[Update: In reply to my comment, the author of the first link noted Juno -- like a good satire -- targeted all comers, so to speak. This is a fair comment, but sometimes neutrality doesn't quite work in a unbalanced universe. This is not always "fair," but so it goes. Consider this post on a HPV article, which on some level is fair, but might not be if you look at it from a different angle.]
Atrios liked Juno (not Knocked-Up), noted my complaint (not me personally, *sniff*) that no one in film and television actually decides (like millions of actual women) to have an abortion, though the ones in these films are treated as free agents unlike the dreams of various sorts. I'd add that this only goes so far -- if abortion is not actually the choice made at any point, the anti-choice meme is furthered all the same. [Pregnancy and adoption is necessary to the plot, but it's notable that one of the rare references to an abortion clinic is negative.] It's like black voting after 1870 -- they technically had the right to do so in all states, which was nice and all, but practice was somewhat different.
Publius at Obsidian Wings also discusses the movie, and his comments are of some value in learning the "tad too precious by half" category of reasoning ... that at times turns me off from his writing. He is one of those New Republic sorts that thinks abortion should be legal, but Roe was wrongly decided. Thus, basic freedom does not include (though it's good policy) preventing the state from controlling the child-rearing choices of women -- even though, one of the evils of slavery was just such a violation of privacy and personal autonomy. It also is not a severe -- in intent and application -- equal protection violation, nor a selective endorsement of a certain moral decision with religious overtones.
[Or, yeah, they touch upon the latter issues, but apparently not enough to be of constitutional moment. This tends to confuse me -- when you actually look at the reasons given to keep abortion legal (other than relying on Roe, if not its broader principles ala Lawrence* on precedent grounds), they tend to sound like constitutional reasons. It's necessary for equality to women. etc. If nothing else, they should enough like constitutional reasons to make criticism of Roe a bit lame.]
Sebastian, in comments, notes that the connection between Griswold and Roe is mostly fictional. Griswold was mostly about the privacies of marriage, but suddenly, that is forgotten in a few years. Not quite. Griswold dealt with an as applied challenge to a broader law that was particularly troubling when involving married couples. Nonetheless, the general principles of the ruling was not limited to married couples as such. The case as a whole recognized a right of privacy, not a right of marital privacy alone. Also, abortion inherently deals with marital issues -- generally speaking, you are deciding whether or not you want to have a family. It thus fits in past rulings, including Griswold, that dealt with the general issue. Privacy law was expanded, but the logic here is not simply ad hoc either.
[See more, here. The post argues that Juno is not intended to be some sort of brief on the abortion question. This does not mean, necessarily, it does not have some sort of effect on it. See criticism of the movie qua movie here.]
Anyway, some Publius comments that warrant comment:
The fundamental problem is that the Roe debate is only tangentially related to abortion. Instead, it’s about penalties. More precisely, it’s about whether (and what) penalties are appropriate for having an abortion. For this reason, the linguistic labels of the various camps – pro-life and pro-choice – don’t reflect the essence of the political debate very accurately. One can, for instance, oppose abortion personally, while simultaneously opposing efforts to ban or criminalize it. The Roe debate then, stripped to its essence, is about allocation of power. Does the individual get the final say? Or does the state?
Actually, "penalties" is not the only "essence" of the debate. As with penalties in the war on some drugs, advocates upset at the status quo are concerned with penalties, but their passions are often much deeper. Many women (and men) are quite passionate at what they see as a war on their autonomy and women's autonomy in particular. Focusing on penalties, which is true up to a point, has a somewhat dry flavor to it, missing some of the deep passion involved. Passion that colors both sides, evidenced by statements like this:
My “pro-life” friends have often asked why Roe supporters appear so inflexible. Why, they ask, won’t people at least admit that abortion is a tough issue. One reason is that some people simply don’t think it’s a tough question – they disagree with the premise that the embryo is “life” in a morally or legally relevant sense. But I suspect most Roe supporters privately concede that abortion is a tough question (that camp includes me).
Roe involves having the legal right to make a decision. Decisions often can be tough. For instance, the choice of whom to marry is a fundamental right, which cannot be infringed without a very good reason. This does not mean people think marriage choices are not "tough issues" in various instance. Just how many in the pro-legalization camp really think abortion is always such a simple issue? Repeatedly, the public comments speak of the complexity, but underlines that it is a private choice. Publius is right that the threat of criminal sanction concerns some (bad=illegal), but he needs more than "suspect" pro-choice people generally think abortion overall is a tough issue in various respects.
People like their freedom. Rather than fearing it and attempting to eliminate it, maybe the pro-life camp should try embracing it for a change.
The pro-life camp thinks that embryos and fetuses are human persons warranting protection, abortion (for some, even acts most don't think of as "abortion," involving the morning after pill) is murder, and (many) certain types of sexual freedom (top Democratic candidates don't think same sex marriage is a good idea) is immoral and overall dangerous to social goodwill overall. So, nah, don't think they are ready to "embrace" murder quite yet, even if a fictional teenager -- given the option in a plot where her pregnancy is required -- chooses adoption in a pro-Roe world.
The comment comes off as a wee naive. But, this is the sort of "moderate" noises (to be a bit unfair) that come out on some issues these days. More evidence the quotes are often enough well placed.
---
* He thinks the language in Lawrence is too open-ended, but suggests he might support it on equal protection grounds. [ala O'Connor, perhaps?] But, as the ruling itself says, due process and equality issues tend to be connected. Some comments in the threads of the posts referenced like the Ninth Amendment. Not only did both Griswold (separate opinion) and Casey (the plurality) directly highlight that measure, both followed its principles based on due process precedent harkening back to the 1800s. This is how law works.
A comment also referenced the fact so few were legally targeted by the statute in question. Arbitrary enforcement is not a net positive in defense of the law; also, like the contraceptive law in Connecticut targeted by Griswold (as the dissenters in Poe noted), such measures have many indirect effects. Again, a look at the Lawrence opinion would underline that fact. Ditto.