Please recall that Ronald Reagan signed at least one abortion bill while he was Governor of CA. And while Pro-Life as President, the end of the Cold War seems to be a bigger accomplishment than not obtaining an anti-abortion amendment.

Oxybeles on August 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM

That meme always gets dragged out. It doesn’t work for your purposes. I have my reply saved as a Word doc, I’ve used it so many times.

Fred Barnes: Choosing Life How pro-lifers become pro-lifers. In it, he wrote:

In his first year as California governor in 1967, the legislature passed a bill to legalize “therapeutic” abortions…

His instinct was to veto the bill and the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles urged him to follow that course. But he signed it into law. Reagan was disturbed by his decision, however, and continued to think long and hard about abortion. The bill, according to Lou Cannon in Governor Reagan, “permitted more legal abortions in California than occurred in any other state before the advent of Roe v. Wade.” Reagan’s worst fear was realized.

By 1980, Reagan had changed his mind and become a firm opponent of abortion. He insisted on a pro-life plank in the Republican platform for the first time. In 1983, he published a passionate pro-life essay, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. It turned out that signing the abortion bill in 1967 was the only political mistake that Reagan ever admitted.

Also:

1. Lou Cannon in his book Governor Reagan His Rise to Power mentions on page 213, that in 1970 Reagan successfully opposed legislative attempts to further liberalize abortion law.

2. On a Marxist website, (which I won’t link to, but you can search if you like) in an article titled Our Bodies! Our Choice! Winning the Fight for Reproductive Rights by Evelyn Sell, she writes:

For example, an abortion rights rally was set for March 10, 1973, in San Francisco to protest Governor Ronald Reagan’s statements against abortion.

3. TIME Magazine, Uproar over Abortion, February 16, 1976, discussing Carter, Reagan and Ford on abortion:

Ronald Reagan has come out flatly against abortion on demand and in favor of the constitutional amendment outlawing abortion except in rare cases posing a clear risk to the woman’s life.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM

What is it exactly that social cons want the president to do practically? Try to overturn Roe v. Wade? No president from here on out will be able to do that, or even try it.

Laserjock on August 20, 2008 at 3:33 PM

First of all it’s a good thing we’ve got Roberts and Alito there, although I will say I think Bush was pushed into nominating them.

Second, a leader sets a tone and attitude. That’s important even when he can’t do direct things. It’s an influence on people’s thinking.

Third, there are other things the President can do. Jill Stanek has a great slide show she put together of Clinton’s term of office and influence on abortion. I’ll try to put together her salient points.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM

More from Stanek:

1996:

Apr. 10: Clinton issued his 1st veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

1997:

Oct. 10: President Clinton issued his 2nd veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

2000:

Sept. 28: In the final days of the Clinton administration, the FDA authorized use of RU-486 in the U.S. via “fast track” a pproval process, reserved for drugs treating”severe or life-threatening illnesses.”

Clinical trials were defective, not meeting FDA’s own standards; pediatric rule waived with no explanation.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Judges are the most important issue in the abortion debate.

JohnJ on August 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM

They’re not the only issue. Did you read the quotes I just posted?

INC on August 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM

I’d also like to remind you of McCain and Wisconsin Right to Life and the Federal Election Commission. Andrew McCarthy at NRO wrote about this earlier this year here, here, and here.

Senator McCain was not a party to the dispute between Wisconsin Right to Life and the Federal Election Commission. He claims to be a stalwart right to life partisan. He is, beyond peradventure, a political-speech suppression activist. In the dispute, these two values were in conflict. This is unavoidable in life, in politics, and in law. But if you’re not a party to a particular dispute, you needn’t involve yourself — you get to sit it out and let the concerned parties make their case to a neutral arbiter. That is what most of us do when two things we care about are in counterpoise — we may offer a stray opinion here or there, but for the most part we stay out of the fray and depend on the court to sort it out fairly.

The other approach is to decide which value is more important to you and become a partisan. That is what Senator McCain did.

McCarthy goes on say:

He could have stayed out of it entirely. Or, choosing to involve himself, he could have filed an amicus brief in support of Wisconsin Right to Life, arguing for the urgency of permitting its message to be heard. He chose, instead, to support restrictions on speech for the benefit of incumbents — particularly, his co-crusader against the First Amendment, Sen. Russ Feingold.

That is a fact. Add all the context you’d like — it’ll still be a fact.

There’s a reason why pro-life advocates look closely at McCain, you know.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM