The Wages of Disengagement

Senator Barbara Boxer is outraged by the slew of new anti-choice bills being offered up by House Republicans: "It breaks faith with a decades-long bipartisan compromise, and it risks the health and lives of women."

Ann Friedman's not buying it:

Oh wait, so all those times that Democrats caved on the issue of women's health — years of rubber-stamping the Hyde Amendment, rolling over on contraception access, failing to do away with abstinence-only sex ed, shrugging off Stupak-Pitts — they were under the impression they were engaging in a bi-partisan negotiation to protect women's rights? And now they are surprised (and maybe a little hurt?) that Republicans have been empowered by these compromises to introduce even more radical anti-choice legislation? STFU. Just… STFU.

The basic dynamic here should be familiar. When Democrats decided about ten years ago to stop pushing for gun control legislation, that didn't take the issue off the table it led to a wave of envelop-pushing pro-gun bills. When the GOP temporarily stopped opposing Social Security in the wake of World War II, it led to 30 years of steady increases in Social Security beenfits and eligibility. Every conservative retreat from anti-gay bigotry inspires people to push deeper for equality. As long as a large minority of the public thinks people should be thrown in jail for having an abortion, we'll either see continual fighting on this point or else continued slippage as the debate loses an anchor on the pro-choice side.

This is also the problem with the tactical decision to move toward "abortion is bad, but…" language when talking about the issue. Whether or not the median voter ever embraces the slogan of abortion on demand and without apology, it's important for some people in positions of some prominence to be holding down that side of the fort.