ABSTRACT
If the public policy focus is dropped, the grassroots people would not be left running projects under the program by themselves, they would be back where they started—having to operate, as one does in a democracy, through the traditional channels of citizen movements or political movements, to initiate public policy discussion and action. Perhaps there ought to be a government policy of channeling moneys to encourage public policy discussion irrespective of humanists, just as people earmark income tax dollars for political campaigns; but this is not a National Endowment for the Humanities problem. If an historian, a value-oriented political scientist, and a law professor or legal philosopher offered a project on what questions are or are not fit for a constitutional amendment, it might be acceptable since the abortion issue has kindled public interest in it and the answers would be indirectly relevant to public policy attitudes on abortion.
