Quote Of The Day

“A lot of Republican leaders could care less about Roe and would prefer, if anything, to see it upheld, and even if Roe were overturned abortion would remain legal in most of the country. Nonetheless, it remains the case for all the pro-choice sympathies of leading GOPers, the Republican Party nearly succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade fifteen years ago, and would have if one man – Anthony Kennedy – hadn’t changed his mind about the issue at the last minute. It also remains the case that the Bush Administration has seemingly brought to Supreme Court within a single vote of undoing what Kennedy wrought in 1992. It further remains the case that while overturning Roe wouldn’t magically restore us to some Ozzie-and-Harriet wonderland, returning control over abortion law to the hands of the voting public remains a necessary goal for any pro-life, socially-conservative politics that takes itself seriously as a change agent in American life. And it further remains the case that to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 is to give up on overturning Roe for at least a decade, probably for two, and possibly for all time. These realities may not require pro-lifers to vote for John McCain, but they deserve more serious consideration…” — Ross Douthat, blogging in The Atlantic on the connection between Pro-lifers and the GOP

7 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”

  • I have my suspicions that Repubicans have no intention of overturning Roe. It’s lose/lose for them if they ever successfully to it. My memory is that the Right to Life committee was key in getting Reagan elected. He gave us O’Conner, Scalia, and Kennedy. Just right to keep Roe legal and keep things controversial. This way pro-lifers continue to work very hard to get Republicans elected. Then comes Bush. He gives us Souter and Thomas. One pro-lifer, one pro-choicer. Once again, enough to keep it close. So pro-lifers again work very hard. Finally GW Bush is elected. He starts by going for Harriet Meirs. Now, I think had this gone through pro-lifers would have finally realized that this is a game. Republicans don’t really want to overturn Roe. They rebelled, and Bush made things right.

    But the problem for the Republicans is if Roe is finally overturned they lose a lot of zeal in their base of supporters. Frankly I think if Democrats were smart they’d work to get Roe overturned. The abortion issue is the key issue that motivates the base of the Republican party. I think Republicans get that, and they don’t want to lose it by overturning Roe. McCain is perfect for the Republican party in this sense. He will appoint “moderates” that will maintain the status quo. And the base probably will understand, because they don’t expect much from McCain. So next time they’ll again work very hard hoping to finally get the changes through. But it won’t happen. Overturning Roe hurts Republicans.

  • Yes, but Kennedy was seen by all at the time Reagan nominated him, as an almost clear opponent of Roe vs. Wade. He shocked even his liberal critics when he upheld it.

    Read the quote above again, it addresses precisely this criticism.

  • If you think the above quote addresses my criticism I don’t think you’re grasping my criticism. He says, don’t vote for Obama if you want any chance of overturning Roe. Maybe that’s true. But then maybe we should just give up on it already, because as I said it harms Republicans to overturn Roe. That’s my point. Where does your above quote address this point?

  • It rebuts the claim that Republicans, in the end, really don’t want to overturn Roe. Many, sure, but the party as a whole?

    This is the pertinent part:

    Nonetheless, it remains the case for all the pro-choice sympathies of leading GOPers, the Republican Party nearly succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade fifteen years ago, and would have if one man – Anthony Kennedy – hadn’t changed his mind about the issue at the last minute. It also remains the case that the Bush Administration has seemingly brought to Supreme Court within a single vote of undoing what Kennedy wrought in 1992.

    In other words, Kennedy was a fluke…and a fluke that is getting closer to being corrected…by Republicans.

  • The fact remains. Overturn Roe and you harm Republicans. Sure, they can cry “Oh, we almost got it. Almost. We didn’t know about Kennedy.” It’s hard to imagine that nobody knew. There is only one thing that matters to the most zealous pro-lifers, the ones that worked extremely hard to get a Republican president. How will they vote on Roe? Well it just so happens that these “unfortunate” appointees play very well into the Republican political machine. You can never really know if **nobody** knew what Kennedy would do. If these presidents really cared about Roe like some of us do, they would make damn sure they knew before they appointed. Instead they give us the “whoops, sorry. I guess you’ll have to work extremely hard for the next Republican presidential candidate.”

    Like I said, it’s just a suspicion of mine, not a proof. I could be wrong. Could of had it with Kennedy, but we didn’t know. Well what about O’Conner and Souter? Could have had it then too.

