Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. Why would even "right to choose" advocates celebrate such an abomination? But NOW apparently is. The headline on this AP story is a little misleading -- "U.S. abortion debate altered by Obama presidency" -- but the story itself gets it right:
"The alignment of a hard-core pro-abortion president with pro-abortion Democratic majorities in Congress means that many existing pro-life policies are now in great jeopardy," Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee wrote in a memo this month.
It's not the debate that will change but the balance of power. As long as abortion is legal under Row v. Wade, abortion proponents and opponents will continue to agrue around the edges, over such things as federal funding and parental notification. Pro-life advocates will lose some ground now, but that will only make them more determined. Pro-choice groups aren't going to modify their beliefs, either.
Here's a chance for Obama to try out his apparent belief that consensus can be reached on just about anything. He could offer a middle ground approach that, 1) tried to better prevent unwanted pregnancies and, 2) provided incentives for those who opt for something other than abortion, such as adoption. This would require each side to give up something. The life side would have to stop opposing greater birth-control efforts among the unmarried. The choice side would have to actually encourage a choice other than abortion. Wonder which side would flinch first?