Pawlenty: No truce on abortion issues

posted at 12:55 pm on July 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Should Republicans take Mitch Daniels’ advice and declare a truce on abortion in order to garner a larger coalition on fiscal issues?  Not according to Tim Pawlenty, who dismissed the notion in a Real Clear Politics interview on Wednesday.   The outgoing two-term governor of Minnesota makes a case for multi-tasking:

RCP: Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has called for a “truce” on social issues such as abortion for the next few years that would allow Americans who agree on fiscal but not social issues to work together to fix the nation’s financial problems. Do you support that?

Pawlenty: I’m not sure what Mitch had in mind there but there’s a whole coalition of people and interests and issues that comprise the conservative movement and the conservative perspective. I’m a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative, so I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think it’s both. And right now the economy is a pressing issue for the nation, and we’re all primarily focused on that and jobs and the like, but that’s not to say there isn’t space to discuss other issues.

I’m not sure Daniels knew what he had in mind.  It didn’t take him long to jump back into the abortion debate after insisting on calling the truce.  And then after that, Life News notes that Daniels called a truce again.

There is a case to be made on prioritizing economic issues in 2010, given the crisis facing the US.  While social conservatism has a large base of support, fiscal conservatism has a wider reach.  The next two years in Congress will have a lot more to do with the economy and jobs than it will with abortion, where Congressional action is limited to the question of using federal funds for subsidies — and that is more of a secondary issue (although galvanizing) in repealing ObamaCare.  With majority control, we have an opportunity to reverse the damage done by the radical Democratic agenda and get America back to work, which will not only benefit the US but also restore some credibility to the concept of Republican leadership in time for 2012.

That said, Pawlenty is right in that conservatives don’t need to unilaterally disarm on any point in their agenda.  While abortion doesn’t have to be a prime topic in these elections, we don’t want to signal that we’re giving up on it just at the point where Americans have finally become more pro-life than pro-choice.  We can put the issue in its proper perspective in the middle of the current crises in economics and leadership afflicting the US without the declaration of truces — or retreats.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How about agree that partial birth abortion is an abomination but also agree that women have a right to such things as the morning after pill at the very least.

rob verdi on July 16, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Truce? Either it’s murder or it isn’t, there’s not a jot of middle ground on that point.

Bishop on July 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Meanwhile the progressives pepper legislation with social engineering and the Republicans do nothing – no matter who is in power in DC.

ACORN was funded all the while the Republicans owned DC.

They do nothing.

rickyricardo on July 16, 2010 at 1:00 PM

T-Paw ready to take on Huckabee and Mitt.

Mr. Joe on July 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Truce? Either it’s murder or it isn’t, there’s not a jot of middle ground on that point.

Bishop on July 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM

You’re totally skipping over “murder-murder” and “murder’ish”.

myrenovations on July 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM

No truce. A tie goes to the runner, and in this environment the runner is the progressives. Making nice is what gave us obama’s EO on not funding abortion – and the $150M just given PA to fund… abortions.

paul1149 on July 16, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I think that the Republicans should be emphasizing jobs and fiscal issues and stay away from social issues. I’m generally pro-life, but I think that the pro-life movement’s social/ cultural tactics, making abortion taboo and tacky for most moderates and emphasizing the more extreme practices, have been more effective than demanding that Roe vs. Wade be overturned. As for the constant issue with the gays, it is just time to get over that issue and leave it to the states. It just makes Republicans look backward and intolerant.

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 1:05 PM

“How about agree that partial birth abortion is an abomination but also agree that women have a right to such things as the morning after pill at the very least.”

Perfectly put. I feel our economy is under threat of collapse at this point, and so feeding our kids is naturally the top priority. If Repubs were foolish enough to ignore the economy and attempt to cram extreme “no emergency birth control” legislation, the pro-life trend isn’t going to help them stay elected.

CambellBrown on July 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM

A liberals perspective in the 1850s????

Look, nobody particularly likes slavery. It would not be my personal choice to own a slave. However, I believe it is important to observe and follow the Missouri Compromise.

This is a decision that people must make through talks with their family, and their pastor, and if they decide a slave is right for them, then I believe we have to respect their right to privacy.

What we cannot do, is act like radicals, trying to outlaw it throughout the country. We should keep safe, legal,and rare.

El_Terrible on July 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM

fiscal conservatism has a wider reach.

It does? Show me some numbers.

Darth Executor on July 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Well, I just hope Gov Pawlenty doesn’t want to call a truce on environmental issues.

“>http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2008/06/pawlenty-other-governors-propagandize-for-ccs-in-new-video/

HDFOB on July 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM

If they run, Pawlenty and Daniels are basically battling for the same demo — the GOP primary voters who don’t want to go with anyone connected to the 2008 election (Sarah, Huck and/or Mitt), just out of fear those hopeful already have too much baggage to beat Obama in 2012. So it’s no big surprise Pawlenty would be going after Daniels on his abortion time-out remarks at such an early date (and I’d expect Mitch to start jabbing Tim over his past environmental/global warming statements).

jon1979 on July 16, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I think that the Republicans should be emphasizing jobs and fiscal issues and stay away from social issues.

