Abortion Distortions 
Abortion Distortions 
Political ads dissected and explained.
July 14 2000 11:30 PM

Abortion Distortions 

(Continued from Page 1)

In the abortion debate, there are two kinds of dishonesty. First, there are the constant minor distortions of the kind you point out—the misrepresentations of the other side's views, the quotes taken out of context, and so on. And I think you've nailed Planned Parenthood for some egregious examples in this ad. But then there's the larger disingenuousness that runs through the whole political debate over abortion. It's not that activists on both sides aren't sincere in their views—they surely are. But both sides share an interest in convincing nonactivists, and perhaps themselves, that the legal status of abortion in this country might well change, when it very likely won't.


Politicians understand this. Take George W. Bush, the target of the "Compassion" ad. His stated position is that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, by means of a constitutional amendment if the Supreme Court won't reverse itself. Do you believe that Bush—or Trent Lott or Tom DeLay—really wants that? These conservative politicians, who may truly and sincerely think abortion is murder, are savvy enough to know that overturning Roe would be about the worst thing that could possibly happen to the Republican Party. A genuine threat to the legal right to abortion would energize a grass-roots liberalism not seen in this country since the 1960s. I imagine that it would result in a long-term Democratic majority and in the rapid reversal of any new abortion restrictions. The ultimate result would be to enshrine the legal status of abortion in a more permanent way. Bush might not be the brightest guy in the world, but he understands the Reagan formula, just as his father did. On abortion, you posture for the right-wing base by saying you support a constitutional amendment and various restrictions while making sure that nothing happens to the basic right to an abortion. If Bush were to be elected and apply a litmus test in nominating Supreme Court justices, I imagine it would be the reverse of what he stands accused of intending. The real rule would be: Make sure you don't create an anti-Roe majority on the court.

The dishonesty on the pro-choice side is pretending that Republican politicians might really get what they say they want. Again, it's not that the folks at Planned Parenthood are insincere in their basic beliefs. It's that as professional activists they thrive on the idea that the rights they support are gravely threatened. In the words of the ad, Bush "agrees that he's the most anti-abortion governor in America and supports a constitutional amendment that would take away our right to choose." Scary stuff. But what if the chance of abortion becoming illegal or subject to severe restrictions is next to nil, regardless of what Bush personally thinks or whether he's elected? A candid Planned Parenthood ad would say: "Bush opposes abortion. But he's too smart a politician to try to do anything about it, because that would play right into our hands." I don't expect to hear anything like that from the pro-choice lobby any time soon. The habit of hyperbole is too deeply ingrained.

It's the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy ads that really give the game away. Compare these two spots, the elated-sounding one that ran before the Supreme Court's "partial birth" abortion decision, and the disappointed-sounding one that began running after the decision. In "Appeal," the CRLP warns that the Supreme Court may uphold a Nebraska law that is "extreme and unconstitutional." And a court that would do that might toss Roe out the window. "Wake up!" it demands. In "Push Back," the organization must assimilate the fact that it won the case. The court did not, in fact, uphold the "extreme and unconstitutional" Nebraska restrictions. But wake up anyhow! "Roe vs. Wade is vulnerable, and the attacks on this fragile freedom will continue," the ad warns. In other words, don't despair—we're still on the verge of losing.  

Jacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of The Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. Follow him on Twitter.

Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right.

  Slate Plus
Culture Gabfest
Feb. 11 2016 4:35 PM The End of Football  Why the sport is no longer justifiable as a thinking person’s pastime.