Both Andrew Sullivan and Ellen Goodman have new pieces out on Hillary's speech.
Sullivan's piece is better than Goodman's. That, of course, isn't saying much. He actually seems to try to answer the question of why abortion should be rare. He fails, however, to explain why the intentional killing of some innocent human beings should be legal.
Sullivan says, "Democrats can still be and almost certainly should be for the right to legal abortion. But instead of beginning their conversation with that right, they might want to start it with acknowledgment of a wrong. Abortion is always wrong. How can we keep it legal while doing all we can to reduce its scope and damage?"
So Andrew, why is abortion "always wrong?"
Earlier in his piece, Sullivan describes abortion as "the act of ending human life in the womb." He later continues "Beyond the polarizing rhetoric, a simple message: saving one precious life at a time."
So it seems that to Sullivan abortion is wrong because it intentionally takes a precious human life but the intentionally taking/ending of 1.3 million human lives in the womb each year should remain legal. Abortion kills babies but killing babies should be legal. It makes absolutely no sense.
Sullivan also calls Senator Rick Santorum the "most extreme and intolerant pro-life absolutist." Isn't Sullivan being "intolerant" when he calls Santorum's views on abortion "extreme" and "intolerant?" Santorum is "extreme" and "intolerant" because he wants to legally protect human life in the womb while Sullivan is supposedly tolerant because he thinks that it should be legal to end precious human lives. I'll take "intolerant" any day of the week if we're tolerating the killings of innocent human lives.
On to Goodman
Instead of reading Hillary's speech and seeing it as a possible and needed change for the Democrats, Goodman uses Hillary speech as a platform to attack prolifers. Her piece is basically an assertion tirade. She basically asserts that finding common ground with prolifers is impossible. Goodman never mentions that numerous pieces of common sense prolife legislation that she opposes like stopping tax dollars from paying for abortions, informed consent legislation, banning partial-birth abortion etc. Is it possible that not having the government pay for abortions might reduce the number of abortions?
She asserts that Plan B isn't an abortifacient when no one really knows whether it is or not. Planned Parenthood relies on one study to say that emergency contraception doesn't prevent implantation by saying, "A more recent study suggests that ECPs only work by preventing ovulation or fertilization, and have no effect on implantation (Croxatto, et al, 2003)." Suggests? Sounds really reaffirming.
It's interesting how Goodman bases her assertion about emergency contraception on one study but then claims "abortion increases breast cancer" is a lie when there are more than 20 studies that show an increased risk.
She continues, "Indeed, as David Grimes of Family Health International wrote, saying that emergency contraception would promote risky sexual behavior is like saying "that a fire extinguisher beneath the kitchen sink makes one a risky cook."
Goodman fails to mention that Grimes is a fairly infamous abortionist who's been in the pro-choice movement for decades. All we need to know is that he works for Family Health International. Thanks Ellen.
But must importantly Goodman never tells us why abortion should be rare. Or why some women who have abortions have feelings of "regret?" People who are strongly pro-choice just can't seem to answer this question.
Just found out that Amy Welborn has been kind enough to share her take here.