The editors of the National Review come out against SD's abortion ban

[kpete]

“Making it easier for
pro-choicers to win the abortion wars
is not the right thing to do.”


March 08, 2006, 8:04 a.m.
Costly Gestures


South Dakota has enacted a ban on abortion except to save a woman's life. Pro-choice forces in the state have not decided whether to try to repeal the law by referendum or to file a lawsuit in federal court. If the latter, the court will surely strike the law down as a direct violation of Roe v. Wade and its successor cases. And if the South Dakota ban does not reach the courts, Mississippi is likely to enact a nearly identical ban that could. Other state legislatures are considering their own bans.

We have mixed feelings about these laws. We share the pro-life objectives that animate them, but we doubt that they actually advance those objectives. Those objectives number three. The two ultimate objectives are expressed in the pro-life slogan that every child should be "welcomed in life and protected in law." That slogan recognizes the dual injustice of unrestricted abortion: Killing unborn children is almost always unjust, and laws that treat that killing with indifference are also unjust. The more immediate pro-life objective is to create the conditions that would allow the achievement of those two goals. The chief precondition is the overturning of Supreme Court edicts on abortion. Those edicts mandate that abortion be legal throughout pregnancy.


.......................

Pro-lifers have gained ground over the last decade and a half by pursuing a savvy incremental strategy. That strategy puts the end of Roe within sight. If Roe falls, pro-lifers should then try to persuade the public in each state to prohibit most abortions. After that, they should try to persuade them to prohibit abortion in the case of rape and incest. To try to collapse this multi-stage process into an instant is to ignore social and political circumstances, and to throw away patiently and painfully won political victories for the sake of an emotional gesture.

The most effective response to Roe is not to pretend that it does not exist. Some of our pro-life allies who favor enacting these laws now — as opposed to waiting until Roe is gone — wave aside the practical objections by saying that it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. That is true. But making it easier for pro-choicers to win the abortion wars is not the right thing to do.


http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200603080804.asp

[LisaLynne]

1. They only object because they think it will fail.

I hope they're right about that.

[Selatius]

2. Actually, incremental strategy is a proven weapon in any situation.

(See the Third Reich's slow consolidation of power throughout the 1930s) Each step was small so that no one would see it or pay much mind to it. There was much to do to rebuild Germany, and there was too little time given for the people to think. Something new was always happening or, more insidiously, was made to happen to preoccupy the minds of the people. In the end, the people realized what was happening, but by then it was too late to stop the course of events.

Such a strategy can be applied to a variety of situations, not just to politics. The corporate news media is a great example. For example, by slowly--in very, very small increments--restricting the flow of information, one gains more and more power to influence the thoughts and views of people. The advantage is most people will not notice. What people do notice is sudden, quick movements. That must be avoided because it can provoke a backlash. With such control one could literally make a population believe it lives in a free, open, and democratic society that is, in reality, slipping into authoritarianism. "Freedom is slavery."

This is social engineering 101.

[DBoon]

3. NR Editors come out in favor of slowly boiling the frog

because if you throw it in water that is already boiling, the frog will figure out what's going on and jump out

[Captain Hilts]

4. I hoped they'd make the small govt./indiv. freedom argument.

Where was my head?