Abortion is to the United States what Israel is to the rest of the world. It’s a litmus test, a brightly drawn line, a casus belli.

Cuccinelli begins the process of illegalizing abortion

Abortion is a complex issue with a complex history, and each side of the issue brings with it not just a heartfelt opinion, but a totalistic worldview that is nearly incomprehensible to the opposition. If you’re on one side of this issue–and it seems the everyone is on one side or the other–then you can’t even understand how there could be another side.

Being one of the “white/male/liberal” writers (sorry, Jesse) of this site, you can predict where I fall in this debate, and you can immediately love me or hate me more according to your own interpretation of this issue. I wrote a paper in junior high school, in my mostly-conservative community in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, defending legal access to abortion on the grounds that making them illegal doesn’t actually prevent them, it just drives abortion seekers to underground clinics, which are even more poorly regulated than the legally-operated clinics that Ken Cuccinelli targeted in the legal opinion he released yesterday.

Cuccinelli is arguing that abortion clinics in Virginia should be regulated as medical facilities. On its face, this is not an unreasonable argument. What makes it hard to swallow is that it comes not from a medical expert arguing for greater protections for the sake of patients, but from a polarizing politician who hopes to regulate these clinics out of existence. Because of the divisive nature of this debate, however, liberals like me end up looking kookier and kookier because we feel forced to stand up and say “NO!” to moves that might otherwise be deemed acceptable, simply because we detect a deeper agenda is at work.

I am not pro-abortion. Although I wrote my junior high-school essay from a one-sided liberal perspective, I later attended a Jesuit university where I was prompted to question my own willingness to allow the unborn to be sacrificed for the sake of the born. I am now also a father. Life has given me a greater sympathy for those who find the concept of abortion intolerable. I recognize that abortion per se is not a social good, and it should not be promoted as an easy solution to pregnancy. Moral institutions such as churches and NGOs have a right and a duty to remind people of the sanctity of life and the implications of abortion.

But the state has a different duty. The state is not a church with a duty to promote morality. The duty of the state is the pragmatic requirement of promoting the greater good. I return to the same argument I made in my 8th grade essay–the state has the duty to recognize that abortions will occur, and to make sure they happen in a legal and safe way that protects the women who, right or wrong, choose to abort. The state has an obligation to regulate clinics, but only to insure safe practices. If greater regulation of abortion clinics makes seeking an abortion so onerous that abortion-seekers will go “out of the network” and seek an illegal option, then the state has failed in its duty.

Does Cuccinelli’s new suggested rule fail that test? I can’t say. But I am automatically suspicious because I know his “legal opinion” springs from a moralizing source, rather than a pragmatic one.

Sovereign Immunity means “screw you”

A trash truck crushes part of a car while picking up garbage in Norfolk. The city refuses to pay, citing “sovereign immunity,” a legal concept that exempts governments from civil claims. This same legal concept was invoked in Virginia Beach when another garbage truck ran over a sleeping man, killing him. The principle here is that, when a government is sued, any money for a settlement comes directly out of tax revenues. If the city was exposed to lawsuits, the coffers would be drained, forcing an increase in taxes. That’s a reasonable sounding protection, until a city employee smashes up your car. Sovereign immunity is a tough pill to swallow, but if it protects us from higher taxes, it must be good, right? Maybe the City could just get liability insurance, like the rest of us drivers and homeowners, so that people who suffer harm due to City employee actions would have some source of redress.

Save the whales from the U.S. Navy

If you’re a fan of dolphins and whales, don’t miss your chance to go tell the Navy to be more careful with their sonar exercises. The ideal forum for complaints is the open house that the Navy is holding on Wednesday at the Virginia Beach Convention Center from 4 to 8 pm. This event is part of the Navy’s process of preparing an environmental impact statement that will guide their exercises for the next few years. They’re going to be showing off other novel technologies, such as unmanned underwater vehicles, but sonar’s what gets my blood boiling. I’m not alone.

Annual report on water pollution in Virginia

Here’s a quote from the article: “The miles of waterways troubled by low oxygen or excessive bacteria or contaminated fish tissues have increased every time the state has conducted its water-quality assessments, as required by law, since 1998.” But don’t worry! Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli say that our voluntary programs of pollution controls are working. We don’t need more environmental regulation. There’s nothing to see here! Move along!

Now that’s recycling

I can’t find a link for this story (this might be it), but the Daily Break features a photo of an athletic-looking woman hauling a 300-pound truck tire roped to her waist. Some people pay lots of money to buy a BowFlex exercise system to sit in a corner of their home and collect dust. The Pilot (reprinting a story from McClatchy) offers a cheaper alternative–a used truck tire. This has actually been trendy ever since the movie 300 came out, when behind the scenes videos showed the cast of Spartans flipping enormous tires in order to perfect their abs, so their bellies wouldn’t overhang their loincloths.

I won’t be trying this at home.