ROE V. WADE MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

FARGO FORUM NEWSPAPER.  FEB. 25TH, 2022.

 

In a post-Roe v. Wade America, the biggest winner could very well be minor political parties.

Roe v Wade limits, but does not eliminate, the degree to which abortion law is settled by democratic mechanism, primarily elected legislators. While Democratic and Republican politicians may identify as being pro-life or pro-choice, the Roe decision gives the lawmakers sufficient political cover to appeal to voters on both sides of the abortion debate, as well as voters who are somewhere in-between the two extremes.

If Roe is overruled, then elected lawmakers, in both parties, will have no political cover for why they do not totally outlaw abortion or decree that it is a fundamental right to be subsidized by the taxpayer. The debate over abortion law will shift away from a question of regulations and funding, to an expectation that if one party wins a legislative majority it will implement the agenda of the “abortion lobby” or the “religious wacko lobby.”

Once the outcome of an election can determine the legal status of abortion, both major parties will face an impossible task; if they pledge to implement the Utopian dreams of the pro-choice or pro-life lobby, they will lose the ability to appeal to voters on both sides of the issue. Yet, if they fail to take a strong view on abortion, then they risk aiding minor political parties.

This is bad for both parties because in certain parts of the nation you cannot get elected if you are linked to the pro-choice or the pro-life lobby. Major parties within our system of government must function as large, big tent coalitions of voters who have differing views on any number of issues, including abortion. Enter third political parties.

Third or minor political parties do not function as a large coalition of voters who have different, possibly even nuanced views over abortion.

Most of these types of parties are selling a particular ideology to voters, who have historically responded well to minor parties when they are really pissed off about something that elected lawmakers can fix.

The Know-Nothing Party, Prohibition Party, and the Socialist Party were all serious political parties with impressive electoral gains because they successfully sold their ideology to voters who were furious about Catholics, alcohol, and laissez-faire economics. The contemporary electorate's strong policy views on abortion could lead to more success for any number of minor political parties.

The Libertarian Party favors abortion on demand, whereas the Constitution Party believes that abortion violates God's law. The American Solidarity Party is pro-life on abortion and progressive on the environment and social welfare. These are just a few examples of the minor parties that could see more victories in Congressional and legislative elections should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the high court.

If Roe is overturned then the Democratic and Republican parties will have a tough time building a big tent coalition on abortion, and the electoral door will swing open for minor political parties to win elections based on their ideological views on abortion.

Simply put, the price for getting rid of Roe v. Wade could very well be our two-party system and all of the political stability that comes from having such a system enshrined in our laws and traditions.

MY PROBLEM WITH THE 'PRO-LIFE' MOVEMENT.  PUBLISHED IN THE FARGO FORUM NEWSPAPER IN MAY, 2022.

 

I enjoy reading Roxane Salonen commentaries and would agree that abortion is almost always unjust.

Yet, the only foreseeable way that abortion would come up through the school board is through sex education. This brings me to my first beef with the pro-life industry—it is largely run by people who oppose comprehensive sex education.

When used properly and consistently used, birth control and condoms are highly effective in preventing disease and abortion. It does so without having to throw the proverbial book at people. Yet, many people in the pro-life industry insist upon abstinence-only sex education because it is politically correct to the religious right.

My second beef with the pro-life industry is that tends to be run by people who think that you can honor human life, without honoring justice.

We cannot hope to live in a nation where the sanctity of human life is honored, without celebrating the fact that human life features a wide range of different races, colors, creeds, nationalities, abilities, sexes and sexual orientations.

You cannot be pro-life and be anti-gay. You cannot preach about the sanctity of human life, while turning a blind eye to the fact that many unborn Americans will, as adults, face harsh burdens in the free exercise of their right to vote and to be a candidate.

Human life will not be sacred in a society that treats abortion as a social problem but treats hunger and the high incarceration of Black men solely as a personal problem.

Human life will not be sacred in a society that treats abortion as murder but doesn't believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

Human life will not be sacred as long as large numbers of people within the society worry about whether or not they can afford such pleasantries as food, water, education, health care and housing.

But does the pro-life industry want human life to be sacred? I think not. I think that much of this industry is pro-birth, not pro-life.

They will insist, perhaps at gunpoint, that every baby conceived is born, but they are not quite as insistent that everyone born is free and equal. Deep down even the most passionate defender of the pro-life industry knows this to be true.

WE NEED A NEW ABORTION NARRATIVE.  FARGO FORUM.  JAN 29TH, 2021.

Hopefully, a day will come when a American president can help move the country beyond the destructive pro-life versus pro-choice narrative.

American abortion politics is big on symbolism, even outright virtue signaling. Both sides are guilty of this.

Yet, when it comes to actually preventing abortion or giving women a choice, the narrative offers little substantive value.

This is because the symbolic language used of being pro-life and being pro-choice tends to ignore two large, uncomfortable elephants: poverty and prejudice.

A good example of the income-based elephant is who has access to health care, especially family planning services.

Birth control will lead to fewer unplanned pregnancies. This means fewer abortions, and respect for personal rights.

Yet, significant economic barriers still exist to accessing safe and effective birth control.

If pro-life and pro-choice people came together, the government would feel the pressure to make family planning services accessible to all, irrespective of income.

A good example of the prejudice elephant is the mistreatment of the LGBTQ community.

Prejudice can lead women to abort based on the child's race, disability, sex, gender or sexual orientation.

Prejudice can also be directed at same sex couples and their children.

Combating this form of prejudice through Civil Rights legislation should be a priority for people who claim to value human life and personal freedom.

After all, not all pregnant women or unborn children are white, upper middle class, able bodied, cisgender, heterosexuals.

We need an abortion politics that brings people together to combat economic disparities and prejudice.