A couple of comments on the thread about reforms to Victoria’s abortion laws suggested that it’s likely to come down to a few votes in the Legislative Council (the state Upper House). If so, success in passing the legislation is likely to require persuading waverers with moral qualms about abortion to pass the bill. While trying to persuade such people is not completely novel (for instance, the overturning of the RU486 ban a couple of years ago), it’s not something I’m sure either side of the debate has a huge amount of experience in.
For instance, Leslie Cannold, as the head of Pro-Choice Victoria, recently published an op-ed in The Age. As an essay in the abstract, I think it’s a useful contribution to the argument. But, as a gut reaction, I don’t know whether these arguments are ones that are going to work on the fence-sitters.
But then, I’m not particularly sure what arguments are likely to be persuasive with people who are conflicted on the upcoming vote, and I’d like to have a better idea before I put pen to paper to write to my MLCs on the matter. Any thoughts?
To be honest, I don’t think the last few votes come down to people who have moral qualms about abortion. I think they’re more likely to be people who don’t care either way, but who don’t want to lose their seats.
So more important than the argument per se (although I would go with the line about it being up to women to decide without the risk of them or their doctors being put in gaol), it’s important to make clear that they have public support.
The anti-choicers are louder; they need to get that the pro-choicers are greater in number.
I think people in this category are more likely to be persuaded by pragmatic arguments of the following kinds:
1. That international evidence suggests that statutory restrictions on access to abortion have no discernible effect on the incidence of abortion (including in what, from the waverers’ standpoints, are morally problematic circumstances) but do lead to increased incidence of undesirable consequences including abortions being performed in hazardous circumstances.
2. That if they believe that the incidence of abortion should be lower rather than higher, this will not be achieved by legislation but by other policy measures, as I explained in a letter to The Age:
3. That anti-choice claims about the risks or harm to women from having abortions are (a) highly dubious and (b) not an argument for denying women the right to make their own judgement after balancing the costs, benefits and risks of alternative courses of action.
4. That, since the real (but not stated) cause of the wavering in some cases is fear of electoral retribution, the Australian Electoral Study suggests that there are many more votes to be won by being pro-choice than by being anti-choice.
It is also worth suggesting to male waverers that they ask the advice of their significant female others. It is my observation that many male decision-makers simply can’t understand or imagine how a woman could come to a decision to terminate a pregnancy, and have to have this explained to them.
Robert — I agree that the Cannold article is a good one and it certainly expresses views similar to my own, but any argument that seems to be criticising or disempowering men is going to go over like a lead balloon with waverers, most of whom are presumably men. I think an appeal to their imaginations might be more effective. I’d ask them to re-direct their protective instincts (not in so many words, of course) and imagine the lives of the many children who come into the world unwanted, resented, and in the care and control of a parent (often teenage and single, almost always the mother) who doesn’t have the financial, social and/or emotional resources to provide for or look after them adequately.
As somebody once said, I’ll consider the life of the unborn child once the pro-lifers have convinced me that they will attend properly to the born child. As it is, the pro-lifers’ sense of the ’sacredness of life’ appears to cut out in the labour ward.
In relation to the point made by Anna and myself about fear of electoral retaliation, I can recall two cases in the 1980s of sitting parliamentarians losing their seats after being the target of a punitive campaign by anti-choice elements. It is significant - and worth pointing out to a certain kind of waverer - that they did not lose their seats as a result of a head-to-head battle between pro- and anti-choice forces which the pro-choice forces lost. Both of these (Federal) MPs - Barry Cunningham and Michael Maher - were themselves quite prominently anti-choice, but displeased the anti-choice lobby by not being anti-choice enough at certain junctures. As a result they got the worst of both worlds: being punished by the anti-choicers without having earned the good will of pro-choice campaigners.
Robert, if it’s a letter on any of what I call the Catholic Trifecta (abortion, euthanasia and age of consent laws), it’s almost guaranteed not to be read by the upper house MP you write to. It’s most likely that a staffer-secretary will put it on one of three piles marked “pro” “con” and “WTF”, assess the relative height of each pile, and report that measurement to the Boss, reading comic highlights out loud for their own amusement.
If you aren’t stopped by my pessimism, though, here a few tips to get your letter read, as someone who’s done a bit of reading of constituent letters:
- Keep it short, make it an individual letter, sign it by hand. Obey the Three Paragraph Rule, if you can. Photocopied unsigned circulars go in the round filing cabinet.
- Make your own case, don’t address other people’s arguments. They can do it perfectly well/badly on their own. In fact, try not to even acknowledge that there is any dispute on the matter.
- Strength of feeling is unlikely to hold any sway. The MLC does not care if you will die in a ditch over any given issue, they are more interested in reasons why they should care.
- If you can, cite checkable facts and statistics. Arguments on abstract grounds of morality or principle are fine, but insufficient for persuasion. Don’t rely on anecdote unless it’s your own.
- See if you can include an example of how the law would personally affect you as a voter.
- If you can, address specific provisions in the Bill they will be voting on.
- If you have time, see if you can refer back to other speeches or positions the member has taken in the past.
That’s what I was thinking too - which makes me wonder a little bit about her judgement in making such an argument in that forum, at this time.
Cannold isn’t really very political in that sense. She’s always more about the arguments.
Liam: fair point, but I suppose the question is really “if you had the chance to get the ear of a waverer for a couple of minutes, what might you say to them?”
There is an off chance I may get to do that.
Further to Liam’s excellent points, I have heard of MPs who’ve voted pro because those who were against the bill pissed them off too much. So be polite.
I would make the argument that this bill reflects current practice and the status of how the law is applied in Victoria. It merely modernises the law to catch up with the interpretation and parctice.
Victorian MLCs are elected by proportional representation, Senate style, on the basis of their party’s popularity. So they have little or nothing to fear from a personal campaign against them.
About three quarters of Labor and Liberal MPs will vote for, as will the greens. The Nationals will vote against as of course will the DLP. The bill will sail through. But if some more persuasion is needed, it might be pointed out that this bill proposes tighter statutory regulation of abortion than exists currently, where it’s based on a waffly common law interpretation of a judgment that is nearly 40 years old. Even if you are against abortion in principle, you should be in favour of that.
Robert @ 6 - I think her article is about rallying the troops, not about directly influencing the MPs. Get people angry and enthused so they will lobby the politicians.
I can well imagine it, Anna. Heh.
Robert:
Given corridor-time and the elbow of a wavering MLC, here’s what I’d say (taken from reading the other thread).
(This is where you give details about the provisions of the Bill, about which you know far more than I).
Good luck.
Liam:
Wait. Liam, you would impersonate Robert Merkel in a discussion with a Member of the Legislative Council? That strikes me as deeply improper.
Wait. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the implications of this. It could be that ‘Liam’ is just the nom-de-plume of Robert when he wishes to conduct a discussion with himself on a blog thread.
But if that’s the case, why would Robert have chosen such an ugly pseudonym?
Nothing makes sense here.