Best of the Web Today - July 11, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Today's Video on WSJ.com: James Taranto on what the BBC didn't say about a Scotland demonstration.
The Roe Effect, by the Numbers
Overbrook Research, an Illinois-based polling firm, has a fascinating study out on public opinion and abortion. Authors Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper analyze opinon-poll data from the bellwether state of Missouri between 1992 and 2006, focusing on voters' answers to the question whether they regard themselves as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
The finding: Public opinion has moved strongly in the "pro-life" direction. In 1992, 34% of Missouri voters described themselves as "strongly pro-choice"; by 2006 this figure had declined to 23%. The proportion describing themselves as "strongly pro-life" rose from 26% to 36%. When those describing themselves as "somewhat" pro-whatever are included, the "pro-life" rise is 11 percentage points (30% to 41%), and the "pro-choice" decline is 13 points (43% to 30%).
These, of course, are measures of general sentiment, not specific policy preferences. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are imprecise, even tendentious, terms. Not everyone describing himself as "pro-life" wants to outlaw all abortions, and not everyone describing himself as "pro-choice" opposes all regulation on abortion. It's even conceivable that one could be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (if one believes abortion is immoral but shouldn't be illegal).
Still, a willingness to describe oneself as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" suggests a genuine sympathy with the anti- or pro-abortion side of the debate, respectively, since this is how they prefer to describe themselves. So what does this shift mean?
Blunt and Steeper argue that the debate has shifted profoundly, in a way that benefits the "pro-life" side:
In the 1980s and early 1990s, there were dozens of attacks against abortion clinics and the physicians who perform abortions. According to one official government count, between 1977 and 1993, there were at least 36 bombings, 81 arsons, 131 death threats, 84 assaults, 327 clinic invasions, 71 chemical attacks, and over 6,000 blockades of clinic entrances. In response, in 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. . . .
The law worked. Threatened by stiff new federal penalties, Operation Rescue and other vocal anti-abortion groups abruptly ceased their clinic blockades. Dramatic demonstrations and arrests gave way to peaceful prayer vigils and sidewalk counseling.
As antiabortion violence abated, the violence of abortion itself took a higher profile. In 1996 Congress approved the first federal bill to outlaw partial-birth abortion--in which the abortionist partially delivers a baby before taking its life--but opponents of the bill had enough votes to sustain President Clinton's veto. Partial-birth abortion remained at the center of the debate for more than a decade. This past April the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
But there may also be a demographic component to the shift. Blunt and Steeper note that the most dramatic shift has come among the youngest voters:
Some have speculated that there is a self-interest component to abortion attitudes, and that the young--particularly young women--ought to be more supportive of legal abortion than those whose childbearing years have passed. That seems to have been true in 1992: those under age 30 (both women and men) were the most strongly pro-choice (39%), and the least strongly pro-life (23%). . . .
While this might be evidence for the self-interest hypothesis, something interesting happened to the newest voters entering the electorate. Today's 18-29 year olds are as strongly pro-life (36%) as older voters, and are less strongly pro-choice (18%) than their elders.
The authors offer several hypotheses for this shift:
This youngest cohort's passage into adulthood coincided with the ascendance of partial-birth abortion as the issue's dominant frame; for them, the "abortion wars" of the 1980s and early 1990s were a dim memory at best. This is also the generation for whom fetal ultrasound images (often of a very high quality) have become ubiquitous, which has doubtlessly increased the sensitivity of many to the possible humanity of the unborn child. Furthermore, these voters have come of age with legal abortion, perhaps with the realization that they themselves could have been aborted had their parents "chosen" differently. . . . Particularly for those who may have reflected on the narrowness with which they themselves escaped abortion, the whole notion of self-interest seems to have been stood on its head.
What they don't mention is the demographic consequences of abortion itself--that is, the Roe Effect. It was in 1973 that the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, found a "constitutional" right to abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide. By 1992 the oldest post-Roe babies were only 19. In 2006, by contrast, the entire 18- to 29-year-old cohort had been born after Roe.
If one makes the reasonable assumptions that "pro-life" women have a lower propensity to abort than "pro-choice" ones do, and that parents are a strong influence on their chlidren's moral attitudes, then one would expect the post-Roe cohort to be more "pro-life" than their elders.
As it happens, there has been a similar, though slightly less dramatic, shift, in the attitudes of 30- to 49-year-olds. In 1992, 27% of women and 23% of men in this age group described themselves as "strongly pro-life"; in 2006, 38% and 34%, respectively. For "strongly pro-choice," the proportions declined from 38% to 26% of women and 34% to 21% of men.
The 30- to 49-year-old cohort in 2006 includes those who were 18 to 29 in 1992, so one may surmise that this group has moved in the "pro-life" direction. This would be consistent with the self-interest hypothesis: As young adults age, they tend to get married, and therefore to become less worried about unplanned pregnancy.
