Win-Win
I think Matt has exactly the right reaction to this Douthat op-ed : what Douthat prevents as a “tradeoff” is just a strong case that providing women access to abortion increases both individual freedom and family stability. Call me crazy, but reducing unwanted births for teenage mothers is…a good thing!
I should also note that the data cited by Douthat also make a complete hash of his frequent assertions that the United States has an “absolutist” pro-choice legal regime. Rather, state governments are allowed to regulate abortion in a lot of ways, and while these regulations don’t have huge effects on overall abortion rates they do make it much harder for women from whom the consequences of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are most dire to obtain abortions. I think this explains why Douthat needs to be dishonest about what Casey actually holds; he’s certainly not going to opposed these kinds of regulations, but the desirability of “the status quo with more teenage mothers and desperately poor mothers” outcome Douthat is implicitly supporting is…far from self-evident.
Wait, no Kagan bashing? What blog is this, again?
For DoucheHat, empowering women and enabling sexuality are bad things in and of themselves.
I’m still trying to figure out this line, which seems deliberately slippery:
The rigor, I suppose, is how Douthat describes greater authoritarianism and paternalism – such as restricting access to abortion. But what’s the “permissiveness” – “Now that you’ve disobeyed our household rules and shamed us with your unwed pregnancy, you’re now free to have a baby and to enjoy less marital success and prosperity”? I don’t mean to caricature blue state life – but that appears to be how Douthat imagines things work.
Seriously – did Douthat start writing a column based upon his assumption that restricting access to abortions would improve family values, find the opposite, and not have time to start over before his deadline?
Why do we care what DoubtThat thinks?
You don’t. You shouldn’t care what anybody thinks unless they agree with you, politically. If they don’t, they probably lie about everything, anyway.
Of course, as Matt points out, but you ignore, this is only a “strong case” if one actually thinks abortion is no big deal. If it’s murder, then that’s really sort of a poor way to “reduce unwanted births.’”
Douthat may believe that – but if so, he should stop dancing around his convictions and say what he actually thinks.
But what’s the “permissiveness”
Well, the “red family” model permits more slapping up of hos and bitches.
Is that really true that state regulations don’t have much affect on abortion rates?