In this electoral cycle, yes.

However, they shouldn’t hide their feelings. If someone asks their positions on social issues, they should declare their positions proudly.

But the focus needs to be on jobs, spending, wallets, etc.

blatantblue on July 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM

In other news, Sudanese forces agreed to a cease-fire today in the ethnic cleansing in order to allow both sides to focus on shoring up the economic woes of the ravaged country. The agreement included an exemption for babies, who can continue to be murdered at will despite the cease fire.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 1:05 PM

This!

a capella on July 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM

I’m no more opposed to legal abortions than I am to the Texas law that killing a trespasser is justified homicide — but having the Supreme court basically writing the abortion laws for the nation is bad government.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM

It just makes Republicans look backward and intolerant.

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Advocating against child sacrifice makes republicans look backwards and intolerant?

Ok, your brave new secular world is on its way. Have fun with it while you can.

Inanemergencydial on July 16, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Mitch Daniels: “There’s lots of spare parts coming from these abortion mills. Let’s use them to make the bricks that will rebuild our economy.”

I know that sounds harsh, but it’s the de facto effect of what Daniels is proposing. He’s saying that we should turn a blind eye to the murder of innocent human beings so that we can focus on making sure everyone has enough money to buy an iPhone 5 in December.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Truce? Either it’s murder or it isn’t, there’s not a jot of middle ground on that point.

Bishop on July 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM

That’s simplifying a bit much. The question is when it’s murder — and the answer should be that local legislatures should be making that determination, not the Supreme Court, or any other judiciary.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:17 PM

No one is suggesting permanently dropping the abortion issue. People like Daniels are suggesting we temporarily just agree to disagree and focus on the economy.

Whether that’s right or wrong is not what I’m saying, but people should accurately acknowledge Daniels’ position

blatantblue on July 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM

I’m no more opposed to legal abortions than I am to the Texas law that killing a trespasser is justified homicide — but having the Supreme court basically writing the abortion laws for the nation is bad government.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM

The castle doctrine? If someone forcefully breaks into your home, you have a reason to believe they could be a threat to you and your family… you have a right to self defense. You can’t shoot someone who’s just on your lawn.

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

El_Terrible on July 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 1:05 PM

This!

a capella on July 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Agreed — but RvW is still a bad precedent, structurally.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Ok, your brave new secular world is on its way. Have fun with it while you can.

Inanemergencydial on July 16, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Sounds like a great campaign slogan. Just by itself it should assure the GOP of victory by expanding the voter base and thus save us all from a bankrupt nation.

a capella on July 16, 2010 at 1:20 PM

You can’t shoot someone who’s just on your lawn.

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

El_Terrible on July 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Pity.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I’m no more opposed to legal abortions than I am to the Texas law that killing a trespasser is justified homicide.

Count to 10

Really? You’re creating a moral equivalence between being a fetus and criminal trespass?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:16 PM

And remember in two years Daniels took a surplus to a deficit, even before 9/11 happen. He is not even a fiscal conservative. I don’t think Pawlenty is one either; he grew the MN state budget. Either way, it makes no sense to fall on our swords when we’re winning the abortion wars. Even Hollywood is making relative pro-life movies. If we keep the Presidency, Roe will get overturned eventually.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on July 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Really? You’re creating a moral equivalence between being a fetus and criminal trespass?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM

To a certain extent, yes.
Though, if you think through that argument, and the restrictions on the trespassing law, it may come out more to your liking than you first imagine.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I just can’t get my head around abortion doctors actually performing them. I can understand if the mother’s life is in danger, but to do them on a routine daily basis, just boggles my mind. How do they get their brains around all that “do no harm” part?

Johnnyreb on July 16, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Johnnyreb on July 16, 2010 at 1:25 PM

I don’t understand how a doctor could perform it.

But then again, people can rationalize anything.

blatantblue on July 16, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I just can’t get my head around abortion doctors actually performing them. I can understand if the mother’s life is in danger, but to do them on a routine daily basis, just boggles my mind. How do they get their brains around all that “do no harm” part?

Johnnyreb on July 16, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Probably by not thinking of it as a person. Like bb wrote, people can rationalize a lot.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Agreed — but RvW is still a bad precedent, structurally.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Absolutely, and the proaborts know this as well, even if they won’t admit it. As such, anything they perceive as the pendelum swinging the other way regarding prolife federal law will be hotly contested, the moderates listen, shrug, and the fiscal issues get lost in the white noise. It is an important issue but doesn’t take precedent over staying solvent. It won’t be solved in an election cycle and can surely hurt us by driving off votes we need if not handled in a low key fashion.

a capella on July 16, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Is anybody really dumb enough to imagine that Democrats are going to agree to this truce?

