Slate's Bizbox
damned spot: Political ads dissected and explained.

Abortion Distortions

By Jacob Weisberg and William Saletan
Posted Friday, July 14, 2000, at 11:30 PM ET

"Compassion" was produced for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund by Laguens Hamburger Stone. "Appeal" and "Push Back" were produced by Haddow Communications for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. For transcripts of the ads, click here. Click here to see "Push Back" on Freedom Channel (scroll down).

From: William Saletan

To: Jacob Weisberg

Click here to view this ad
Planned Parenthood
28K | 56K
Download Windows Media Player
Click here to view this adThe narrator of Planned Parenthood's commercial characterizes Bush's abortion views while walking through a background of giant quotes from and about Bush. The quotes, which are supposed to back up the characterizations, are rigged. Consider this one from the Des Moines Register: "Bush would prohibit federally funded family planning clinics from mentioning abortion." A conservative would have written the sentence differently: "Bush would prohibit family planning clinics that mention abortion from taking federal funds." By shuffling the verbs, the Register turns a prohibition on funding into a prohibition on "mentioning"—which Planned Parenthood, in turn, boils down to a "gag rule."

Another trick is the removal of context. The ad closes with the narrator standing in front of this Bush quote from Meet the Press: "I would support a constitutional amendment ..." Why the ellipses? Because the full quote is, "I would support a constitutional amendment with the exceptions of life, incest, and rape. I want to tell you something, though: The country is not ready for a constitutional amendment. There is no chance, at this moment, that there'd be a two-thirds vote out of the House and the Senate." Yes, Bush says he supports the amendment. But the complete quote is a greater affront to pro-lifers than pro-choicers. It basically says he's paying lip service to the amendment. Understandably, Planned Parenthood is frustrated that pro-lifers aren't making a fuss about this. But that doesn't make the quote's truncation any less misleading.

The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy ads are interesting for several reasons. They're essentially but not officially political. They're about a court case—the June 28 Supreme Court decision striking down Nebraska's "partial-birth" abortion ban—which pro-choice groups would like to develop into a campaign issue. This isn't the first time pro-choicers have attempted this conversion—they tried it after previous Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1992—but it's a reminder of the degree to which the political process has enveloped the court. The court may not follow the election returns, but if groups like the CRLP have their way, the election returns will follow the court.

On the other hand, if campaign reformers or election regulators ever accused CRLP of using these ads to influence the election, they'd have nothing to hang their case on. The ads never refer to what we think of as the political process. All they do is furnish the address of CRLP's Web site and urge viewers to "contact" the "lawyers who are defending the right to choose in courtrooms across the country." Basically, it's a fund-raising pitch. Legal battles, like election campaigns, cost money. And increasingly, they're just as political. So, CRLP, in effect, is running ads to raise money to wage a political fight that is technically outside the political process altogether. It's a foretaste of the many mutations of politics that will frustrate the next generation of campaign reformers.

Click here to view this ad
Pushback
56K | 100K
Download Windows Media Player
Click here to view this adThe third thing I find curious is the post-victory timing of "Push Back." We think of ads as tools for influencing upcoming contests. But this ad appears after its sponsor has already won the contest. The ad says as much: "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that so-called 'partial-birth abortion' bans are extreme and unconstitutional," and CRLP "exposed and defeated" those bans. So what's the problem? According to CRLP, "the attacks on this fragile freedom will continue." No sooner has your side won the battle than it's on the tube hitting you up for the next one. There are no boundaries to politics anymore: not the polling place, not the election calendar, not even the Supreme Court recess. I'm getting tired just thinking about it.

From: Jacob Weisberg

To: William Saletan

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.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jacob Weisberg is editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Response from The Fray:


I really don't think that it matters who the president is. I do not believe he will be able to raise enough consensus to substantively affect abortion rights, not because of lack of moral concern, but because of the cost of an unwanted child. Simple economics. Politicians are not ever going to address this problem in this manner. It is too cold and ugly, but it's true. An abortion costs about $300--about the same as one month of welfare. So multiply that cost times eighteen years, add on the delivery costs, which can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for women who are addicts or fail to get proper nutrition and medical attention while pregnant, then add the cost of jailing the kid for most years after the age of 18. Multiply that times however million abortions are performed each year. The cost is staggering.

--Robin Myers

(To reply, click here.)


George Bush has made it clear on more than one occasion that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Texas would not allow even first trimester abortions and would criminalize the procedure. Watch out, this guy means what he says. He's born again and not ashamed to tell Jews that his religion says they're going to Hell.

--Ellis L. Bert

(To reply, click here.)
[Rick responded: And if George Bush wins, Jews will be in Hell--along with all other Americans.]


The fact that George Bush pays lip service to a Constitutional Amendment that the writers agree he does not want is offensive on several levels. Most odious is his use of the Constitution as merely another election ploy. Almost as offensive is the very hypocrisy of such the position. Then there is the matter of lending tacit support to those who truly do desire such a Constitutional Amendment, and most especially to those who believe that there ought not to be a legal difference between a fetus and a baby. These are the individuals murdering doctors, nurses, receptionists and escorts. If Bush was half the leader he claims to be he would come out and say, as the writers assert he believes, that an Amendment is a terrible idea, one that he would never support.

Also, to promote the view that Roe v. Wade is not vulnerable is itself disingenuous in the extreme. Mr Weisberg implies that the chance of abortion becoming illegal or severely restricted is next to nil. I guess he does not consider having to drive for nearly 24 hours to get to a clinic, then being subjected to verbal and physical harassment, only to be told that you have to wait 24 hours, as being severely restrictive. I guess he doesn't consider the risk of getting a bullet through the head or of having some nut follow you home to abuse and threaten you in front of your family to be severely restricting. This is the culture which George Bush's "leadership" on this issue helps foster. It is my hope that Planned Parenthood and CRLP continue to remind us of this fact.

--John Stencel

(To reply, click here.)


As a pro-life Catholic, I had a big problem with the Planned Parenthood ad in that it basically stated that Bush's anti-abortion positions were not in line with compassion. I find that an insult to all of us who believe very strongly in the pro-life cause. Compassion is the very reason why we are pro-life to begin with. We feel compassion for the many thousands of innocent children murdered through abortion every year. If saving the lives of innocent babies is not compassionate, what is? Protecting the right of their mothers to murder them? If Bush were in favor of abortion, I would find that a serious contradiction to his claim to be a compassionate conservative. Planned Parenthood needs to take a long hard look at their own lack of compassion, if they are willing to trash a man's deeply held religious conviction that it is wrong to take an innocent human life. And to claim that wanting to save the lives of children is somehow not compassionate makes Planned Parenthood look ridiculous.

--Nicole

(To reply, click here.)

(7/16)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
The Great Debate
Marcus | Forget Biden. I'd like to see McCain face off against Palin.
Toles: Another McCain SurpriseStumped: Where's Palin's Baby?