12-4-89 Several state legislatures have enacted laws that require either parental notification or parental consent when a minor seeks an abortion. The former requires that parents be notified; the latter requires their consent. Obviously, the latter is more stringent, but pro-choice forces have fought both types of law at every step of the way. To me, this is strategically imprudent. Whatever else it may be, the abortion debate is a war for the minds of the American people. If one takes an extreme stand, one risks losing the support of the moderates. If I were in charge of the pro-choice movement, my main concern would be giving women the right to abort during the first trimester of pregnancy. I’m willing, as a strategic matter, to permit states to regulate abortion during the second trimester and to prohibit it during the third. This, you may have noticed, is the scheme adumbrated in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. My guess is that most people find it a reasonable compromise of their values. As a radical feminist, I want nothing less than a right to abort at any stage of a pregnancy—for any reason. But that’s extreme; it won’t fly politically. Side issues such as abortions for minors only serve to antagonize the moderates. The pro-choice movement would do well to settle for parental notification statutes. If enough moderates get riled up by our demands, women may lose the rights they have.
In any social movement, there is tension between its ideals and reality. One way to put this is in terms of goals and strategies: The goal of a movement is its ideal state of affairs; the strategy is the means by which the ideal is sought to be implemented. Every reformer has to grapple with this distinction at one time or another, because it’s always an open question whether to select strategy A over strategy B, given the goal. In the animal-welfare movement, for example, the aim or goal is to improve the welfare of nonhuman animals. But how should this be done? One way to change the way humans treat animals is by injuring certain humans (researchers, for example), destroying their property, and undermining their institutions. Let us call this “violence”. Althought [sic] violence is a comparatively quick way to get things done, it has a backlash effect. Even those who are willing to consider change are unlikely to tolerate injury, death, and destruction. They value stability and safety too much. So animal-welfarists should think hard about which strategy to pursue. To me, the most respectable and defensible means of change is intellectual—the process of rational persuasion. And yet, it’s the least likely to be successful in the short run. People tune out. I face the same dilemma as a radical feminist. My ultimate goal—my ideal state of affairs—is an androgynous society. It can’t be attained overnight, so all I can do is work for small changes. This takes patience and diligence, of which I have an abundance.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 