By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, May 05, 2022
The desire to punish is distinct from the desire to
protect — it is rooted in an entirely different psychology and it produces very
different policy prescriptions. If, as seems likely, Roe v. Wade is
vacated and the matter of abortion regulation is properly returned to the state
legislatures, we should be mindful of that difference and emphasize protection
over punishment when crafting our statutes.
There are, of course, many statutes already on the books
or drawn up and waiting to go into effect if and when Roe is
repealed. But these are likely to change over time as our institutions gain
experience in regulating abortion.
As I often observe, we Americans are not the Swiss — or
even the Germans or the Dutch. We are not an especially ruly or easily governed
people, as witnessed by our unusually high homicide rates. (We have more
shootings, stabbings, fatal beatings, strangulations, intentional drownings,
vehicular homicides, etc., than do our European cousins — the relevant variable
is not American firearms policy but American culture.) So it is unlikely that
we will achieve 100 percent compliance with any abortion prohibitions we enact.
There is an unwise instinct to insist that total compliance should be the goal
of every statute, but when you think through that, the problems become obvious:
Attaining total compliance with drug laws or traffic laws (among many other
regulations) would require unacceptably invasive surveillance and inhumanely
severe sanctions. Abortion is different from these because it is violence that
targets a uniquely vulnerable victim, but we will by necessity be controlled by
similar prudential considerations in that matter.
Being a conservative, my inclination is to begin with a
modest policy and then wait for some time to see what results it actually
produces. In the matter of abortion, there is some reason to believe that we
could get most of what we want by imposing meaningful but by no means draconian
sanctions on medical providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc.) who perform
abortions, punishing them with a felony-homicide conviction that results in a
fine and loss of licensure. Even though abortion has the elements of the most
serious class of homicides (premeditation, etc.), we are not obligated to treat
it that way. Even in this very serious matter, we should seek the least
invasive means of achieving the outcome we desire.
If additional measures seem called for after some period
of study and consideration, then these can be undertaken, gradually and
carefully, as needed. There is no benefit — practical or political — in living
down to the Left’s caricature of the pro-life position.
Contrary to what one hears from the familiar ghastly
Malthusians among us, repealing Roe and imposing abortion
restrictions won’t require us to build an archipelago of new orphanages, nor
will it likely have much effect on publicly subsidized health-care costs. The
number of U.S. families who wish to adopt a child exceeds by many multiples the
number of children who are available for adoption (which is why so many
Americans wishing to adopt go to the far corners of the world), and even if we
assume that every single one of the abortions that happen in the United States
in a typical year (estimates vary, but probably around 850,000) would otherwise
result in a pregnancy subsidized by Medicaid or another government program,
this would not add up to a great deal of money — probably less than half a
day’s worth of Social Security spending. If additional support for vulnerable
mothers is required, then that is a bearable cost. As with practically every
other welfare initiative, our problem there is going to be program design and
administration, not resources.
So, there will be no Handmaid’s Tale, no
cinematic dystopia. The hysterics among us should be reminded that while the
Mississippi law at issue in Dobbs prohibits abortion after 15
weeks, in France, the law prohibits it after 14 weeks. If your idea of a
right-wing Christo-fascist hellhole is Paris, then you need a psychiatrist, not
an abortionist.
We can be assertive and humane at the same time, provided
that we keep our attention on the interests of the vulnerable parties involved
in this issue rather than abandon ourselves to the tedious theater of
pharisaical self-righteousness. Regulating abortion is going to be a divisive
and difficult task, one that will raise too much emotion and too little careful
thought. But there isn’t any law that says we have to continue to be stupid
about it — American political tradition need be honored only so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment