Juan Williams

by Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate

  The ugly talk, of course, has also come from people trying to stop legal abortion. During the health-care reform debate in 2010, Congressman Randy Neugebauer, a Texas Republican, felt free to slander a Michigan Democrat, Bart Stupak, as a “baby killer.” Incredibly, Stupak is an opponent of abortion. Nellie Gray, who organized the first mass protest in Washington against abortion, warned that like Nazis who killed Jews during the Holocaust, any member of Congress supporting abortion rights “will be held accountable, just as the Nuremberg trials found individuals personally responsible for crimes committed against humanity.” Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, has called abortion worse than slavery. Abortion opponents carry signs with pictures of bloody aborted fetuses. They badger and traumatize women entering abortion clinics.

  There is little room in this charred landscape for hope or compromise. This harsh language, the personal insults, the reliance on religious dogma and threats of violence make it easy for most Americans to shut up when it comes to abortion. The fact that both political parties see benefit in keeping up the attacks has made it impossible to have an honest debate or to compromise and achieve national consensus on abortion. People become angry, hurt, and bitter from being assaulted with charges that range from oppressing women to child-killing. The response to such slander is predictable. People on each side harden their positions and join in trading dogma. Tragically, the ill will is so thick it derails the need to resolve the myriad social and economic problems that surround abortion. Abortion takes up so much attention, emotion, money, and energy that by comparison political leaders appear indifferent to or bored with the tragic daily circumstances confronting too many American women and children—poverty, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, and abuse.

  The obsessive focus on abortion results in the nation agreeing to a separate and artificial reality.

  The alternate universe of bitter words never admits the reality that polls have painted a fairly consistent picture of what the American people think about abortion. It is a world described by President Clinton in which abortion is “safe, legal and rare.” A strong majority of Americans seem comfortable with that rational approach, according to the polls. For most of the last forty years, most Americans have told pollsters they approve of a woman being allowed to have an abortion. And studies show that one of every three American women, across all religions, races, income levels, and age groups, will have an abortion before the age of forty-five. The most recent data on abortions in the United States, from the Guttmacher Institute, reports that despite the blanket opposition of the Catholic Church and evangelicals, 28 percent of the women having abortions identify their religion as Catholic and 37 percent say they are Protestant.

  The study showed that about half of the women who have abortions, 45 percent, have never been married and are not living with a man. More than 60 percent of the women who have abortions already have one or more children. And many women who have abortions are poor: 42 percent of them have incomes below the poverty line ($10,830 for a single woman with no children), and another 27 percent are limited to incomes less than twice the federal poverty level.

  That sad picture offers no evidence to suggest that brutish husbands, pimps, or psychopaths are forcing these women to have abortions. There is no indication that wanton, loose women casually use abortion in place of contraception. The survey indicates that the average woman having an abortion is an adult—57 percent are between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine—who is making a difficult, personal decision, often while struggling to feed herself and her children, to terminate a pregnancy.

  Given that reality, even if the Roe v. Wade decision giving women constitutional protection for abortion was overturned, abortion would not stop. If a conservative Supreme Court majority overturned Roe, it would open the door to each of the fifty states setting its own rules for abortion. Under those circumstances, states such as California and New York would likely allow abortions, while states like Alabama and Oklahoma would likely ban them. In the post-Roe world with no constitutional protection for abortion, the world so passionately desired by abortion opponents, women living in a state that did not allow abortions would be able to travel to states that allow abortion. Poor women and young women without the means or support to make the trip might be forced to find doctors or midwives who would do abortions illegally. Or those women would keep children they didn’t want and might not be able to adequately take care of. Ideally, in that scenario, they would put those unwanted children up for adoption. But the overwhelming majority of abortions would continue unabated.

  The fact is that abortions occur every day in America, and that has been true regardless of what the high court, Congress, the president, or any religious community says about them. This is not an expression of opinion. It is a recognition of reality. Abortion is a painful subject, but no meaningful debate can take place while opponents pretend it can simply be abolished.

  The language around the abortion debate is so charged it has become a seductive, paralyzing toxin when applied to other topics. To avoid getting stung in the abortion debate, journalists are now instructed by the Associated Press Stylebook to refrain from using the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” The problem with these terms is that they can be taken to imply that people who hold the opposite view are not just wrong but morally deficient in their character. If you identify as pro-life, then you are communicating to all those who disagree with you that they are bad people who are “anti-life” and “pro-death.” On the other hand, if you put a “pro-choice” sticker on your car, some people will take that to mean that you are impugning the other side as intolerant, small-minded people who are “anti-freedom” and “anti–individual privacy.” So the Associated Press Stylebook instructs journalists to use the more neutral terms “anti-abortion” and “abortion rights” in telling stories about abortion.

