Why doesn't the GOP ban abortion now?
EMILY's List is fundraising group dedicated to electing pro-abortion women candidates.
Two of the 21 women EMILY's List is promoting are from Illinois - Melissa Bean (CD-8) and Tammy Duckworth (CD-6).
But Bean and Duckworth may not want to publicize that, since EMILY's List has such a poor track record. In 2004, it amassed only a 39% success rate, while 80% of its counterpart's (Susan B. Anthony List) candidates won. In 2002, 17 of EMILY's 21 candidates lost.
The pro-life issue is a winner. Properly framed poll questions show most Americans are against most forms and reasons for abortion.
So, the question posed by Human Events editor Terence Jeffrey yesterday is good: "Why not ban abortion now?" Jeffrey stated:
When I asked [Republican National Chairman Ken] Mehlman... whether the pro-life issue was good for Republicans, his response was instantaneous. "Absolutely," he said.
As proof, he pointed to the 2002 Senate races in Missouri and Minnesota....
Mehlman insists, however, that the GOP should advance the pro-life cause "because it is morally right," not because it is politically advantageous....
Mehlman's analysis can explain the self-contradictory behavior Democrats often exhibit on abortion. But it cannot explain similar behavior by Republicans. Democrats find themselves caught between the demands of commonsense and good morality on the one hand and a core constituency adamant about preserving legalized abortion on the other. They forsake commonsense and morality to appease their base.
But why are Republicans so timid about advancing a cause where they occupy the moral and political high ground?
Consider one of the few things President Bush, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, House Republican Leader John Boehner and Sen. John Kerry... have in common: They all say human life begins at conception....
The Republican Party's pro-life platform... endorses "legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
In this Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, the California Republican, introduced H.R. 552, the Right to Life Act, which follows through on the platform by defining as a "person" for 14th Amendment purposes "all stages of life, including but not limited to the moment of fertilization or cloning."
It recognizes in law what Bush, Frist, Boehner and Kerry already recognize in fact....
Today, we are having a great national debate, driven by a president at odds with the base of his own party, over how many immigrants we should allow into our country and by what means -- so we can fill a shortage in workers. What if we had a great national debate driven by a president, in unison with the base of his own party, over how many babies we can save?
South Dakota had that debate this year, and the pro-lifers won.... What South Dakota proved is that truth is persuasive. All you need are politicians who will fight for it.
16 comments:
Properly framed poll questions show most Americans are against most forms and reasons for abortion.
Funny how the link doesn't give the wording of the "properly framed questions."
As a Democrat, I am glad that Jill is offering this advice to the Republican Party. And I hope the Republican Party takes this advice.
Really.
Please, Jill, I hope the GOP does do exactly what you and Terence Jeffrey hope... The right would be out of power for a generation, at least.
First, the debate is South Dakota is not over. Those opposed to the ban gathered more than twice as many signatures as required (totally by volunteers, no paid circulators) to knock down the ban through statewide referendum in November.
With that referendum on the ballot, the ban cannot go into effect. (Doesn't S Dakota have only one or two clinics in the entire state? And aren't they only part time staffed? Doesn't sound like there's much to worry about there anyway.)
Second, as for a "properly framed poll question" ... you really think the Southern Baptist Conference isn't going to instill their bias into any polling on the topic? Your use of the word "frame" demonstrates this point.
If it were a "properly *worded* poll question" (instead of being "framed," implying it is done with bias) it would show that most Americans, while they do not like abortions, are also willing to allow women to have the choice should they and their doctor feel it is necessary. This is exactly what poll after poll has shown (non-biased, scientifically-conducted).
Third: Jeffrey asks, "But why are Republicans so timid about advancing a cause where they occupy the moral and political high ground?"
...Because they know they do *not* have the political high ground here, and the moral view is muddy at best given that by imposing the position of one very vocal minority (sizable, but still a minority) the GOP will lose elections for the next generation as the Sleeping Giant of womankind would wake up to work against the fundamentalists attempting to impose their version of reality on everyone else.
Ask Alan Keyes how many strict pro-life voters there are in Illinois -- he can give you an almost exact number.
Finally, part of the reason EMILY's List has a low elected rate is because they seek out candidates who are long shots in order to give them a boost. You might want to put things in context before jumping to false conclusions.
I can play a numbers game too: from the 2002 to 2004 elections EMILY's List election success rate doubled. Does SBA have the same huge upward trend?
Finally, if you're going to link to material about EMILY's List -- why not link to EMILY's List instead of a Republican website which has no references (who knows if their info and analysis is correct or not).
(By the way, keep on jumping to false conclusions, as Mehlman did with his 2-second analysis of the '02 Senate races in MO and MN... it can only help the left when reality comes up and shows how truth beats out truthiness.)
A lot of Republicans (at least the ones who actually have some conservative principles) believe in Federalism and the Constitution and would oppose a Federal law on the issue. Constitutionally, this is a state issue, and Roe v Wade was not a wrong decision because it denied the right of life to unborn fetuses, but rather because it said that the Federal constitution has something to say about the issue.
"South Dakota had that debate this year, and the pro-lifers won...."
That simply is not true. See e.g., http://tinyurl.com/oe54v
South Dakota abortion rights supporters filed a petition Tuesday to halt the state’s new abortion ban.
