The value of directly dealing with certain religious groups that Democrats might think simply "not into you" (to reference a lame new movie) was addressed last time. This is a good policy as a whole, even if I do not fully apply it (e.g., by not reading conservative news sources on any consistent basis*). This is suggested by -- of all places Glamour -- a current feature that addresses abortion by talking to women who had one. Here's an excerpt (h/t Salon):
In the end there’s little drama to the procedure, but that doesn’t make it a simple experience. How could it be, when abortion inspires culture-quaking political and religious debates and feels too charged to discuss, even woman to woman? “No one talks about abortion on a personal level—there’s too much stigma attached,” says Aspen Baker, the cofounder of Exhale, an after-abortion counseling help line.
In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy. But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs. “I’ve seen every type of woman in my office, from Catholics to Muslims to mothers with three kids,” says Dr. Oyer. “I’ve even treated someone I recognized—because I’d seen her before, protesting right outside my clinic.”
The pictures really hit home. These are real people, not faceless talking points. See also, Abortion & Life by Jennifer Baumgardner. Likewise, and again connected to yesterday's post, we have an interview with Bristol Palin. The source leaves something to be desired, but again, this often applies overall. I have referenced the point that "our" news sources also have one-note interview structures. Still, the very act of watching the "other side" talk is useful. It also helps to cut through stereotypes and sometimes is rather useful to your point of view too.** For instance:
Yes, Bristol insisted, it was her choice to have Tripp. "In terms of the ... whole issue of the right to life and choice and things like that ... this is your decision?" Van Susteren asked. "Yeah," repeated Bristol. "It doesn't matter what my mom's views are on it. It was my decision. And I wish people would realize that, too."
Now, the "spin" on Bristol's actions and words depends on the person. But, this and other comments (including on the lameness of relying on abstinence alone) do promote the pro-choice side of things. One part of Amy Sullivan's book that annoyed me was when she found a certain answer Kerry gave in a debate lame. The answer in effect was that "I'm against abortion, but cannot legislate the moral choices of others." You know, with a bit of Kerry speak (though not much in the quote supplied) tossed in. What is so hard about that? Catholics are also morally against easy divorce. The Church opposes divorce in most cases and even there re-marriage might not be allowed, unless the word "marriage" somehow can be avoided. Do Catholic politicians therefore have to oppose legalization of divorce? Marriage is a sacrament, right?
Bristol had a choice here. She was annoyed by those who suggested it truly was not her own. It was, and as I said before, the fact she had one made her actions more open to respect. After all, if it was illegal, that alone could have been the deciding factor. Here, it was up to her own moral judgment, leading some to be rightly proud of the courage of her convictions. To flow into another story referenced by Salon, kudos for their wealth of material on a consistent basis (I get a daily email to help me out here), this is the value of allowing school newspapers some broad discretion to cover sensitive topics. Many parents agree, as discussed in this story on the censorship of coverage on the "hooking up" culture. As noted in the comments, it also is a bit pointless, given the stuff will get out there in most cases at any rate.
This is not just a matter of requirements, but also policy. Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier allows censorship of school papers per a rather easy to meet school pedagogical interest ground. Not too surprising -- the owner of a publication often has much editorial control. I'm inclined to agree with the dissent in that case, but can also do so on narrower grounds. For instance, some of the principal's concerns could have been addressed if there was a full give and take before publication and/or censoring of the story as a whole. In the latest case, as a comment to the Salon piece notes, the stance of the school (e.g., the story is one-sided) also is open to debate. As to trying to avoid sensitive stories, "out of sight, out of mind" will not work in the end. This includes avoiding teens sharing personal details.
Is it not better to do so in a way that can be moderated in some fashion? As the out of school paper noted, the fact the school has discretion does not mean it used it well here. A lesson that should be remembered in many contexts -- the courts these days might allow more discretion in various contexts, but this just tosses the ball to the another "court." The people with discretion still have the responsibility to uphold the principles at hand. Consider this tidbit on a Gitmo matter, or the Supreme Court giving habeas rights, but leaving the rules to lower courts and congressional action.
A responsibility too often left in breach.
---
* I raised the point in the past and it is mitigated by having an open mind, viewpoints that cross usual simplistic lines, reading sources that address the other side in a fair fashion including by quoting them (comments apply here too), and so forth. Likewise, I find it hard enough keeping abreast with all that interests me as it is, choosing not to know much about certain subjects such as economics. But, yes, it would pay to read at least one conservative news source on a consistent basis. Mea culpa.
** Keith Olberman [2/17] had Laura Flanders on to discuss the matter -- good to see her giving her p.o.v. Thom Hartman popped up in an earlier show. Giving such individuals a place at the table -- cf. their likely presence on many Sunday Talk Shows -- is one value of shows like Keith and Rachel. Maddow herself got her own show in part by her success as a "left" talking head. Found it fun really, and it probably helped her relations with the other side, plus her arguments were strengthened in the process.
OTOH, Keith's show is hurt by not having an opposing viewpoint on as a foil. Maddow has this problem as well, but not as completely. She had a Republican on last night, and has a partial excuse -- they seem not to want to come on, though I'm sure she can get some representative from that side for face time. Why not try to have at least one segment a day providing a voice from the other side? And, when they repeat three times the canard that the stimulus could have been "bipartisan" if the Dems somehow just compromised a bit more, ask about some proof! Follow-up questions aren't that hard, are they?