Cynical Nation: "Turning back the clock"?

In a blatant bid to get the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, the legislature of one of those Dakota states has passed a bill essentially outlawing the majority of all abortions.

I don't think their chances of long-term success are very good at all, but in the meantime they're going to make life miserable for all of us. See, it's not just the dozen or so people who reside in South Dakota who will be forced to live (temporarily, at least) under an unjust law. It's also the entire country that will get dragged, face down, through one of the most tiresome, non-productive, and hyper-emotional political debates of our time.

And oh yes, there will be many, many more references to "turning back the clock." I swear, can our side please get some new metaphors? Please?? That one was already shopworn by the time Robert Bork was defeated, and should long since have been retired.

I'm sure those who employ this phrase have no idea how grating and annoying it is, so perhaps there's a way we can drive the point home. The next time someone in Congress tries to raise taxes on income, capital gains or inheritance, no less than a dozen legislators should take to the floor to deliver fiery, impassioned speeches, warning us not to "turn back the clock" on decades of tax code progress, and not to take us back to the dark days of back-alley accountants and unlicensed financial planners.

Comments

That's probably the price we pay for living with such a poor compromise for so long.

In many ways, the reason "the debate" never ended was because Roe was so poorly constructed in the first place.

Passed by a SC that eschewed and maybe even failed to understand the hallowed concept of State's Rights, it passed Roe, one year after Unconstitutionally outlawing Capital Punishment in all fifty states with the Furman v. Georgia Decision (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/131/).

Arguing that "Any fetus in the womb" is an extension of and because of that, "property" of the woman carrying it, is absurd.

While that argument can be logically made for a first trimester fetus, that is not fully formed and fully dependent upon the woman, it cannot so easily be made for those fetuses/children who ARE fully formed and COULD survive outside the womb on their own. Such an entity is, in every way an individual and self-owning life.

That's probably why somewhere near 70% of Americans support abortion up through the first trimestet and support falls precipitously after that point. Less than 25% of Americans support abortion through the third trimester.

The majority seems to have the question exactly right.

So why not revisit the issue and get it right?

Do with Roe what was done with the equally flawed Furman decision and move on to (1) perhaps a federal protection for first trimester abortions and (2) a return to the individual states for policy regarding the rest of it.

That wouldn't be "turning back the clock," it would be ending the abortion debate once and for all.

Posted by: JMK | February 27, 2006 01:43 PM

sounds relatively reasonable to me--and I almost never agree with this guy!
(this marks 3 times today I've agreed with a right-winger; must be time to take my medication...)

Posted by: fred | February 27, 2006 02:07 PM

Don't jump on the meds just yet.

I do have my moments Fred.

Few people are going to agree on everything. I think agreeing more than 70% of the time is a pretty high mark to hit.

I don't think I know anyone who agrees with me more than that (if that) and I probably agree with few others more than that myself.

It would certainly be good to get the abortion issue "right," or as close to it as possible and end the constant battling over it once and for all.

Plus for those opposed to the Religious Right, it would remove a major target from their arsenal and marginalize the most radical "purists" on both sides, which would certainly be a good thing.

Posted by: JMK | February 27, 2006 02:18 PM

Don't worry about the political hypersensitivity, Barry. Just do what I do when faced by someone passionate on this subject: present them with an indifference so overwhelming that they won't know where you're coming from.

Posted by: Adam | February 27, 2006 03:07 PM

> ...present them with an indifference so overwhelming that they won't know where you're coming from.

Yeah, I really need to perfect my Homer Simpson-style "Yeahhhhh, but what're ya gonna do?" (sips beer)

Posted by: BNJ | February 27, 2006 03:11 PM

My favorite was the Simpsons where some bill won by a single vote.

Lisa: I told you that you should have voted, Dad

Homer: But what can I do, Lisa? How can I make a difference, all by myself?

Posted by: Adam | February 27, 2006 06:16 PM

Hey Barry,
Did you remove me from your links? or it is redesign-accident?

Posted by: Blue Wind | February 27, 2006 06:51 PM

Blue, give me some credit! Look under the "My Favorite Bloggers" section. ;-)

Posted by: BNJ | February 27, 2006 07:09 PM