About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Law & Order Abortion Episode



After reading a preview from a pro-life blog, I was waiting for a pro-choice take on the Law & Order episode just referenced (summarized here with a generally positive review). And, here we go:
On Friday night's "Law & Order," the abortion debate was represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: The anti-choicers, who believe fetuses' rights trump women's, and the pseudo-pro-choicers, who are conveniently persuaded to agree with them by the end of the episode.

It seems that there were three L&O episodes about abortion related violence. A clinic bombing, one involving the grandfather from Gilmore Girls (if before it began) not succeeding in a necessity defense because ultimately he was not able to live up to his convictions, and this one which is a take-off of the Dr. Tiller murder.

This time the murderer (who comes off as a loser) has his day in court, arguing that he was stopping the "murder" of an upcoming late term abortion. I saw the second one and thought it pretty good and saw this one, thinking it good but slanted with various dubious legal moves that can be accepted for dramatic effect. This includes the judge allowing a stranger (not even the shall we say "grandfather," that is, the pregnant woman's father) to raise a justification defense in the first place (days before the scheduled abortion -- would this work for any justification defense? the fact he did not know for sure it would happen was not even raised!) and bringing up some act the doctor did that puts him in a bad light, but was not legally relevant since the shooter had no way of knowing about it.

I thought it was good but throughout I had the feeling -- just a tad less than the Salon piece -- that the episode was too slanted one way. Compare this to the torture episode. The assistant DAs were split on prosecuting the Bush official stand-in though the more conservative one seemed to be convinced some by the end. And, it is clear that there was one point of view that was dominant. But, and yes I take one side over the other, it did not seem so one-sided as this episode. The pro-choice ADA comes off as having shallow beliefs (as the Salon piece notes, the answers to various pro-life arguments can be easily made) and having Dr. Tiller's stand-in being guilty of murdering (to use the right word) a botched abortion is a bit in poor taste besides again stacking the decks and being a bad legal move.*

What can be said about the episode and what partially saves it is that even with all of this, it comes out against violence against abortion providers. The peace minded pro-life group comes off the best and the ADA's closing was a powerful missive about the hard questions here and how violence is not the way to go. The Salon article also isn't fair in not noting that the witness who discussed how it was so important for her to hold her doomed baby in her arms in its brief time alive also said on cross (by the pro-life ADA) that she might have had an abortion at another time and that it would be a fundamental service for her to be allowed to do so.

And, yes, the right to choose includes making just that choice. The weak-willed pro-choice ADA (threw when she finds out the doctor botched the abortion etc.) might have kept that in mind. It might have helped if a witness other than a radical pro-choice doctor was on the stand, perhaps a woman (maybe who has one or more other children) who had a late term abortion to balance the one who did not. The use of something of a borderline condition instead of a more fatal one also stacks the death. This underlines the problem with allowing people to play God -- the shooter here would not have thought "well, this is not just a dangerous but survivable condition, but one that puts the woman's life in danger or will clearly lead to the death of the baby so I won't shoot her." After all, even holding such a baby in your hands for a few hours means so much, right?

I'd add that NY law -- as alluded in the episode -- only allows late term abortions to protect the life of the girl/woman. But, Casey also has a health exception. This sort of thing allows you to shoehorn in eleven year old rape victims -- a pregnancy would be a serious risk of health for such individuals. As to the partner expressing his anti-abortion opinions on the job, Salon is a bit off on the response to the other partner ("I'd have a different partner" sounds like he is not convinced with the argument that some one person not being born is an earth shattering argument or anything). Either way, during a murder investigation, you don't go around promoting your beliefs to witnesses and so forth.

[Update: More here, focusing on those upset about how this reflects on Dr. Tiller. A comment on this feminist blog reinforces the sentiment that the partner was not too impressed with the fact that he might have another partner if mother instead had an abortion. Also, apparently a sister show has been more pro-choice in the past.]

But, the episode tosses up the rules, mostly to put forth a pro-life point of view. That's bad pool. I am all for seriously talking about the complications of the abortion issue, including showing that those who oppose it are not all monsters and have some powerful points to make. Not so much enthused about slanted arguments, like arguing Roe is out of date since we have good contraceptives these days and so forth. Especially when the other side -- well who cares since a pro-police/prosecution show is all liberal anyway right? -- is so shabbily provided. The lack of a pro-choice p.o.v. is standard, since abortion is consistently taboo on television fiction generally.

So, good job for dealing with the issue. The follow through, however, left something to be desired. The fact that legalized abortion and the evil of violence as a solution came out anyway is sort of a backhanded pro-choice message all the same.

---

* The cross examination made it clear that the anencephalic child in question -- when born, that is definitely the appropriate word -- would have died within the day. It did not note that the condition is one "resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp." This might have put some light on why the doctor killed the child when the abortion was botched.