Finding Middle Ground in Today’s Caustic Political Climate
On the eve of state elections and just a year away from federal elections, I am always struck by the over-the-top rhetoric from both sides of the political and cultural divide on important issues that are dividing our people into angry and polar opposite camps.
This blog has previously bemoaned the fact that we appear to lack the minimal cohesive nature that is essential to national unity and survival of representative democracy. So now I would like to take one major issue at a time and explore potential compromise frameworks. There surely is middle ground out there, it is just a question of political will to work hard toward finding it. Compromise must not become a dirty word; it is essential to the functioning of a democratic republic.
Let’s take the issue of abortion. Before 1979, this was not really a major political issue. Roman Catholics had long opposed all forms of abortion as well as birth control. But the largest Protestant denomination simply said it was to be avoided whenever possible and at the end of the day it was a private matter between the family and their doctors. Roe v Wade had been decided six years earlier, recognizing an implied privacy right in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for a woman to secure an abortion until a fetus becomes viable (meaning the fetus can live outside the womb). Experts attacked the decision on multiple fronts, and ultimately the decision was overruled fifty years later, throwing the issue back to each of the fifty states.
Let the record be clear: politicians (mainly Republicans) consciously and deliberately made abortion the controversial political issue it is today, and it has become so strong in some Christian circles that one’s position for or against it has become a virtual litmus test for whether one is truly a Christian. How to find middle ground?
No individual right under our Constitution is absolute. My right to swing my fist straight forward ends at your chin. There is always a balancing of competing interests. Rights can never be divorced from responsibility. Nor, I should add, should individual religious beliefs be forced upon others through the instruments of political power and public law.
Under current Virginia law, a woman can reportedly secure an abortion for any reason she chooses up to the moment of birth. How can this be? Does not the state have an interest in protecting the life of a fully formed fetus? Can’t there be some way that thousands of couples who wish to adopt babies can be brought into this picture? So, I say that a woman’s right to secure an abortion should never be absolute. The slogan “My body, my choice” only goes so far.
On the other side of this highly emotional divide is the movement to ban all abortions, regardless of the circumstances. This even includes banning use of medications that can cause an abortion. This position might please many Roman Catholics and evangelical protestants, but it is just as wrong as its opposite position that allows abortion on demand.
When I lived in the former Soviet Union, I was shocked to learn that many women used abortions as a form of birth control. Multiple abortions by the same woman were completely normal. I believe that is wrong. Even amoral. And I believe all but the most radical women in the United States would find that practice abhorrent, especially after a fetus becomes viable. Am I wrong?
Here is my suggested formula for a middle ground position on the abortion issue:
First, reject all claims that are expressed in absolute terms.
Second, recognize a woman’s right to secure a safe and legal abortion up until the end of the first trimester (12 weeks after conception). Limit taxpayer funded abortions to one per lifetime.
Third, ban abortions after the first trimester except in cases where continued pregnancy presents a clear threat to the life of the mother, or the fetus is so deformed as to reasonably exclude the possibility of a productive life.
Fourth, allow abortions after the first trimester in the case of rape or incest only after a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that there was good cause for not having the procedure earlier.
Fifth, authorize in law a new and simplified legal procedure under which a third party or couple can contractually commit, as approved in a court order, to adopting the fetus, paying all maternal care and birth expenses and assuming legal responsibility to support the child to the same extent as a birth or adoptive parent.
Sixth, immunize medical professionals who perform abortions under the above exceptions from civil or criminal liability as well as adverse administrative actions by employers or state licensing agencies.
Seventh, target women at or below federal poverty levels with taxpayer funded birth control education, free birth control measures to minimize unwanted pregnancies, and ensure that such pregnant mothers receive basic maternal care.
Eighth, create new crimes and penalties for those who undergo or facilitate abortions outside of the above limited lawful abortion rights. Do not punish these persons at anywhere near the level of manslaughter or murder but provide lesser penalties not including long term incarceration.
Finally, all this should be a matter of federal law, with the caveat that any state can opt out of this system by popular referendum.
Well, dear readers, what do you think? Am I wrong?
Comments