Abortion and Tolerance of Dissenting Opinions within the Democratic Party

Amy Sullivan wrote a guest entry last Friday on the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal, arguing that Democrats need to acknowledge the spectrum of opinion among Democrats on the issue of abortion. Personally, I am firmly of the opinion that reproductive rights are unenumerated “privileges or immunities” of the sort that the Fourteenth Amendment protects (even in a strict textualist reading, without “judicial activism”) (1).

Recent experience at my legislative district caucus nevertheless underscored Sullivan’s point. While voting on the platform, several individuals spoke out against the platform’s plank on abortion, which read: “We reaffirm our support of every woman’s right of reproductive choice.” Those who spoke were obviously speaking from a deep moral and religious belief.

And the caucus, more than a thousand people, shouted down the speakers with boos and hisses. It was a disgusting display. We Democrats think of ourselves as a party of tolerance, of respect for individual rights, of respect for diversity. Yet we cannot tolerate a spectrum of beliefs on platform issues?

At a pragmatic level, how can we hope to attract and maintain the loyalty of a majority of voters, if we define ourselves in narrowly ideological terms? (2)

At a moral and philosophical level, if we promote a platform which includes tolerance and respect for diversity, but are intolerant of diversity within our own ranks, are we really living up to our own rhetoric?

Democrats, including (and especially) our candidates, need to acknowledge the fact that we are in a time of cultural transition and change. Some of the issues on the table today are genuinely disturbing to many people. And we need to respect that diversity of opinion, at the same time that we push a program of respect for civil and individual liberties. Not doing so is simply hypocrisy.

Normally, candidates get around issues like this by claiming cautious support for compromise positions which signal a little ground to both sides. They end up sounding wishy-washy, and possibly are. I’d personally find it quite refreshing to hear a Democrat say:

“Abortion is one of the most important and divisive issues in our society, pitting us against each other in terms that are simplified into ‘good’ versus ‘evil’. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Within the Democratic party, we pursue civil and individual rights for everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. Regardless of whether the right in question is controversial or not. We respect and tolerate different points of view, and that has to include controversial issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. We’re going to defend the individual’s right to pursue their own solution to these controversial issues, unimpeded by governmental controls, because that is the core value of the Democratic party. Not everyone will choose to exercise their rights the same way. Some will choose to reject the possibility of abortion, based upon their beliefs. Some will choose to embrace a woman’s right to choose for herself. Both will be exercising their rights as citizens. This is the essence of a free and open society.”

The reality, of course, is that we won’t hear a candidate say this unless it’s clear that the population will elect a candidate who makes such a statement. Candidates quite naturally gravitate towards positions that are electable. It’s up to us, the electorate, to show candidates that an honest defense of tolerance is a winning position.

Notes:

(1) I understand that abortion is currently protected via “substantive due process” under the Fourteenth Amendment (in Roe v. Wade), rather than the “privileges and immunities” clause, but I believe that substantive due process continues to be stretched out of proportion by the reluctance of the Court to rehabilitate the “privileges and immunities” clause by explicitly rejecting the effects of the Slaughterhouse cases. Many “individual liberties” are probably better protected, from a textual point of view, by labeling them “privileges” or “immunities” which are not within the scope of governmental control.

(2) Cass Sunstein has an excellent analysis of why group consensus opinions frequently end up more “extreme” than a strict average of individual opinions would suggest. The first chapter of Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001) is highly relevant to this issue.

Comments

20 Comments so far. Comments are closed.
  1. Aypp,

    violent porn

    sex with family pet stories family sex video Iafw,

    hentai rape bondage tentacle jp

    incest rough movies free incest sex photos u…

  • erotic stories gay lesbian incest

    free extreme sex movies free violent rape pictures Xtsdb,

    free incest fuck stories

    bride rape pictures free alt extreme sex stories

  • Oubv,

    chloroform sleep girls

    abducted and raped women nude woman sleeping

  • gay tiny hairless rape boy young

    rescue rapelling violent rape movies

  • Dfzv,

    crossed legs in nylons

    pantyhose shorts pictures and amy teen blond stockings

  • Split Second Caps Kobe’s Finest Hour

    after he came to town, the ideal that was Kobe Bryant has finally shown up.

  • MUSIC: Tommy Jeans. Not Hilfiger, Lee.

    buy a Tommy hoodie and pair of jeans, the only thing you will be able to afford to do is settle onto your couch to catch Lee in CBS’s Rockstar:

  • Nations split at AIDS meeting

    United Nations General Assembly sought on Thursday to break the deadlock

  • Survey: Ban Drivers’ Cell Phone Use

    of U.S. adults think their state should pass a law making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving.

  • Tele Atlas and ESRI Offer Scholarships for 2006 ESRI Education User Conference

    and Canada will have the opportunity to join more than 600 others at the 2006 EdUC in San Diego, California,

  • Deal with Iran would allow it someday to enrich uranium / It would be years, if ever, for situation to arise, officials say

    someday to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but expressed doubts that Iran could satisfy the conditions that would allow it to do so. The…

  • Man Wants to Stop Streaker’s Bikini Sale

    an Wants New Zealand Rugby Streaker to End Bikini Auction

  • “Hypnotherapy can relieve chest pain”

    (20 April 2006). The newspapers accurately reported the reliable results from a small randomised controlled

  • EU musters resources against illegal migration

    backed by aircraft is about to sally forth from Europe’s coasts to the waters off west Africa

  • Wade is Clutch in Classic Game 5

    it a classic failure, crucial moments in a mammoth game marred by mental mistakes and questionable whistles resulting in the most painful of defeats,

  • International PHP Conference 2006 Call for Papers

    for Papers for the International PHP Conference 2006, 5th to 8th November 2009 at Frankfurt/Main Germany, has been started.

  • U.S. DEMOCRATIC PARTY LACKS A SENSE OF JUSTICE

    Democrats and others who choose to censor this type of letter continue to complain about the loss of life in Iraq, and from Hurricane Katrina, but are predictably silent about the number of human beings killed daily through abortion. As a veteran I can tell you it is easy to conclude that the hypocritical politicians in the Democratic Party, and the other hypocrites who disagree with our decision to go to war, care more about bashing President Bush and America than they do about the people of Iraq, or our soldiers, who love their Commander-in-Chief.

    It is a scientific fact that when a “being” exists in the womb, that “being” is human, no matter what the stage of development. Therefore, President Bush and his Republican Party support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But Democrats, and many others who are critical of U.S. internal/global policies do not support a Human Life Amendment to their Constitution that would outlaw abortions and stop the slaughter of the innocent millions being sentenced to a horrible death. This grave injustice is a sign of the moral corruption and ugly pride that exists in today’s confused world, and equally guilty are many newspaper publishers and editors.

    http://www.CatholicMessagesUSA.CatholicWeb.com/

  • Amen. Imagine if it weren’t the government’s concern, one way or the other. Or at least if it weren’t part of either party’s platform. The Republicans lack the cojones to back it up, and the Dems worry about alienating others.

    It it’s truly privilege, and truly private, I think it really should be.