20 thoughts about Elizabeth Bruenig's 'Make Birth Free' article
Why can't the Twitter Left take 'yes' for an answer??
1. A lot of people in America are very angry about the Supreme Court's decision overturning abortion rights.
2. A lot of those people are ideologically committed to an expanded welfare state, so that Americans can survive and thrive and — yes — work, without fear of losing their health insurance or being too poor to feed their kids or whatever, because we're a rich country and we ought to be able to lift everybody up.
3. But not everybody belongs in those first two groups.
4. One of those people might be Elizabeth Bruenig, a staff writer for The Atlantic and an old-school Catholic socialist in the Dorothy Day mode. She has described herself as a "pro-life liberal" who was a huge Bernie Sanders supporter back when he was running for president.
5. On Saturday, she published an article, "Make Birth Free," that argued pro-lifers — despite their recent Supreme Court victory — have done a lousy job engendering an actual culture of life that supports mothers and families in their health and flourishing.
6. Specifically, she wrote:
Thus, though American pro-life activists have had decades and plenty of encouragement to tackle the privations—poverty, poor housing options, and limited access to child care—that seem to precipitate many abortions, their attention has instead remained obdurately trained on regulating the practice of abortion itself, through legislation codifying (inter alia) term limits, specific clinic conditions, and burial requirements for fetal remains. Anything done in service of overturning the rulings, even something as facially perplexing as devout Catholics voting for Donald Trump, was ipso facto a higher political priority for the vanguard of “life” than anything having to do with the living conditions of American mothers and infants.
7. And she expressed some skepticism -- but hope -- that the pro-life movement is, even yet, up to the task.
This would require veteran pro-lifers to take on a trifecta of onerous tasks: moving on from a narrow fixation on regulating the practice of abortion itself; taking up welfare as a cause just as worthy of political agitation as abortion; and overcoming a veritable addiction to liberal tears, indisputably the highest goal of American politics at this point in time, and which militates against human flourishing in every case. It’s time the pro-life movement chose life.
8. This is a pretty standard lefty critique of pro-life conservatives!
9. Nonetheless, a lot of left-oriented folks on Twitter reacted in a rage to Bruenig's article. One of the more polite objections went something like this:
She’s been clear that she personally believes abortion is always wrong. She doesn’t embrace the right wing pro-life movement, but she doesn’t denounce their end goal.
Instead she tries to weave a fantasy policy stand that involves pro lifers embracing social welfare programs.
10. I don't know what Bruenig's pro-life politics actually are. If she's been shouting for abortion bans — and maybe she is — I haven't seen much evidence of it. (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.) From what I can tell, whenever she writes about abortion, it's mostly to pivot immediately to explaining the need for that expanded welfare state. Her energy, efforts and public platform have been used almost mostly in that pursuit, not in outlawing abortion.
11. Even so, fine, you don't have to agree with her on abortion. Certainly, an expanded welfare state won't cover all the problems raised by the SCOTUS decision. Even if having kids becomes free of financial burden, some women will not want to be pregnant at certain or all times of their lives.
12. Still, maybe folks on the Twitter Left can occasionally take "yes" for an answer?
13. I mean, it's not like Bruenig suddenly pivoted to the welfare state after getting her way on abortion. She's been writing this stuff for years.
14. From her 2015 piece on "Why I'm a pro-life liberal"
The pro-life leftist position maintains that human life is so significant, so inherently valuable, so irreplaceable that it should be the central subject of political concern. This view requires, therefore, that since we care enough about the outcome of pregnancy to insist against abortion, then we must continue to care about the outcome when abortion is no longer a legal option. To me, this requires a culture agreeing to put its money where its mouth is — that is, to provide robust support programs that render feasible the entire process of childbearing and childbirth, from pregnancy to child care to the total span of family life. Programs that immediately come to mind include universal health care, which would obviate the incredible expenses of pregnancy, often costing in the thousands of dollars out of pocket; government-supported parental leave and policies protecting the employment of mothers; and a no-strings-attached child allowance.
15. As far as I can tell, then, her commitment to making life easier isn't contingent on whether abortion is banned or not, because she was committed to it long before the SCOTUS decision.
16. Nonetheless, people are angry at Bruenig for wanting the right thing for the wrong reasons.
17. That's bad. Exhausting. Problematic.
18. Maybe the better thing to do is to say: "I don't agree with you on X, but I do agree with you on Y, even if it's for different reasons, so let's make Y happen." Because if we won't do Y with somebody who differs on X, Y probably won't happen.
19. Listen, this is a big country with millions of people who disagree with you and me on many big issues. Some of those issues are irreconcilable, I suppose. But, uh, we have to keep sharing this country with all those millions of people. So maybe the thing to do is not to rage-hate against them on the rare occasion we agree with them. If we can't decide to agree even when we agree, we're broken and probably finished.
20. That would be a stupid way to go out.