is closer to Heidi’s) cover the territory well, and the debate is well worth reading. If you’re already pro-choice or simply want to know why people are pro-choice, read this.

There are some very honest things said here, and I’d be lying if Heidi and I haven’t gone through these same hard questions. Thursday’s exchange was a good one. This bit from from Saletan was good:

Before I go, I forgot to answer your original question. You ask why I think abortion is bad. I think it’s bad because the fetus is of us and is becoming us. It’s not a person, but it’s on the way to becoming a person, and the longer it develops, the more I recoil at the idea of killing it. Most people, according to polls, think the same way.

What about you? You say pro-choicers don’t see abortion as “morally trivial.” You say they defend it as a reluctant decision, a “sad necessity,” a “morally serious, very unfortunate event.” Is that how you see it?

Pollitt responded:

After I sent off my entry yesterday afternoon I asked myself: What exactly are Will and I arguing about? We both agree, after all, that it’s better not to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place than to have an abortion, we both agree that America needs lots more birth control and lots more realistic sex education. We both want emergency contraception to be widely available over the counter. We both want men to take more responsibility—to use condoms, for example. If you and I were actually designing policy, I’m guessing we’d see the practical piece much the same way: Ramp up that funding! Build those clinics! Make health insurance companies pay for birth control like they pay for Viagra. We’d ask stern questions about how that male pill is coming along and about when we might see some new options for women. We’d look at the experience of countries with lower rates of unwanted pregnancy, teen births, and abortion (every other Western industrialized nation); we’d interview experts and study the literature, we’d set up a bunch of pilot programs to see what worked best with what sub-populations.

And then would come the ad campaign. Mine would have pictures of cheerful girls and women: “At my local Saletan clinic, the doctors are great and birth control is free! They really took time with me and answered all my questions. Best of all, I can call anytime and talk to a nurse in total privacy. Thanks to Saletan, I’ll have a baby when I’m ready—but not till then.” Yours would show a spiky-haired, pierced, and tattooed girl looking sullen and miserable: “I stayed out all night and forgot to take my Pill. Now I’m having an abortion and it’s totally my fault. Go on, hate me, I deserve it! If only I’d listened to the doctors at Saletan.” Or maybe you could have a picture of a stern-looking nun standing in front of an abortion clinic: “Birth Control: Because Purgatory’s better than Hell.”

Those are, in a nutshell, the important points. Heidi and I literally had an argument for like 45 minutes during one of our road trips on the subject of insurance funding for Viagra vs. birth control. Like Pollitt, I wonder what Heidi and I are arguing about sometimes. We agree on the end result, but the details of why and how and what we say becomes just as critical.

The unfortunate subtext of this debate is that both sides of the political abortion debate have made it so that the sides can’t be honest about the issue. Pro-choicers do actually want to reduce the number of abortions. It would be nice if we could say so without worrying about the words being twisted by opponents more interested in winning points rather than having an honest discussion.

(the debate found via Atrios, who also had an interesting opinion on this)

The most controversial discussion in the Levitt’s best-selling book Freakonomics had to be the discussion of his paper on the impact of legalized abortion on crime. Even though I really enjoyed the book, I knew that I’d be reading about that particular section of the book and the research that was the foundation of it again.

The Economist last week reported on a study conducted by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that purports to find an “embarrasing hole” in the Levitt/Donohue study. You can read the Economist’s reporting on this new study to get an idea of what they found. Then go ahead and read Levitt’s response on his blog. I love it when authors have blogs.

I’m tired of abortion activists. On both sides of the aisle (sorry Heidi). ConfirmThem.com (the PAC/527/whatever set up to pimp Bush’s choices for the Supreme Court) wrote the following today:

We’ve got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, “With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court.”

Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats.

Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do. And please remember - we’ve been defending you these five years because of this moment.

Oh for criminey’s sake. Abortion (legal or illegal) is like 50th on the list of terrible problems facing the country right now. For anyone to chose to criticize or defend the entire presidency on any one single potential act is asinine. In this particular case, defending him from his other stupidity so he might choose a Supreme Court nominee you’ll get warm fuzzies about is stupid. Seriously. I mean, do you know anything about how they’re going to rule on any issue? How the hell could you? They don’t answer any questions worth a damn in the confirmation hearings. More importantly, are you thinking about the other rulings in which a “conservative” or “liberal” tendency will manifest itself? Or do you just pay attention to the scare flyers that people send you when they want money??

I have no doubt that abortion is important. I understand the religious debates, the moral issues (for and against), and the feminist issues. I maybe don’t feel them burning deep in my being, not being a woman or a particularly religious person, but I consider that an asset, not a hinderance. In the great scheme of things, we’re in much more trouble with the unsexy issues: deficits, education, foreign policy, and most importantly, petty corruption and basic competence.

To defend a president like this one on all of his other failings, including simple things like planning beyond 6 months from now (see post-Iraq War, Katrina/FEMA, and energy policy) because he might be able to nominate your ideal Supreme Court candidate is negligent. Ridiculous. Then, to turn around and complain about the decision he made… what the heck did you expect? Has he done ANYTHING right or principled?

I’ve written before that this presidency will be marked by it’s reliance on polling and domestic political focus. Not a focus on domestic policy or issues, but a focus on maintaining political dominance over Democrats. In other words, they’re not wielding power to advance some ideological agenda, they’re wielding power to continue wielding it.

The job of winning the next election has become the primary focus of the Administration and Congressional leadership. Look at everything with that as your decoder ring and suddenly EVERTHING the administration has done, every incomprehensible act (which may vary if you’re an R or a D) becomes abundantly clear. Everything, from budget deficits and spiraling spending, Medicare drug benefits, gay marriage, whatever.

Figure it out… they’re playing us and we keep paying them to do it. Both parties do it, but this Administration and leadership has taken it to a new level because there is NOTHING they won’t do because of ideology or because it’s simply, you know, wrong.

(ConfirmThem.com quote via The Volokh Conspiracy)