Bold Incrementalism
By Adam Graham (01/15/07)
Pro-Life groups are often attacked by some quarters for backing legislation that mitigates the tragedy of abortion by limiting access to the procedure or putting safeguards in place. The argument is that by supporting a law regulating abortion, that pro-lifers are saying abortion is okay as long as it is well regulated. Thus, it is said that pro-lifers backing parental consent legislation are fine with abortion as parental consent is obtained. Such thinking is muddled and confuses process for results.
These same people would have told William Wilberforce not to fight the slave trade, but rather that the option was complete emancipation. Wilbeforce would not have succeeded had he followed such rash advice.
However, something can be said for their concerns. If, at the end of all our efforts we’ve succeeded only in limiting abortion to the first trimester (where 91% of abortions are done) and regulating those in the first trimesters, we’re going to have accomplished little.
To make a good comparison, I propose that we examine two different liberal movements: Gun Control and Gay Marriage.
The mid-1990s was the height of the Gun Control movement in the United States. After the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, the future looked bright. Many in the US want a ban on gun ownership as was accomplished in Australia and Great Britain.
12 years later, the assault weapon bill is dead. Waiting periods have given way to instant background checks and gun control is federally little more than a fringe issue. What happened?
Those who advocated banning the possession of guns reached the conclusion that their goal of banning guns was socially unacceptable, so they chose only to pursue safer, more politically feasible options. The result is that groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America have taken the high ground on the issue and the odds are against any serious gun control law being passed on this issue.
On the other hand, we have the gay marriage movement. Gay Marriage activists have been clear about what they want: the full legal equivalent of marriage available to homosexuals. While much can be said of the progress they’ve made in courts, public opinion has been more accepting of what would have been an utterly absurd joke in the ‘50s.
They’ve taken advantage of domestic partnership laws and civil unions, even while never quite viewing those vehicles as final goals, only intermediate benchmarks that they’ll accept until they can claim victory.
Looking at these examples, we see:
1) Both groups used incremental steps in an attempt to move the issue forward
2) Only one group actually moved forward.
The key to the future of the Pro-Life movement is to follow an approach closer to the successful model of the gay marriage movement. I’d call the approach bold Incrementalism or if you prefer, pragmatic absolutism.
What this means:
1) We must accept politically feasible intermediate goals when they present themselves.
2) We must fight for the hearts of the American people on the core issues.
What this means is making the case for the pro-life cause in an intelligent, compassionate, and thoughtful way. We should welcome constructive debate with the pro-abortion side of the aisle. We should continue to reach out into our communities and talk about the sanctity of life.
We should be prepared to intelligently discuss how we’ll deal with a country without abortion and be prepared to explain how this will make our nation better. We, in no way should run from talk of a World without Roe or a world without abortion, as this is our goal. If the issue is not banning abortion, we should clarify the issue and having clarified it, then answer our opponents statements on the horror of a world that celebrates human life and protects it.
By focusing on the incremental only without being willing to discuss the ultimate, we are like a man on a boat to nowhere.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Adam Graham
