It is nearly impossible to write anything new or insightful about the debate over social policy. But Aaron’s prompt about social conservatives (more specifically, what part they should “play in the party’s message and ideals”) forces my hand–or pen, as it were. So bear with me. These issues are important, if difficult, to dissect.

For the sake of clarity, I’d like to split my response into two posts that discuss the GOP and two social issues important to young voters: abortion and gay marriage. This post, as the title might suggest, concerns abortion.

To start: The debate about abortion forces us to examine our fundamental beliefs about what makes us human and what makes things right and wrong. This makes the debate complex–more often, very heated. No one, either pro-life or pro-choice, argues that abortion is a good or desirable thing; no one, either pro-life or choice, denies the real and tragic loss of human life when abortion occurs. On these things we, either pro-life or pro-choice, can agree.

Young voters do not show marked interest in engaging in the abortion debate. Decades of loud debate have deafened us. The favored position seems to be the “judge-not stance”: many, including the majority of people I know, describe themselves as “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice.” They have passed moral judgment on the action, but do not want to force others to live by that judgment. More likely, as the post-Roe v Wade generation, we cannot imagine a world without abortion rights (especially when it’s presented as normal a la Juno).

But the pro-life/social conservative component of the Republican Party is still a political deterrent to voters under 30. Why? And, more importantly, what can the GOP do to end that perception? The answer is not necessarily to change the pro-life position, but to reconsider all the components of the pro-life movement.

The pro-life movement and rational debate: The abortion debate suffers from a lack of rational, thoughtful discussion. Absent that discussion, shrill voices and polarizing language emerges. Both sides further harden against each other as they put forth arguments that are increasingly more rhetoric than substance, and slam dissenters with responses that are increasingly more personal than analytical.

The average American, somewhere in between these two sides, ducks and covers and mutters something quietly (before darting away) if the discussion comes up in a social setting. Nothing is solved; no minds are changed. Since there is scant serious public engagement—and debate–with the issue, most gravitate to the least offensive position. When young voters say “I’ll do my thing and you’ll do yours,” they’re really saying I’m not comfortable enough with the reasoning behind either position to champion it–or, more commonly, to make people angry over it.

The pro-life movement, and social conservatism more broadly, have seemed unwillingly to talk and to debate–especially with those who are pro-choice. They prefer sweeping condemnation of those with the audacity to disagree (my favorite insult: “wine-drinking Rockefeller Republican”), and presentation of their position as absolute moral truth. Since being pro-choice is the new “default” position for young voters, this does little to persuade or inform them.

Engaging those who disagree with you is not silly, stupid, or time-wasting. Instead, it is the demonstration of well-reasoned and respectful minds at work. I value policy A for reasons B; you value policy anti-A for reasons C. Could we talk so I can show you the validity of reasons B, or we reach a consensus of policy D?

The pro-life movement and limiting choice: The pro-life and pro-choice movements have common ground. Both would prefer a world without abortion. Both would prefer that a woman never have to consider abortion–ever. But the pro-life movement, and this is in connection more with social conservatism broadly, seems intent on confounding choice at any point prior to abortion. Ironically, it confounds choice using the government, ignoring a basic conservative/Republican truth that government cannot (and should not) shape individual choice.

Sexual education: The federal government, with the blessing of social conservatives, has pushed abstinence-only sex education. This is not the place nor am I the expert to debate the efficacy of the policy. But suffice to say, statistics about its effect are not encouraging–especially since young voters represent the so-named “hook-up generation.”

The more important point is that abstinence-only education denies high school students information about pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. Information is never dangerous. You cannot lecture someone into promiscuity, just as you cannot lecture someone into chastity.

Contraceptive access: Many pro-life groups would limit women’s access to contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives (including the so-called “morning after pill”). This is particularly troublesome for women who are poor or living in rural communities, since they may be unable to find affordable and accessible contraceptives.

But more broadly, the Bush administration–in its final weeks–passed its new “right of conscience rule” that would allow any “healthcare worker” the right to refuse to “participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable,” including “doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control,” without jeopardizing their employment. This covered, as the article noticed, a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for emergency contraception to a rape victim.

(The effects of the rule are compounded when you consider the fact that the executive branch is attempting an end-run around the legislative and judicial branches to limit practices that are already legal. Republicans are rightfully furious when the EPA does this to set higher environmental standards.)

The pro-life movement should be pro-information, pro-choice, and pro-contraception. The positions are not mutually exclusive; indeed, they are important places to find common ground with pro-choice groups and pursue common-sense policies that would reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Perhaps more importantly, the pro-life movement should not use the state’s power to promote its policies. Oftentimes this leads to grievous oversteps in government authority, which the GOP should be committed to reducing. Consider, for example, the case of Phill Klein, former Kansas Attorney General, who had (in his own possession) the medical records of women who obtained abortions between 2003 and 2007. Do you want to defend that?

The pro-life (really, social conservative) movement and sexism: There is a general sentiment in girls and women I talk to–and, yes, some of those wicked feminist blogs I enjoy reading–that pro-life/social conservative policies have an “anti-woman”/sexist tinge to them. This is related particularly to the shaming of women who engage in premarital sex or have abortions (and no mention of the men who were also involved), but also in the statement of many of the movement’s “leaders”–or, least, the public figures who are perceived as leaders.

To that end, I close with a particularly choice segment from Rush Limbaugh, darling of many social conservatives. (If you snicker, or immediately judge me as uptight, please do imagine saying this to your mother, your sister, or your girlfriend.) This relates tangentially (if at all) to the pro-life movement, but indeed very much to the social conservative movement with which pro-life groups are inextricably linked.

We know — we’ve been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That’s part of the puff pieces on them that we’ve seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn’t shut up? Now, that’s as far as I’m going to go.

[...]

I’m sorry, my friends, I just — I can’t. It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.

(Okay, I can’t resist: hey, Rush! Good thing I’m writing, huh?)

Last 5 posts by Abby Alger

• Helping the Right Online, One PDF at a Time - March 29th, 2009
• Kids These Days - March 17th, 2009
• In which I browse HR 1105, so you don't have to. - February 24th, 2009
• Re: Attacking Obama - February 5th, 2009
• What does youth voter outreach look like? - January 11th, 2009