Jewish World Review July 29, 2002 / 20 Menachem-Av, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The real abortion extremists | Why do professional abortion-rights advocates anathematize as "anti-choice" anyone who favors even minimal regulation of abortion? Their absolutism would be seen as ridiculous in almost any other area of law.

For example: Americans have a fundamental right to own and use land, but no one believes that land use should be entirely untrammeled. A great body of law has developed to regulate what people do with their land -- from local zoning ordinances to common law nuisance remedies to federal wetlands and endangered-species statutes. Reasonable people can and do debate the wisdom of particular regulations. But nearly everyone agrees that there must be some restrictions on an owner's right to make use of his property. Only a crank would argue that to favor any sort of limitation at all is to be "anti-ownership" or an enemy of landholders.

To take another example, Americans have the constitutional freedom to express their views in public. But no one takes the First Amendment to mean that self-expression may never be restricted. Your right to free speech does not authorize you to utter slander, to threaten the life of the president, to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or to give perjured testimony in court.

Yet when it comes to abortion, there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction -- not to the abortion-rights spokeswomen we invariably hear from whenever the issue comes up. A 24-hour waiting period? Pre-abortion counseling to discuss possible risks or alternatives? Parental notification when a minor wants an abortion? A ban on partial-birth abortions? The politician who calls for such limits or the judge who upholds them can count on being slammed as a threat to "reproductive rights" and a foe of "choice."

Just ask Priscilla Owen, the Texas Supreme Court justice nominated by President Bush to the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals. She is by most accounts a restrained and thoughtful judge; the American Bar Association, which is not known for its embrace of GOP nominees, unanimously pronounced her "well-qualified." But because in several teen-abortion cases she ruled that parental notification was required, she is being excoriated. Planned Parenthood calls her an "anti-choice extremist." The National Organization for Women accuses her of "disdaining women's rights." The National Abortion Rights Action League says she "exemplifies the most extreme hostility to reproductive rights."

But just who are the real extremists here? In an analysis published last week, the Gallup News Service notes that "in general, polling shows wide public support for parental consent laws -- policies that are even more restrictive than parental notification." In 1996, a Gallup survey found 74 percent of Americans in favor of requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion. Since then, the level of support has gone even higher. In a 1998 CBS/New York Times poll, 78 percent wanted parental consent. In a Los Angeles Times survey two years after that, the figure was 82 percent.

Justice Owen insists her rulings are based on Texas law, not her own personal views. But if they do reflect her personal views, she clearly has lots of company. Does that mean that more than four Americans in five are "anti-choice extremists?" Or is it NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood that stand far outside the mainstream?

In poll after poll, a majority of respondents say that, as a general rule, abortion should remain legal and the government should not interfere with a woman's right to end her pregnancy. But when asked about restricting abortion in specific ways or circumstances, they often say yes.

Thus, 86 percent of Americans would make abortion illegal in the third trimester (Gallup, 2000), and 63 percent would vote to ban partial-birth abortions. Mandatory pre-abortion counseling is favored by 86 percent of the public (Gallup 1996); a 24-hour waiting period by 79 percent (CBS/New York Times, 1998). (These all presuppose a healthy mother and child; Americans overwhelmingly support legal abortion when the mother's health is seriously threatened or when there is likely to be a serious defect in the baby.)

It makes sense that the public does not regard these limitations as unreasonable. Americans recognize that abortion is too serious and tragic to be undertaken lightly. They know that the pro-life slogan "Abortion stops a beating heart" is a statement of fact. So while they support reproductive rights, they do not support unfettered abortion on demand, for any reason at any time.

But that is largely what organizations like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood do support, which is why they vigorously oppose the kinds of abortion regulations that most Americans would endorse. That is their right, of course. But why should their radical viewpoint be the standard for defining "pro-choice?" Pro-choice is what most Americans are: In favor of the right to choose, but also in favor of common-sense limits on that right. For NARAL & Co., we need a more accurate term. I'd suggest "pro-abortion."

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe