 |
About a year ago, right after the presidential election, I read an interview in The Atlantic that I've been thinking about ever since. The interviewee was a pro-choice writer who argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. This was his forecast: the Supreme Court would strike down Roe; the matter would revert to the states. Voters would determine whether each state's constitution would be modified to ban abortion. Some states would; most would not. (Surveys show that a majority of Americans would preserve abortion rights.) With abortion's smokescreen lifted from national elections, moderates could be swayed back to the left, the Religious Right would be disempowered, and progressive politics would finally progress.
I thought it was an interesting perspective. Actually, it sort of blew my mind, which doesn't mean I thought it was realistic. (That country — where removing rights from the Constitution would be good precedent, and where women seeking abortions could just hop on a bus to the nearest liberal oasis — seems a bit like a political Narnia.) But after reading that interview, I realized that there are underexplored nuances to a story that's always told in terms of red vs. blue, trash bags or wire hangers, enroaching doom vs. encroaching doom — and that the future may lie in those nuances.
About a year ago, right after the presidential election, I read an interview in The Atlantic that I've been thinking about ever since. The interviewee was a pro-choice writer who argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. This was his forecast: the Supreme Court would strike down Roe; the matter would revert to the states. Voters would determine whether each state's constitution would be modified to ban abortion. Some states would, most would not. (Surveys show that a majority of Americans would preserve abortion rights.) With abortion's smokescreen lifted from national elections, moderates could be swayed back to the left, the Religious Right would be disempowered, and progressive politics would finally progress.
I thought it was an interesting perspective. Actually, it sort of blew my mind, which doesn't mean I thought it was realistic. (That country — where removing rights from the constitution would be good precedent, and where women seeking abortions could just hop on a bus to the nearest liberal oasis — seemed a little too Narnia.) But after reading that interview, I realized that there are underexplored nuances to a story that's repeatedly laid out in terms of red vs. blue, trash bags or wire hangers, enroaching doom vs. encroaching doom — and that the future may lie in those nuances.
Who knows how Judge Alito would vote if confirmed, or if Roe v. Wade will
ever be formally challenged (some say it's too politically important to be
overturned; see argument above). In the meantime, we wanted to peel back the coding on both sides of the issue. Lynn
Harris explores how the group Feminists for Life uses '60s imagery to appeal to Gen Y. Our editor, Ada Calhoun, shatters the taboo of being pro-choice with reservations. Also, former FDA commissioner Dr. Susan Wood speaks out about fending for women's health in the Bush administration. There's a report on the future of contraception, and a personal essay from Rachel
Shukert about why she hates using it.
I know some of you don't like it when we pull up the Twister mat and get into politics, but sometimes we just have to. Enjoy the issue — it's definitely not all over
but the shouting. — Michael Martin
|
