Less Like Anti-Abortion, More Like Anti-Sex

With the new lineup on the Supreme Court, and with state legislatures getting in line to pass the most restrictive anti-abortion laws we've seen in over 30 years, you can bet that choice will be at the center of the political culture wars in 2006 and 2008. Thus it is important to keep in mind what is really driving the anti-choice movement, which as Garance Franke-Ruta reminds us, is not, at the core, merely opposition to abortion.

While some portion of the pro-life side is genuine about wanting to reduce abortion, none of the big successes in reducing the abortion rate can be attributed to their efforts — not even to the parental notification and consent laws they've passed, according to The New York Times. Perhaps this is because the real goal of a significant chunk of the pro-life agitators is not reducing abortion, but the creation of a legal and medical system that reflects and reinforces the moral order. Preventing disease, death, and human suffering are not the ultimate goals of this part of the anti-choice movement, which is why they also oppose vaccines against HPV, which can cause cervical cancer, and even HIV. Their major worry is social disinhibition and the way the legal system has given social sanction to acts they consider immoral. It is not the existence of abortion that must be resisted within this framework; it is the social sanction the law gives it.

Many anti-choice folks may be sincere in their moral beliefs about abortion, but it's pretty clear that they see sex itself as the larger problem here. So don't think for a minute that South Dakota represents the end-point for what this movement wants to accomplish — it's only the beginning.