If both the self-interest and the Roe effect hypotheses are true, then one would expect, 15 years hence, that today's young adults--who will be in their 30s and 40s by then--will be even more "pro-life" than today.
This may be bad news for the Democratic Party. Blunt and Steeper find that the political parties have become more polarized around abortion: In 1992, 56% of "strongly pro-life" voters identified themselves as Republicans and 33% as Democrats; by 2006, the numbers were 62% and 25%. "Strongly pro-choice" voters have moved from 30% to 21% Republican and 58% to 68% Democratic. Given the electorate's overall "pro-life" shift, greater polarization is a net gain for the GOP.
Of course, the politics of abortion could change during that time, most notably if the Supreme Court overturns Roe. That could happen with a single change in the court's makeup: Currently the justices are split 5-2 in favor of sustaining the right to abort, but Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have not stated a position.
Overturning Roe would shift the debate away from the most brutal forms of abortion and toward the question of whether all or most abortion should be illegal--that is, from the "pro-choice" extremes to the "pro-life" ones. Such an outcome would likely benefit the Democrats, yet current politics oblige the Democrats to fight it with all their might.
The Gay Debate
"Most of the major Democratic presidential contenders will participate in a forum on gay issues next month, co-sponsored by a major gay rights advocacy group and a cable channel aimed at gays and lesbians," the Associated Press reports:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Chris Dodd have agreed to appear in the live, one-hour forum in Los Angeles on Aug. 9. The program is the result of a joint effort by the Human Rights Campaign and the LOGO cable channel, which will broadcast the event. LOGO will also stream the forum live on its Web site.
There is a potential peril to the Democrats in such narrowcasting, though. As we noted in 2004, John Kerry, in his convention speech, felt constrained to refer to his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment only in code, exhorting President Bush: "Let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States."
Those who follow the same-sex marriage issue closely knew what he meant, but he probably figured that if he made his opposition explicit, it would cost him votes among those who don't. Candidates may be less inhibited when speaking to a gay audience--but you can expect opposition researchers will be watching too.
The People v. Larry Flynt
"Hustler Magazine is taking credit for forcing Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to admit that his phone number is on the 2001 records of clients of a woman accused in a federal indictment of running a prostitution ring," the Times Picayune of New Orleans reports:
At the time, Vitter, 46, was a member of the House of Representatives.
It marks the second time that Hustler, a sexually explicit magazine, played a role in revealing embarrassing information about a representative from Louisiana's 1st Congressional District.
Hustler editor and publisher Larry Flynt also claimed responsibility nearly nine years ago for getting former Rep. Bob Livingston, R-Metairie, to admit that he had extramarital affairs in the past. Livingston resigned from the House, giving up the role of speaker, which would have put him third in line for the presidency. Livingston resigned the same day the House voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about his relationship with a White House intern.
Vitter, a conservative Republican, stands accused of hypocrisy--a charge that is justified, as far as it goes. But it does not go as far some people seem to think it does.
Blogress Ann Althouse quotes Vitter: "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. . . . Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there--with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way." Althouse lets Vitter have it:
I hate seeing people publicly humiliated for the sexual things they do in private. But the government is criminally prosecuting a woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, for what it says was a prostitution ring. These are federal charges, and the senator, David Vitter, has some responsibility for the laws that make this prosecution possible. . . .
Palfrey can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, Vitter's statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she's accused of. Vitter's confession--intended to move us to mercy--links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.
Shouldn't the expiation of Vitter's sins wait until he has introduced a bill that would create a federal right to engage in the business of prostitution? It's not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.
How would advocating the legalization of prostitution expiate Vitter's sins? Prostitution is illegal because it is wrong, not the other way around. The reason we have laws at all is not so that "good" people can impose their will on "bad" people, but because everyone has the capacity to do bad things. Thus it's not surprising that moralists sometimes turn out to be hypocrites. They are moralists because they are closely acquainted with the temptation to do wrong.
Larry Flynt does a better job in living up to his own moral standards than David Vitter does in living up to his. But that is because Flynt has no standards, not because he is some sort of exemplar.
Will Murtha Apologize?
"An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in Haditha, according to a report released Tuesday," the Associated Press reports:
The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released by Sharratt's defense attorneys.
"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote.
This was the incident in which Rep. John Murtha accused the Marines of killing Iraqis "in cold blood"--a charge, as we noted in May 2006, that was self-contradictory. In November ScrippsNews reported that Cpl. Sharratt's parents were "enraged" with Murtha, who is their congressman. Perhaps it's time for him to apologize.
Who Says America Doesn't Have Allies?
