KENNEY: Abortion Didn't Decide Virginia, But Virginia Needs to Decide on Abortion
Want some pro-life ideas on how to get rid of abortion? Start with quality jobs, educational opportunities, affordable childcare, decent health care...
Editor’s Note: We apologize for the late delivery this morning. An editorial oversight created the delay. We apologize for the delay.
There is probably nothing that Virginia Democrats would love more than to hang the last Tuesday’s results on abortion. Of course, standing on a pile of dead babies and scolding the rest of us might seem rather Olympian for that sort of barbarism, but it isn’t the message sent by Virginia voters at all.
Consider the following. Governor Glenn Youngkin did not lose a single seat where he earned 52% of the vote and did not win a single seat where he earned under 50% of the vote in 2021. If the Dobbs decision was that much of a motivator, then where was the bump?
Then there is the obvious dichotomy where Republican Tara Durant ran as a 100% pro-life Catholic mother against Democrat Joel Griffin who supported the Ralph Northam extreme on abortion of 40 weeks and beyond. Yet within Durant’s SD-27, Republican Lee Peters — who echoed the 15-week regulation line — lost to Democrat Joshua Cole in HD-65 whose personal convictions are pro-life yet policy stances hinge on social and economic justice questions to help young mothers and their children.
On Life? Be Honest About What You Intend
The question of abortion seems to be on the lips of every low-IQ wag in Virginia, but the smarter sort has already figured it out. The problem isn’t abortion per se — either 100% pro-lifers or 40-weeks and beyond pro-aborts — but rather the oddity of a 15-week open season on babies being a “pro-life” position. From Thursday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch:
“When you have people say they’re 100% pro-life and then support a 15-week ban, that makes people wonder what you really want … with Youngkin and the Republicans, people were skeptical about what they really wanted,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington.
No one wants that.
A 15-week regulation on abortion is akin to Democrats proposing a “ban” on firearms which would only impact 2% of all sales. Farnsworth’s critique is entirely correct here. Voters aren’t stupid and understand precisely what a 15-week regulation on abortion is — a compromise which satisfies neither camp.
For Democrats, any regulation is going to be interpreted as a ban on abortion. For Republicans, regulations are precisely that — regulation and not a clear statement of values. For pro-life voters, why should they settle to become the pro-regulation arm of the abortion industry? Better to stay at home and continue the work most of them already do — supporting mothers, buying diapers and formula, finding jobs and helping families — rather than waste their time and energy on something as sordid as the political.
On Abortion? Be Honest About What We Are Choosing
So much for the idea that abortion drove the elections in Virginia. Redistricting — not abortion — drove the numbers. If one needs a gut check on this, find me the persuadable voter where abortion is their #1 motivator? Either you are in one camp or the other and neither God nor man will move most from their respective rocks.
Yet there is something adult in this wider discussion on two counts. First and foremost, this is not a question of choice, but rather a question of what is being chosen. Second and more radical is whether or not every human person has the basic right to exist. Tangential to this is not just whether every human person has the basic right to exist, but whether they have the right to flourish — to be as successful and happy as their talents and energies allow them to become.
In this, Democrats and Republicans tend to talk past one another. The Guttmacher Institute’s own numbers in 2005 indicate that 3 out of every 4 women who had an abortion did so because they felt they would be unsupported. Nearly half cited relationship concerns or fear of being a single parent. One in six — a number which should repel us all — said that their partner was coercing them to have an abortion.
Another 2017 study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons states that nearly 3 out of every 4 women who had an abortion felt either pressured or coerced into doing so.
In this, Democrats have one heck of a point. Our society may claim to respect the dignity of the human person, but only up to a point. That pro-lifers are more pro-birth than pro-life is a charge that should stick and shame us all. What ever happened to that shining city on a hill which provided decent health care, affordable childcare, excellent jobs and better opportunities? No mother wants an abortion as a first choice. Defending the basic right to exist shouldn’t be a license to starve, but a principled commitment to the dignity of every human person for a fighting chance at life.
Yet the flip side of this argument should horrify us all. Coerced abortions? Unsupported women? Concerns about being able to pursue an education or get a job? That hardly sounds like a free and unfettered choice at all. Abortion is a lot cheaper than health care, childcare, a decent education system, and quality jobs. After all, why should Amazon pay for childcare when they can simply pay for abortions? What sort of dystopian hellscape cloaks that sort of false choice as a positive good?
The Solution Won’t Be Elections
Of course, you don’t have to scratch me too hard to find out what I believe and why I believe it.
In my absolute core, I believe that every human person is an unrepeatable good who deserves not just the basic right to exist, but the full command of our resources and government in order to thrive, prosper, and flourish. Every child has the right to their mother and father, and our laws and what we subsidize should reflect this inherent right. Not just each and every one of us as individuals, and not just all of us together as a society, but families as the basic building block of society.
