Even some leading anti-abortion activists panned the South Dakota ban. National Right to Life released a matter-of-fact statement in response to CT's request for comment: "Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade." Americans United for Life (AUL), a key architect of the incremental strategy, said the ban will boost fundraising for pro-choice organizations and politicians. Daniel McConchie, AUL vice president and chief of staff, also doubted South Dakota can successfully defend the ban before the Supreme Court. "As we say around the office, you have to be able to count to five," McConchie said. "We can't do that yet."
McConchie said that if South Dakota loses its bid to defend the bill through the legal system, the state will be obligated to pay the legal fees for pro-choice groups that challenge the ban. Such challenges could come any day now. Still, McConchie said AUL will back South Dakota's defense.
Agree or disagree with the pro-life position, the incremental approach seems under-used by the left. Time and again, I've told gay marriage advocates that if they want their goal, the incremental approach is the appropriate one to use. The Clinton universal health care plan failed in part because it tried to do things on a massive scale rather than incrementally. On the flip side, I think that the Bush administration could have had a lot smoother Iraq war if they had just built the case for war incrementally, including at least pretending that war is a last resort and bothering with sham weapons inspections rather than rushing in as if on some secret timetable (to get the war over and done with before the 2004 elections, for example).
Sometimes, I think that there is a correlation between an increasing amount of full-frontal nudity in films and an increasing desire for full-frontal assaults in the American political arena. (1:50 AM)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home