"Iran: We Are Ready to Take On al Qaeda"--headline, FoxNews.com, July 11
Dr. Evil--IV
A reader calls our attention to the May 8 episode of "Boston Legal," called "Guantanamo by the Bay," a sympathetic--and fictional--story about an erstwhile detainee named Benyam Kallah (played by T.J. Ramini) suing the government for alleged abuses.
In this scene, Kallah's lawyer, Alan Shore (James Spader), examines him on the stand:
Benyam Kallah: I was forced to lie in a fetal position. My eyes and my mouth duct taped. The worse part, was that we felt it was forever. We were never gonna be released. We were gonna get a trial. One man, Ali Mar . . . a friend, he was arrested with me. . . .
Benyam pauses.
Alan Shore: What happened to your friend, sir?
Kallah: Finally he couldn't take it. He hung [sic] himself.
Shore: He committed suicide?
Kallah: The Pentagon called it "manipulative, self-injurious behavior" an act of "asymmetric warfare" engaged against the United States.
Shore: Was your friend a terrorist?
Kallah: Struggling. No, he was a doctor.
In light of recent events, that last line could just as easily have read, "Yes, he was a doctor."
Reliable Sources
"A man who was engulfed in flames after allegedly crashing a Jeep Cherokee loaded with gas cylinders into Glasgow's airport is unlikely to survive his severe burns, a doctor who treated him said Tuesday," the Associated Press reports from Edinburgh, Scotland:
"The prognosis is not good, and he is not likely to survive," a member of the medical team that treated him at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow said on condition of anonymity because details about patients are not to be made public.
Apparently the only details about patients that are not to be made public are the names of doctors who make details about patients public.
One of These Things Is Not Like the Others
A Chicago Tribune editorial criticizes those who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against the liberation of Iraq, and suggests other courses of action:
You can vote. You can run for office. You can march up and down Michigan Avenue wearing a sandwich board and barking into a megaphone. You can cover your car with anti-war bumper stickers, write your congressman, impeach the president, start a blog or bury your local newspaper in letters to the editor.
True, "you" can do just about any of these things, but good luck trying to impeach the president.
Do They Wear High Heels in Heaven?
o "Fashion Designer Liz Claiborne Dies"--headline, Associated Press, June 27
o "Liz Claiborne Dresses Down"--headline, Briefing.com, July 11
Thinking Big
"Earth Is Smaller Than Thought, New Measurements Show"--headline, National Geographic, July 9
Roll Over Rousseau and Tell Camus the News
"France Needs to Quit Thinking and 'Get to Work' "--headline, CNNMoney.com, July 10
An Undocumented Royal?
"Prince William to Check Immigration Status"--headline, Washington Times, July 11
By Burning Them One at a Time?
"Deputies Destroying 5,000 Pot Plants in Santa Cruz Mountains"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, July 10
Dude, We're No. 1, Eh?
"Canada Has the Most Pot Smokers in the Industrialized World"--headline, FoxNews.com, July 11
'You've Got Male'
"Internet Blamed for Shanghai Teen Pregnancies"--headline, Reuters, July 10
Uh, We Don't Get It
"Joke Comprehension May Decrease With Age"--headline, Associated Press, July 10
It's Their Own Fault for Not Wearing Sunscreen
"Sun Accused of Putting Users at Risk"--headline, PC World, July 10
What Does Race Have to Do With It?
"Black Jury Having Trouble With Verdict"--headline, Associated Press, July 10
'Help! Someone Get Me Out of This Case!'
"Woman in Brown Lawn Case Wants to Move"--headline, Associated Press, July 10
News You Can Use
o "Kool & the Gang Says There's No Age Limit on Cool"--headline, Reuters, July 11
o "Automatic Toilet Tissue Dispenser Ready"--headline, Associated Press, July 11
o "U.S. Teenagers Have Little Interest in News: Study"--headline, Reuters, July 10
o "Study: Women Are in Charge at Home"--headline, LiveScience.com, July 11
o "Wise Teacher Pleads Guilty to Contributing to Delinquency of Minor"--headline, Bristol (Va.) Herald Courier, July 11
Bottom Story of the Day
o " 'Reverend' Tori Spelling Marries Gay Couple at Inn She Runs on Reality TV Series"--headline, Associated Press, July 10
o "California Grass Too Dry for Goats to Eat, Fire Officials Say"--headline, CNN.com, July 11
o "Archaeologists: Mega-Eruption Didn't Change Human History"--headline, LiveScience.com, July 11
Poison Pen
This correction appeared last week in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald:
A story on Page B4 on Wednesday about foraging for edible mushrooms contained a photo of amanita muscaria, which is a poisonous and hallucinogenic mushroom. It was a copy editor's error.
The poor copy editor. He didn't know he had signed up to be a food taster.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
