------------------------- ABORTION The Clash of Absolutes by Laurence Tribe Norton, $19.95, 242 pages -------------------------- Reviewed by Tony L. Hill No issue of the twentieth century has been more divisive than the abortion question. The debate is often limited to emotional arguments on both sides of the question. Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, attempts to examine the debate in a wholly rational way. Using simple language, he dissects the issue from every conceivable angle. Tribe's central emphasis is on the importance of individual rights to Americans. He views abortion not as a singular free- standing right that the Supreme Court created by fiat, but as a right that follows naturally from the Constitution. For one thing, he notes that earlier abortion laws were designed not to protect fetuses, but the medical profession. Thus, those early laws should not be seen as directly granting fetal rights or denying women's rights, although the effect is the same. Concern for fetal rights is distinctly a 20th century phenomenon. Tribe carefully illustrates that abortion rights cannot be separated from other rights that Americans enjoy. Tracing the foundations of abortion rights from the Bill of Rights to Roe v. Wade, it is discovered that abortion is only one of a panacea of privacy rights. If abortion rights are dismantled by the Supreme Court, the right to privacy itself is threatened. Tribe makes direct rebuttal in many places to former Judge Robert H. Bork of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and his book The Tempting of America (Free Press, 1989), making it clear that he believes the defeated Supreme Court nominee engaged in "a long campaign to cut back on constitutional protections that most Americans had long come to accept as basic." While the book comes off initially as a balanced presentation, it is clear in early chapters that Tribe favors keeping abortion rights in the Constitution. Indeed, he is quite critical of anti-abortionists, taking them to task for their general opposition to social welfare programs which would make America a better place to give birth to a child and thus minimize the need for abortions. Tribe further alleges that anti-abortion advocates are not sincere about their desire to protect the fetus, but are rather interested in controlling women and their sexuality. He cites evidence that as many as 80 percent of anti-abortionists support legalized abortion in cases of rape and rape-related incest. If their concern was genuinely for the life of the fetus, which is "obviously not responsible for the circumstances surrounding its conception," Tribe argues, they wouldn't allow it to be killed. He concludes that most who oppose abortion do so because "continued pregnancy is simply the price women must pay for engaging in consensual sex." Tribe further notes the hypocrisy of those who engage in legislative overkill to protect fetuses, when conservatives typically take a casual approach (or even oppose) child abuse prosecutions. Tribe emphasizes sociologist Kristin Luker's finding (from her book Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, University of California Press, 1984) that the central players in the right-to-life movement are not coincidentally diehard believers in traditional gender roles. While Tribe's arguments are sound from a legal perspective, he comes dangerously close to implausibility when he strays into other fields. He dismisses adoption as an option not desirable for the pregnant woman, because pregnancy "gradually turns her into a mother and makes her one for all time." Tribe apparently forgets that readers do not regard him as expert on psychology. His quoting a single psychiatric article from 1967 should not be sufficient to deflate one of the anti-abortion movement's more potent arguments. Similarly, in dismissing the fetus's rights, Tribe uses an example borrowed from a pre-Roe article by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. Thompson wants you to imagine waking up in the morning attached to a famous violinist (an unlikely scenario, mind you). She or he needs your circulatory system to survive for nine months, and after that, you will feel a lifelong attachment to him or her. If you unhook the violinist before then, he or she will die. Thompson concludes (and Tribe agrees) that you would be within your rights to disconnect (and thereby kill) the violinist. Tribe goes a bit further, claiming that "just about everybody" would agree with them on this. Ergo, if this actual person has no rights, then the fetus has none either. Tribe's venture into philosophy seems no more valid than his foray into pop psychology, and it is unlikely that his analysis of public opinion is correct either. Perhaps through these examples, Tribe unwittingly illustrates that abortion rights cannot be derived solely from law. This directly contradicts his earlier thesis. Tribe erroneously defines the Bill of Rights as the first eight amendments to the Constitution. It consists of the first ten. This is especially strange because the Ninth Amendment figures prominently in his argument that abortion rights are protected by the Bill of Rights. (The amendment provides that there are other rights than those specifically listed in the Constitution.) In spite of these relatively minor failings, the book is sure to become required reading for those in the pro-choice movement, and those on the other side of the question should read it as well if they are to fully understand the legal debate they have involved themselves in. Admittedly, those neutral on the question will not find a balanced presentation, but it will certainly add insight for anyone. Tribe concludes, naturally enough, that abortion must remain legal, even if it could be outlawed without disrupting the constitutional framework. He says that any "compromises," such as consent requirements and waiting periods only create other problems. He sees the abortion pill, now available in some European countries as RU-486, as a possible compromise. Reading between the lines, the only compromise one can see is that anti-abortion forces would agree to allow the pill if abortion rights advocates would agree to move back the point at which abortions can legally be obtained. Anti-abortion groups see the drug as anathema. Pro-choice groups regard abortion rights as sacrosanct. Compromise would seem impossible, and perhaps even ill-advised. Like the song says, when an irresistible force meets an immovable object, something's gotta give. Tribe is the spokesperson of those who hope it won't be the Constitution. *** Tony Hill is a student in political science at the University of Minnesota.