Why shoot the messenger?

Because, in many cases, the message is deemed offensive. In this case, the message is, "Addressing abortion is important" and the messenger is the pro-life movement. And those doing the shooting? Ross Douthat writes (in the New York Times, of all places):

AN iron law of recent American politics dictates that any Republican setback at the polls will be quickly pinned on the pro-life movement. You might think that the Republican Party’s 2008 debacle would be an exception to this rule. John McCain probably mentioned earmarks about a thousand times more often than he let the word “abortion” slip his lips. The Republican ticket’s weak attempts to play the culture-war card — a Bill Ayers here, a Joe the Plumber there — had nothing whatsoever to do with Roe v. Wade. And why should abortion opponents, of all conservative factions, take the blame for the financial meltdown, or the bungled occupation of Iraq, or the handling of Hurricane Katrina?

But never mind. Pro-choice Republicans, in particular, know exactly whom to blame for their party’s showing. As Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and Bush administration E.P.A. chief, explained after the election, it lost because “the party was taken hostage by ‘social fundamentalists,’ the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion.”

The conservative columnist Kathleen Parker made the same point more vividly: “The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the G.O.P. is what ails the erstwhile conservative party.” The neoconservative writer Max Boot was diffident about the matter (“I don’t think Republicans need to panic,” he wrote, but “one area where I do see some room for adjustment is on the issue of abortion”) and the right-wing humorist P. J. O’Rourke was blunt (pro-lifers should “give the issue a rest”). The message is clear: If the Republican Party would only jettison its position on abortion, it would be back on its feet in no time.

For pro-lifers, these refrains are as frustrating as they are familiar. But more frustrating than the blame game is the equally familiar advice that has accompanied it. Most abortion opponents can recite the litany by heart. Their movement should focus on changing hearts and minds, rather than the law. It should be more consistently pro-life, by helping human beings outside the womb as well as those within it. It should cease trying to roll back the sexual revolution and standing athwart science yelling “stop!” And above all, it should be less absolutist, and more amenable to compromise.

Obviously there’s wisdom in some of these suggestions. But pro-lifers have already taken much of it to heart. Compromise, rather than absolutism, has been the watchword of anti-abortion efforts for some time now. Since the early 1990s, advocates have focused on pushing largely modest state-level restrictions, from parental notification laws to waiting periods to bans on what we see as the grisliest forms of abortion.

Douthat goes on to provide some details.

On a related note, something that keeps coming to mind is this statement, which I've heard and read in many forms over the years: "If right-wing Christians would care as much about babies after they are born as before they are born, they'd be taken much more seriously." A few years ago I read a variation of this nonsense in Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Species, where he states, without providing the least bit of evidence, "Many pro-life activists do not extend their concern to the baby who is born ..." Really? Then why are there so many Christian adoption agencies? Why do so many Christians pursue adoption, even while the costs skyrocket and red tape nearly chokes many agencies and programs to death? And why is it that abortion businesses such as Planned Parenthood show little or no interest in adoptions? Hmmmm, that's a tough one...

Comments

[Dan]

I also bridle at the "they don't care about the born" comment, which is as common as it is unsubstantiated. It is more often than not uttered by a liberal who considers voting Democratic as the fulfilment of any and all charitable obligations. The documented fact is that both pro-life sentiment and charitable giving/work correlate strongly to religious commitment.

[Todd]

Well ... President Carter properly qualified the statement by writing "some" pro-life activists. We know that some do involve themselves after a person is born.

But let's be honest: many pro-lifers are one trick ponies. They focus on the political aspects of the issue to the exclusion of others. One might rightly argue that's a prudential judgment, and perhaps political people have no business adopting kids, or visiting the sick, or community organizing or undertaking other activities for which they have no skill or ambition.

The overall public image of the pro-life movement can use improvement: an easy case can be made for this. We need to note traps, like Archbishop Burke appearing to bail on a children's hospital, and avoid public spectacle that erodes dignity and believability.

In the effort to speak the Truth, some (but not all) pro-lifers have tossed aside any hope to persuade fence-sitters. We will need more than publicity campaigns financed by Saints to get the message across. This kind of criticism is important. We should listen to it. We should respond soberly and with an eye to improving ourselves. We should be thankful we're still on the radar.

[Francis Beckwith]

I actually don't understand the Jimmy Carter argument. Suppose he's right--that prolifers don't really care about postnatal children (which is, of course, false)--how would it would follow from that fact that killing prenatal children is justified? I don't get why showing that prolifers lack virtue somehow counts as support for the correctness of abortion rights. At some point someone has to tell former-President Carter: Sir, if you believe abortion is justified, defend it. If you believe that prolifers are bad people, provide evidence. But don't try to avoid defending your position on abortion by raising questions about the virtue of your fellow citizens who disagree with your position. It is despicable, and unpresidential.

[Francis Beckwith]

"The overall public image of the pro-life movement can use improvement."

The reality is great. The image sucks. Blame the image-makers, the abortion rights media.

Todd, are you actually admitting that you are fencing-sitting on the issue of abortion because of the image or prolifers? It's not often that people confess their own superficiality in print. God bless you. Now go and sin no more.

[Carl E. Olson]

It is despicable, and unpresidential.

For my money, that sums up most of Jimmy Carter's beliefs and actions.

[Mark Brumley]

Dr. Beckwith is, of course, correct.

But let's be honest: many pro-lifers are one trick ponies. They focus on the political aspects of the issue to the exclusion of others.

How many is many? My experience is that few prolifers are "single issue people" or limit themselves to politics, etc. They prioritize the right to life of unborn children but that does not make them "one trick ponies".

But even so, as Dr. Beckwith says, the Carter claim doesn't make the case it is supposed to make, even if it were true.

Re: AB Burke, "Good work, AB, for not caving to human opinion."

[Todd]

Thanks for the responses, all. I continue to urge reading comprehension: the president said that "some" pro-lifers have a problem with life after birth. He's right. I think a group of people can quibble as to the scope of that number: one percent, ninety-nine or somewhere in between. I happen to think the number of compassionate pro-lifers is rather higher than liberals suspect. Good for us, but let's get the word out, eh?

"It is despicable, and unpresidential."

No, it's really not. But I can understand that the truth grates on us and it makes us inclined to lash out.

"Todd, are you actually admitting that you are fencing-sitting on the issue of abortion because of the image or prolifers?"

Hardly. Now Francis, if you would be so kind as to write in your next post: "I know Todd is a devoted pro-lifer. He cares about the born and the unborn. I don't like his stance on the peripherals of the pro-life effort, but I can acknowledge he's on my side."

Thanks for that.

[LJ]

Class dismissed.