  • Well, atleast we can agree that Republicans are better, indeed alot better if you look at judicial nominees (we can debate what Alito or Roberts thinks of Roe, but there is no debating what Ginsberg and Breyer think about it) than Democrats are.

  • During last night’s so-called Compassion Forum, held at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expounded on their religious beliefs. They were both asked about their views on abortion-specifically when they believed life began (Did life begin at conception?)

    Clinton answered as follows,

    “I believe the potential for life begins at conception. For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved.”

    …”I have concluded after, great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years…that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society”. She added that abortion should remain safe,legal and rare.

    Obama, in his answer, Obama stated that he did not know (if life began at conception). “This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think that it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs?…What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”

    Translation? Both candidates support abortion. I found it interesting that both used the term “potential” for life. Is that the new pro-choice buzzword? If so, it sounds to me like, if I have the potential to live another 50 years (which would make me 113), does someone have the right to terminate that “potential”?

    I have also wrestled with this issue for most of my adult life. I have in the past searched for a middle ground because I have believed that the whole abortion debate has been dominated by the extremes of both sides-for lack of a better description. But is there a middle ground? Isn’t it life or death? I have asked myself whether it would be morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy when we are dealing with “just a clump of cells”. I should also state that I can agree with the right to an immediate abortion in the case of rape,incest or to save the life of the mother. Do I support violence against abortion clinics and doctors? No way. Yet, ultimately, I can only say that I am against abortion-especially when it is used as a method of birth control. As for partial-birth abortion, I consider that an atrocity. Interestingly, Ron Paul, a former OB-GYN, stated in a debate last November that he had never seen an abortion conducted due to medical emergency. Of course, that comment not only didn’t draw a follow-up question from the moderator, but was quickly buried by the mainstream media.

    It is clear that there are folks out there who have a firm pro-abortion agenda. It is a feminist issue since their main argument is that a woman should have the right to control her own body. A strong argument but not impregnable. Yes, only women can bear children, but rightfully or wrongfully, that is the way God created us-or Mother Nature if you prefer. I would argue that once a new life is created, that human being has a right to life.

    Speaking of the feminist pro-abortion folks, it has been charged for years that Planned Parenthood actively counsels women who come to them to have an abortion. One thing a lot of people might not know is that the founder of Planned Parenthood’s predecessor agency, Margaret Sanger, was motivated by racism. Sanger, who founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, was an enthusiast of eugenics, racial hygiene, and euthanasia as a way to limit the population of “undesirables” (like non-whites). Sanger, more specifically, was an advocate of “negative eugenics”, which was a way to reduce the fertility of “dysgenic groups”, such as Australian Aborigines, whom she described as the lowest form of human life.

    I also see a connection between abortion and euthanasia, both of which can be terribly abused once a life is deemed “inconvenient”. If a woman becomes pregnant and doesn’t want the child-get an abortion. If a parent becomes aged and unable to care for him/herself-terminate the life. The Nazis practiced this on both ends even before they began the Holocaust. Mentally and physically impaired people were euthanized, which was a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust. During the war, Russian and Polish women who were brought to Germany to work as slave-laborers, were given forced abortion if they became pregnant.

    Today, in Holland, euthanasia is being carried out on terminally ill patients if they request it. It has also been reported that many patients not in a position to give informed consent are also euthanized. It is a slippery slope.

    Yes, it may be argued that there are many practical reasons to have abortion legal in the US. If made illegal, there will be back-alley abortions, civil unrest, unwanted children and children who will grow up with no chance. That is all true. It is also true that the demand for adoptive parents is greater than the number of willing couples. Many couples who adopt choose to go to poor countries to find a child.

    Will Roe v Wade eventually be overturned? It is possible, which would restore the decision to the states, according to those who hope to see Roe overturned. Yet, I ask-if the Supreme Court can declare abortion to be a constitutional right-that cannot be taken away by the states-could it not declare abortion illegal nationally based on right to life?

    As a practical matter, it would seem that the outlawing of abortion would have to be coupled with a change in public attitudes against the procedure. Obviously, most politicians think in those terms.

    To sum it up, I think that our attitudes toward human life define us as a people. I don’t think there is an inconsistency between opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment. The key difference is “innocent” life.

    There are, admittedly, several practical reasons for supporting abortion. When it comes to moral reasons, that is a different story.

    gary fouse

Leave a Reply