Balkinization: Conservative Elites and Abortion

Conservative Elites and Abortion

Mark Graber

I overlapped with many of the nation's leading conservative elites when I attended Dartmouth College during the middle to late 1970s. Granted that people change over time, but the notion that this crowd would be leading the charge for "traditional family and sexual values" seems rather absurb. Most belonged to fraternities that seemed rather dedicated to sex outside of marriage. Then again, looking at the conservative record in Congress, maybe "boys will be boys" is what is meant by traditional family and sexual values.

I was reminded of my Dartmouth experiences the other day when interviewed by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal on the probable consequences of a Supreme Court decision overruling Roe. Part of the reason was Paul Gigot was my editor when I was on the school paper (he was terrific, exceptionally open-minded). The other was that the reporter seemed rather pro-choice. I did my usual schick, explaining why I think both pro-life and pro-choice forces have incentives to exaggerate the likely political and social impact of a decision overruling ROE (see too many blogs below). She, on the other hand, with a concern for the less fortunate not normally associated with the WSJ, kept pushing me to highlight more serious impacts on poor and minority women. Do I think they will be worse off if ROE is overruled. I do. But many who do not live near an abortion provider are already badly off.

My more general conclusion is that the family values revolution is being led, partly by sincere religious believers, but also by former fraternity drunks who are mostly interested in gaining votes for lower taxes and imperial adventures in the Middle East. I rather doubt that Dartmouth frat boys will cry if ROE is overruled or change their behavior much. Nor, do I suspect, will the Wall Street Journal find that decision an occasion for mourning or celebration. If you can afford Dartmouth or read the Wall Street Journal regularly, ROE does not matter.

Posted 1:40 PM by Mark Graber [link]

Comments:

If you can afford Dartmouth or read the Wall Street Journal regularly, ROE does not matter.

Depressingly true. The white Republican business elite will always be able to buy quality abortion services for their girlfriends and daughters. They are insulated from the real-world consequences of their politics.

# posted by

Donna Queen : 8:17 AM

Even as advocates of abortion are insulated from the real-world consequences of their politics by the fact that they're already born.

# posted by

Brett : 12:05 PM

First of all, Brett, I do not advocate abortion. I advocate a woman's right to control over her own body. Second, abortion is not going to go away if it's outlawed. Well-off white Republican women will continue to get safe abortions performed by qualifed and ever so discreet doctors, while poor women will be forced to go to sleazy fly-by-night practitioners, or do it themselves, with all the attendant risks to health and life, just like in the old days. And I trust you never spill your seed like Onan, lest a potential life wind up in a sock in the hamper.

# posted by

Donna Queen : 12:23 PM

You go girl!

# posted by

D. Ghirlandaio : 2:13 PM

I'm a very simple soul. A fertilized egg is an unborn human being.

Killing it is plain wrong - it may be convenient.

WE have taught women to take the first steps in the war on our children. It's no wonder that the Yoos Gonzalez's can so eloquently explain torture - we are pre-sold on harming living people.

# posted by

ziz : 3:30 PM

Mr. Nelson, your analogy to drug laws is inapt. Drug laws are merely prohibitory, whereas abortion bans are mandatory, in that they compel women to carry pregnancies to term. This is a form of involutary servitude. As for your concern about the millions of black babies who never came to be as a result of Roe, I am sure that a survey of poor black women who have had abortions would show that they are damn glad the state didn't have the power force them to have those babies against their will. Calling Roe "racist" is ridiculous on its face. And as an attorney who primarily represents indigents, I know plenty of poor African-Americans of both sexes.

# posted by

Donna Queen : 5:39 PM

Donna, I'm not one of those lunatics who think that "life begins with conception". NEITHER am I one of the loons who insists on a woman's "right" to abort a viable infant who could simply be delivered and adopted out. In short, I'm one of the majority, who understand that pregnancy is a process, and that the legal status of the fetus should change as that process proceeds, even as it's nature does.

Pity the courts don't see it that way.

# posted by

Brett : 8:26 AM

Donna: I read the WSJ daily, either the house copy at the coffee shop, or through my login at the university. Try it. It is the best informed, most unbiased option we have in print. And it doesn't fawn over entertainers and the latest techie toys. It's worth it just for those reasons.

And I have always been pro-life, even when I was a godless humanist Democrat.

# posted by

Norma : 5:25 AM