  I am going to stick with that language because this book is not about who is right or wrong on abortion. I don’t want to give anyone a convenient reason to ignore the damage being done by the abortion debate to all civil dialogue.

  And both sides try to drag everyone into their miserable argument. In addition to the coded words and disturbing symbols, hyperbole is a ubiquitous tactic used by both sides. Supporters of abortion point to pregnancies that result from rape or incest to argue their case. In one of the 2004 presidential debates, Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, posited this scenario to justify his opposition to parental notification laws. What Senator Kerry and the “pro-choice” crowd neglects to mention is that only about 1 percent of all abortions terminate a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest. Opponents of abortion use similar tactics. They focus on “partial-birth abortion” of late-term fetuses and detail images of limbs being pulled off bodies to make a graphic, emotionally upsetting case for their point of view. And like their opponents, they fail to mention the dire circumstances that require the use of such a procedure or that it is rarer than the 1 percent of abortions tied to rape and incest. On every side politicians and interest groups have a penchant for manipulating the facts about abortion to shift the debate in their favor. Restraint and respect for the other side of the argument are viewed as evidence of lack of conviction. They are seen as weakness.

  This dangerous minefield surrounding discussion of abortion is now creeping into discussions of all social issues. As the new standard it has reduced debate to the use of smear tactics, slogans, and questioning the integrity of anyone who holds a different point of view. On gay marriage, school prayer, allowing monuments with religious symbols on public land, and even the celebration of Christmas by public institutions, the debate is always shaped to mimic the failed, frustrating, and purely political pattern of discourse on abortion. The reason the abortion debate has the power to set the beat for every other discussion of social issues is the tremendous success the issue has had in building political movements.

  Since the 1980s, Christian conservative groups such as the F
amily Research Council, Focus on the Family, and National Right to Life have become major players in Republican Party politics because of the power derived from flying the flag of opposition to abortion. On the other side, Emily’s List, the National Organization for Women, and NARAL Pro-Choice America have become major players in Democratic Party politics by trumpeting their defense of the right to abortion. On both sides there are big money, major lobbying organizations, and powerful political allies available for any candidate willing to advocate one view loudly, drowning out all nuances, and to vilify all opposing voices. Abortion has become the one and only litmus test applied by these groups to judge all political leaders. These groups have succeeded in forcing the nation to go along with their one-note, narrow standard for electing leaders, writing laws, and setting budgets. And this goes beyond candidates for elected office. Anyone seeking to be an activist in the base of either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party basically takes a pledge for or against abortion with no explanations allowed. Again, it is the ultimate litmus test.

  The abortion issue has become a critical factor in even the most routine business of the U.S. Congress. Every year since 1976 Congress has passed the Hyde Amendment to ban federal funding for abortion. Medicaid—federal supplements to help the poor get proper health care—is not allowed to pay for abortions. The Hyde Amendment effectively denies a legal medical procedure to poor women. This is a significant issue of fairness and social justice worth discussing. But that discussion is not allowed. Neither side wants to risk upsetting the status quo, which is benefiting them both. The politics of abortion have made it a zero-sum game with extremists on both sides setting the rules and everyone else remaining muzzled.

  One critical aspect of the fear of discussing abortion is acceptance of the idea that there is a major religious component to this debate. It is a fact that the Catholic Church and millions of Americans interpret biblical scripture as condemning abortion. The Constitution gives those citizens the right to religious freedom and the right to practice their understanding of God’s word. However, the First Amendment to the Constitution also says that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion. The United States is a secular nation governed by the rule of law. Religious beliefs are not a legitimate basis for making law. The separation of church and state is an established principle of our government. Even though colonists of the revolutionary era were very religious people, they joined in near unanimity in opposing the establishment of an official religion for their new country. The animating idea that led them to that decision was a very conscious desire to not replicate the European models that many had fled in search of religious tolerance. Yet when it comes to contemporary arguments about abortion, the use of religious doctrine threatens to erase the line between religion and government. And when similar tactics are mimicked in arguments about other hot-button issues, from gay rights to prayer in school, it makes it impossible to achieve progress. It clogs the arteries that have carried the blood of American democracy.