The moment that society begins to respect this basic and fundamental right to exist, perhaps then we can start addressing how society completely maltreats women by demanding they sacrifice their femininity in order to be productive members of society. Perhaps we can directly tackle the fact that abortion would not be a reality in America if men simply behaved like men for a change rather than spoiled adolescents. Perhaps we could address more broadly the way too many men speak of women by reducing them as objects.
Naturally, I speak of all of this from the pure disadvantage of being a male member of the species homo sapiens — though perhaps we are more homo phronesis than anything else. Yet as men, we should recognize that human biology places us at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to figuring out what matters. I have little truck for the idea that men cannot have an opinion on abortion. More men should, but as men, because men have an overwhelming impact on whether mothers — expectant or unexpectant — really are faced with a supportive and loving choice to bring new human persons into this awesome little world versus presenting them with a cold ultimatum of arranged facts.
In this, men have one choice — to be as maximally supportive of mothers as we can and to take responsibility for the life we help bring into this world. Imagine erasing 3/4ths of all abortions in America overnight… if men would just be men.
In the meantime, we can muddle what we mean and cloak our sentiments in the hopes it might temporarily win an election or two. Yet the idea of life as something inconvenient strikes me as a certain poverty or lack of imagination, that this world we create everyday is somehow unworthy to bring life into. That strikes me as a certain sort of indictment against each and every one of us.
For myself, I refuse to believe that the maximum degree of moral rectitude our society can extend towards women is a $300 abortion. Health care, childcare, better jobs, educational opportunities, stronger families, a general societal intolerance of 35-year old adolescent males — all of these have to be better answers. More to the point, there are needs close to each of us which could use a bit more humanity. Find those and maybe we can talk about what we value and why with a bit more heart and a lot less cold steel.
If it makes me sound like a Democrat, then so be it. Yet I’m not entirely sure that Kennedy Democrats are welcome around here anymore. I’ll stick to being called a Catholic and let other folks figure it out on my behalf.
SHAUN KENNEY is a columnist for the Fredericksburg Advance.
First off, I love the Fredericksburg Advance and the fact it publishes various viewpoints. But Mr. Kenney is playing loose with the facts to support his narrative that abortion rights had nothing to do with the election results.
Here is one paragraph that particularly stood out: “Then there is the obvious dichotomy where Republican Tara Durant ran as a 100% pro-life Catholic mother against Democrat Joel Griffin who supported the Ralph Northam extreme on abortion of 40 weeks and beyond. Yet within Durant’s SD-27, Republican Lee Peters — who echoed the 15-week regulation line — lost to Democrat Joshua Cole in HD-65 whose personal convictions are pro-life yet policy stances hinge on social and economic justice questions to help young mothers and their children.”
This is ridiculous--there was no “dichotomy” between these races. Republicans Tara Durant and Lee Peters both publicly supported Youngkin’s 15-week abortion ban. They also both played down the abortion issue. Meanwhile, Democrats Joel Griffin and Joshua Cole backed the existing law, which allows abortions up to 26 weeks of pregnancy. Any abortion after 26 weeks is prohibited unless three physicians certify that “in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” Both Democrats unequivocally supported maintaining the state’s existing law on abortion rights, which was the focus of their campaigns. Cole has described himself as a “pro-choice pastor” and never once hedged on this issue.
Here’s another thing you fail to mention: Independent Monica Gary, who challenged Durant and Griffin, was arguably the strongest supporter of abortion rights in the local state Senate race. Gary said her own abortions helped her escape abusive relationships. She also supported reducing, from three to two, the number of doctors required to certify that an abortion after 26 weeks is necessary to save a woman’s life. The pro-abortion rights candidates, Griffin and Gary, received more than 50 percent of the vote while Durant received 48 percent of the vote. And the pro-abortion rights candidate in the House of Delegates race, Joshua Cole, won more than 50 percent of the vote.
Mr. Kenney, I agree that this election was far from a
Democratic blowout. However, your characterization of the “dichotomy” between the Fredericksburg-area Senate and House of Delegates races is blatantly false.
You have ignored my point and proven my assertion. As I stated, I appreciate the fact that Martin Davis publishes differing viewpoints and has writers on his staff who have opposing views along the political spectrum. However, my point is that the comment section is not typically engaged by the writer.
One need look no further than your comments to the others in this thread. Your style seems to be to use your position as staff writer to engage in an arguments coming from what you appear to believe is a place of superiority, inferring those who comment do so at the risk of being attacked by the writer of the piece. This is off-putting and, I maintain, unprofessional on your part.
I've had several people comment personally to me that they are considering unsubscribing to the Advance because of your insolence in the comment section. Cheers.