by Matt Stoller, Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:46:39 AM EST
EJ Dionne threw a wankerific curveball yesterday:
I have more sympathy than most liberals with the right-to-life movement because I believe most right-to-lifers are animated not by sexism or some punitive attitude toward sexuality but by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless.
What about this?
Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. --Pat Robertson
The long term goal [is] the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them. If we argue that abortion is murder, then we must call for the death penalty. --Gary Demar, American Vision
Abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide -- all these grow out of this new vision that sex and procreation are divided. -- Dr. Eugene Edward Veith, in American Family
Dionne, who I like and respect, is in this case quite wankerific. To repeat for the thousandth time, pro-choice advocates are not for abortion. And anti-choice leaders are not against abortion. There's a very simple way of reducing abortion, which is to provide economic assistance to low income women and increase the amount of sex education available. The pro-life movement in general is hostile to this solution, though specific advocates are not. But Dionne didn't write that. He wrote that there's some breakthrough (which sounds suspiciously like 'safe, legal, and rare') in the public debate, which there isn't. There's a politician for the eight hundredth time proposing a reasonable solution on abortion, which pro-life forces are hostile to.
Dionne might want to write that, instead of casting saying that NARAL and people who call for the assassination of doctors and parents are equivalent.