  It may sound radical—because it is rarely said for fear of giving offense—but religion is not the law in this country. Inspirational references to the ideals of religious teachings are not the basis for our laws. The Founding Fathers, the abolitionists, and leaders of the civil rights movement all called for America to aspire to become a loving community, with justice and charity. But attempts to dictate political, military, or social policy on the basis of religious doctrine amount to imposing constraints on dialogue that are not accepted by all Americans. Using religion to foment division between Americans may be the vilest form of coded speech because it is so contradictory to the reasons this country was founded. The word “God” does not appear in the Constitution. The only reference to a deity is an expression of the date—“The Year of Our Lord”—which is about as bland a reference as one can imagine. The document has been described as the “godless Constitution.” So how, in a country governed by that Constitution, can the Bible or any other religious text be the final word on what rights a woman has regarding abortion? The sad thing is that advocates and opponents, as well as politicians, know this but still find it politically advantageous to pretend they don’t. And it is ironic that many of those who favor the strictest interpretation of the Constitution are the most liberal when it comes to violating its very first principle.

  The power of religion has been a constant force in American life from the start. The Founding Fathers repeatedly referred to the God-given right to freedom as the basis for their Declaration of Independence from the tyrannical rule of King George. But that religious framework did not extend to the principles articulated in the Constitution. In designing the Constitution the Founding Fathers “believed themselves at work in the service of both God and man, not just one or the other,” wrote Jon Meacham in his book American Gospel. “Driven by a sense of providence and an acute appreciation of the fallibility of humankind, they created a nation in which religion should not be singled out for special help or particular harm. The balance between the promise of the Declaration of Independence, with its evocation of divine origins and destiny, and the practicalities of the Constitution, with its checks on extremism, remains perhaps the most brilliant American success.”

  Even so, religion was a point of controversy in national politics from the start. Thomas Jefferson’s ties to atheists during his time in Paris were used by his political opponents to portray him as a godless man, a heathen lacking any moral compass who was not fit to govern the new nation. He was widely quoted as having defined his stand on religion with a pithy line: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

  Religion became a major force in American life in the early 1800s, with churches and revival meetings becoming the center of social life in small towns and cities. The evangelical tone, with its optimism and promise of personal salvation, fit with the promise of emerging democratic institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the new nation was far more taken with religion than any country in Europe. “I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion,” he wrote,” … but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks.”

  The power of religion to create a common bond and to organize Americans was evident in the spread of organized religion in the United States during what historians call the “Second Great Awakening.” Churches became a regular stop for politicians seeking office, and the era marked “the beginning of the ‘Republicanizing’ or nationalizing of American religion,” according to Gordon Wood’s book Empire of Liberty. President Lincoln used references to biblical scripture regularly in his speeches. He capitalized on the religious undertones of the Declaration of Independence to rally his fight to keep North and South as one nation, as well as to compel Americans to deal with the immorality of slavery. Lincoln’s speeches, correspondence, and diaries are full of references to God and the moral importance for a God-fearing country of freeing the slaves. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” stirred antislavery passion with its lyrical appeal to the power of a fierce God who is marching forward to crush the bitter fruit of slavery, the grapes of wrath.

  In the twentieth century, religious themes again became central to national identity in the fight against communism. After World War II American politicians framed the ideological struggle between the military superpowers of the day, the Soviet Union and the United States, as a conflict between godless communists and God-fearing Americans. In 1954 the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to include the phrase “one nation under God.” And in 1956 the country’s motto, featured on its currency, became “In God We Trust.” Also during this time, press baron William Randolph Hearst openly promoted a young evangelical and conservative preacher with a fiery, anticommunist message—Billy Graham. “The principles o
f Christ,” Graham said at his many crusades, “form the only ideology hard enough to stop communism. When communism conquers a nation it makes every man a slave. When Christianity conquers a nation it makes every man a king.” Graham became a permanent fixture at mass rallies for tens of thousands promoting “born-again” American Protestantism that was tied to fighting the devilish communist menace. Democrats and Republicans in the White House welcomed Billy Graham as a spiritual adviser, but his hard line against communists led conservatives, especially President Nixon, to embrace his willingness to mix Christianity and patriotism. Religion also made news during this period thanks to the Supreme Court’s rulings limiting prayer in public schools. And the 1960 campaign saw John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism become an issue. No Catholic had ever been president, and he felt compelled to speak against suggestions that he might take directions from the pope and not the Constitution.

  Beginning in 1965, arguments about the role of religion in American life erupted again. This time the women’s liberation movement and the debate over a woman’s sexual freedoms ignited political passions and arguments over whether the nation was losing its moral grounding. Those social debates became a fire-and-brimstone political fury when the Supreme Court issued rulings on the “right to privacy.” The Court, in a series of decisions, said women had a right to contraceptives under its reading of the Constitution, as a matter of privacy. And then the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision inflamed social conservatives by giving constitutional protection to abortion. The high court’s ruling, along with Nixon’s political success in winning the Catholic vote as a result of his opposition to abortion, gave rise to a new political force—a vocal, organized antiabortion right wing that spoke in defiance of any “right to privacy,” invoking scripture and the importance of a fetus’s competing “right to life.”