The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families obtained more than 38,000 signatures on a petition aimed at repealing the abortion ban. Only 16,728 signatures are necessary to nullify the July 1 implementation of the ban and allow voters to decide the issue. About 1,200 volunteers circulated copies of the petition around the state, collecting signatures from all 66 counties in South Dakota.
Maybe its because they didn't use "properly framed poll questions," but it seems that the debate over South Dakota women's right to chose is only just beginning.
Of course the Harris poll also said that only 20% favor an outright ban on abortion. But why let facts get in the way of Stanek's "truth?"
Actually, Emily's list is supporting pro-CHOICE candidates.
And one more thing: please, PLEASE ban abortion now. It would be the single act most likely to ensure Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008.
"Why doesn't the GOP ban abortion now?"
A question you folks have been missing out on for 30 years.
Is it just happenstance that Mr. Pro-Life, born again George W. Bush is always out of town for the rally in DC, preferring to phone in his accolades?
If they gave religious conservatives the one thing they want, those same conservatives might just notice that the party who has their undying fealty is sticking it to them but good. So they continue to hold the "gonna get rid of them abortions" carrot out (along with wrapping themselves in the flag, of course) while simultaneously passing an agenda that abuses the average taxpayer in every way imaginable.
But an oligarchy is worth it, right? After all, one day, those empty promises just might come true. Some day. Maybe.
And an aside here. How is Rep. Duncan going to, you know, verify the moment of, um, fertilization?
Surely this could involve breaking several laws of God and man alike, no?
Thank you, senoranon, for answering the question, and thank you Jill for finally answering it.
The GOP isn't going to ban abortion because they are to busy demagoguing on the issue. It's the same reason they demogogue on abortion in Illinois and then pass laws they no will be overturned by the courts, just as they have on malparactice victims' rights.
The Republican Party isn't interested in putting out fires, they are only interested in fanning the flames and telling you who's to blame. While they've got you chasing around abortion hobgoblins, Jill, they're cutting Medicaid funding to pay for tax breaks for their rich friends. If they weren't distracting you with abortion, as a nurse you'd no doubt be upset with their Medicaid cuts, but...problem solved.
It's a simple plan, designed for simple-minded people, but it simply is effective. Working class Republicans may wake up to it some day, but somehow, I kind of doubt it.
Jill - you dodged *every single one of my points* by talking about the Siouxs.
And, if you had actually read the article, you would know that President Fire Thunder was suspended for soliciting donations to open a clinic without having received the tribal council's approval for such solicitation.
From the article: "Women need services. Women need support. Right now on the Pine Ridge reservation, there's very little support for women who have been raped," Fire Thunder said.
A valid reason to want to open a woman's clinic.
Yes, the Lakota tribe has now banned abortions out of respect of their cultural beliefs and sacred heritage (the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation being considered separate from S. Dakota).
This motion was a moot point anyway given the article also clearly states: "Planned Parenthood issued a press release thanking Fire Thunder, but said it had no plans to open a clinic in Pine Ridge or anywhere else in South Dakota."
FYI, the woman's clinic is still being planned and just formed a board of directors.
....And you still are ignoring my points (and those of others), Jill. Could it be because you know we're right (whether you like it or not)?
George Dunne, Ed Vrdolyak, Tim Degnan, and Jerry Joyce were ALL pro-life
George Dunne was very pro-life and did not allow abortions at Cook County Hospital.
Jill Stanek said...
"Pro-life, 1:47p: Federal legislators/courts/executive branch are responsible to ensure that the federal Constitution is upheld.
If the 14th Amendment includes equal protection of preborn Americans, the aforementioned are bound to see that the Constitution is not breached. "
I love this. It sounds so innocent.
In fact, it would make an doctor performing an abortion or any women having an abortion a criminal.
If we as the American people are so tridently for "choice", i.e. abortion, then why is it that pro-life candidates have been winning more national elections? (Alan Keyes not withstanding, but if you think his loss is indicative of any national trends, then you have no business anlyzing national politics.) Beyond the invective that flies out on this issue, and I'll admit both sides fling it, but the pro-lifers not nearly as much. For the pro-lifers, they usually have some other religion, predominantly Christianity. For the pro-choice crowd, liberalism is their religion and abortion is their sacrament.
In other words, if the political landscape is so tilted toward the pro-choice view, then why must the pro-choice people be so reliant to the court system in this country to impose THEIR personal beliefs? I've given up trying to convice people on the Left though, I know I'll just get more invective in return.
Let's be fair here, YDD. The demagougery comes from both camps. Those who arrogantly assert that any person who is not pro-choice is a chauvanist, opposed to women's rights, deferrential to men, or a myriad of other ignorant charges are just as offensive as those who say abortion is a sin at any stage. How does having a sincere religious belief make one a chauvinist?
This is a religious issue at its core for the pro-lifers, and an issue of individual rights for others. Many religions have their own view of when life begins. Not all religions believe that abortion should be outlawed in all cases. So how would imposing a life-begins-at-conception law banning all abortions be any different from saying everyone in the U.S. had to follow the same religion?
I have to love a comment that says, "...Beyond the invective that flies out on this issue, and I'll admit both sides fling it, but the pro-lifers not nearly as much...."
And concludes with this gem; "For the pro-choice crowd, liberalism is their religion and abortion is their sacrament."
Indeed, not nearly as much...
Post a Comment