I dunno. I've read all of Michelman's and Kissling's essay, I've read the original interview with Wallis, and I don't get what Michelman and Kissling are so exercised about. In the interview, Wallis isn't denying that "abortion reduction" strategies are already in the Democratic platform, and he's not advocating bone-headed and repressive restrictions. In fact, the specific examples he cites seem to be what the DP already promotes. His main point, if I'm reading him correctly, is that the DP needs to be more clear that its reproductive rights stand isn't incompatible with social policies/incentives/opportunities to reduce abortion. His point, I take it, is more tactical than policy.
One of the things that bothers me about Michelman, both now and when she was with NARAL, is that she lacks finesse. There's no gray in her world, just black and white. I remember the huge anti-David Souter campaign she launched when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. It struck me then as strange that so much energy would be expended against a nominee who, as most everyone anticipated at the time, is a moderate to liberal member of the bench. This piece by her strikes me as a similarly extravagant expenditure of energy, especially when I compare it to your penultimate paragraph that recognizes nuance in positions on abortion, or to your previous posts on abortion.
Kerry--
You might be right on Michelman. I have often wondered if "grey area" is not a valued skill in political organizations such as NARAL?
To be charitable though, Michelman is always far more aware of the consequences of legislation and legal rulings than I am (or most Americans for that matter). Perhaps it is this understanding that inspires her ire?
Commenting by HaloScan
