Procreation, abortion, the courts and congress

Procreation and abortion are two of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics. There are a couple of turning points. One player absent from the scene was congress. Progress came from the courts, not congress.There was a reason for the absence of our elected leaders from the process.

You cannot have as many babies as you want

In 1927, the U.S. supreme court decided the fate of Carrie Buck's future babies in the Buck v. Bell case. By then, the medical procedure of sterilization had become fairly safe. The state of Virginia wanted to sterilize Ms. Buck, who was considered to be "feeble minded", which meant promiscuous, poor or abnormal. The supreme court ruled (8-1) that Ms. Buck could be sterilized.

Well, OK, maybe you can have as many 

babies as you want - just be respectable

In 1942, the supreme court decided the Skinner v. Oklahoma case. The supreme court said that sterilization as punishment for a white collar crime was unconstitutional (under Oklahoma law). If it was a blue collar crime, e.g., murder, burglary, rape, etc, you could be sterilized. It was OK to break white collar laws, which was a "crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation". That was 1942.

You can have an abortion

Roe v. Wade is a modern flash point. In 1973, the supreme court said that a woman (in consultation with her doctor) had an interest that the state could not override until after the third trimester. In the third trimester, the states could decide abortion's legality. That was in deference to state's rights. The Roe reasoning was that as a fetus came closer to viability outside the mother, the more the state had an interest.

In modern culture wars, it makes a big difference if one uses the term embryo, fetus or baby. Modern anti-abortionists never use the terms embryo or fetus. It is always a baby because that is more emotionally compelling. See how labeling works? It's just routine political spin.

Where was congress?

Why didn't congress ever step in and pass laws to try to reflect changes in society as they evolved? They could have, but were afraid for their political lives. Elected politicians would not touch some controversies because they were too politically toxic.

The politics of procreation and abortion reflected a weakness in our political system. Sometimes the courts had to do what congress lacked the courage to do. The courts may get blamed by congress for being "activist", but without that activism progress probably would not come for a long, long time. It's an example of self-interest (re-election) beofre the public interest, a topic addressed both here and elsewhere. All of that procreation and abortion stuff was a long time ago. Is this concern still relevant?

Still relevant 

In one of those rare moments of candor from a politician in office and running for re-election (2012), senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) made the following comments: "We have a bunch of people in Congress that have made a lifetime career of saying yes. We don't want there to be controversy about decisions we make, so how do we avoid that controversy? We say yes. So we've said yes and yes and yes and yes until we find ourself at this point in history."

Senator McCaskill's comments were made in the context of federal deficit spending. That is one of those rare admissions by a politician about how political business in Washington gets done. Political self-interest comes before the public interest. No controversy means re-election. Controversy spells doom. 

The strange thing about this admission is that on it's face it seems to be speaking truth in the public interest. However, it isn't just that - self-interest lies just beneath the surface. McCaskill voted for both the stimulus spending plan and and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which she defends. Those votes still irritate people in Missouri so now McCaskill is assailing government spending and backing a new GOP anti-deficit plan that includes cuts in social security and medicare. At one time, those were political third rails. Times have changed. 

She is running for her political life and openly admits it - "This is a bold step; it has risks. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat."

To save her political career, McCaskill needs to show people in the show-me state that she is a true fiscal conservative. When it comes to truth in political advertising, the public has to take whatever crumbs politicians and spinners toss at us and be grateful there was a crumb. But even when a crumb does occasionally come our way, it can still be as full of self-interest as it is of public interest. Its best to just take what you can get and appreciate it.

How does any of this apply 
to a new political party?

The matter of political self-interest before the public interest teaches harsh lessons. It says that good political leaders probably won't last long in office for the most part. Why? Because the good ones will face controversies and likely lose their seat when acting in the public interest hurts the politicians re-election chances. Voters tend to toss out politicians when they are irritated enough. 

That makes most politicians unwilling to engage in controversy, even when it is clear that the controversy needs to be engaged. Maybe that's why the founding fathers talked of citizen politicians instead of just a ruling class. Good leaders are willing to personally sacrifice for the public good. We don't have many leaders like that, but we do need them.

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties look like a place that can incubate and grow that kind of leadership. If it were otherwise, why did Senator McCaskill resort to saying what she said? It is hard to imagine that she would have accused people in congress of self-service before public service believing that was false. If her allegation is true, and I believe it is, then who gets the credit if you like it or blame if you don't? The Democratic and Republican parties, that's who. Other than those two, no other party has held power in congress or the white house for over a century.