Of course not. They are going to keep attacking for all they’re worth.

Ergo, if we quit opposing them, that is not a “truce.” What Mitch Daniels advocates would be SURRENDERING on that issue.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM

The GOP is screwing up on this and who ever talks about it is going to bring them down.

It’s the ecomony STUPID!

upinak on July 16, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Regardless of if we want to talk about it, abortion will be an issue in 12 because of the likelyhood that Kennedy will resign.

Vera on July 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Is anybody really dumb enough to imagine that Democrats are going to agree to this truce?

Of course not. They are going to keep attacking for all they’re worth.

Ergo, if we quit opposing them, that is not a “truce.” What Mitch Daniels advocates would be SURRENDERING on that issue.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM

The truce is meant to be within the GOP.

Jimbo3 on July 16, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Is anybody really dumb enough to imagine that Democrats are going to agree to this truce?
logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM

This is supposed to be about a truth between pro-abortion and anti-abortion Republicans and Independents. Not Democrats (for the most part).

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:39 PM

@Count To 10: I can’t see a moral equivalence. The baby was put there, versus a trespasser choosing to be. Also, the trespasser has the choice to leave, esp when confronted by me with my .40 in hand. The baby has no choice but to stay put. Where are you seeing this equivalence?

@Johnnyreb: Even when the mother’s life is in danger, it is almost always possible to deliver the baby as opposed to aborting it. Whether the baby lives or dies, it at least had a chance, and with advances in modern medicine, it actually has a strong likelihood of life. Delivery is always an option, abortion is never an option. Murder is murder.

Look, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t focus on the economy this term — I think it’s the winning issue. But that doesn’t mean that we have to shut up about the other issues that we feel are important. I can win any debate that a pro-choicer might bring my way — the pro-life side is right on this one, and we have no business settling for anything less than victory, because to do so is to surrender to the ideological equivalent of murder.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Yeah Mitch! We can be just like the democrats and tell everyone what they want to hear. What we don’t do is try to jam things down the collective throats of this country when they don’t want it.

Vince on July 16, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Err, ‘truce’, that is.
Good grief, typing with a lisp?

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Regardless of if we want to talk about it, abortion will be an issue in 12 because of the likelyhood that Kennedy will resign.

Vera on July 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Awesome point. Consider what the makeup of the court would be had the GOP won in 2008.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM

To social cons – IT’S ALL ABOUT THE JUDGES!

exdeadhead on July 16, 2010 at 1:42 PM

This is supposed to be about a truth between pro-abortion and anti-abortion…

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Freudian slip? ;)

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Well no duh there isn’t going to be a truce. Why surrender when you’re winning?

Dark-Star on July 16, 2010 at 1:44 PM

To fiscal cons – IT’S ALL ABOUT THE JUDGES!

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:44 PM

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Exactly.
I doubt that law will let you shoot someone you invited into your house and is just sitting there — particularly if they are in a state that risks their life if they leave. However, even if you invite them, if they suddenly start threatening your life or attempting to harm you, you would probably be within your rights to kill them.
So a line of moral equivalence between the two would probably come out more anti-abortion than not.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Freudian slip? ;)

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Auto-pilot fingers.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I just can’t get my head around abortion doctors actually performing them. I can understand if the mother’s life is in danger, but to do them on a routine daily basis, just boggles my mind. How do they get their brains around all that “do no harm” part?
Johnnyreb on July 16, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Liberalism stopped being a potentially viable economic theory well over a hundred years ago. Since then, it has been a religion; nothing more than that, and nothing less than that. And no code of “ethics” – medical or therwise – will ever be relevant to its practitioners.

Liberalism are subjectivists; worshippers of the Cult of the Ego. The followers of every other faith try to be righteous, and always fail to one extent or another. Whereas liberals are technically SELF-righteous; and they are always perfectly so.

This makes liberals the ultimate zealots. No liberal has ever felt guilty about any of the millions of innocent people they have murdered, or any of the trillions of dollars in property they have stolen.

And none ever will.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM

To fiscal cons – IT’S ALL ABOUT THE JUDGES!

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:44 PM

In deed.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I’m not sure Daniels knew what he had in mind. It didn’t take him long to jump back into the abortion debate after insisting on calling the truce. And then after that, Life News notes that Daniels called a truce again.

.
You put your left foot in,
You put your left foot out;
You put your left foot in,
And you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!

mrt721 on July 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Regardless of if we want to talk about it, abortion will be an issue in 12 because of the likelyhood that Kennedy will resign.
Vera on July 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Also very true

blatantblue on July 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM

However, even if you invite them, if they suddenly start threatening your life or attempting to harm you, you would probably be within your rights to kill them.

Count to 10

So if I understand you correctly, you support abortion when it threatens the life of the mother? Is that what you’re trying to say here?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM

logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM

“Progressivism” would probably be a better word to use. “Liberal” is simply a word the Progressives misappropriated.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM

So if I understand you correctly, you support abortion when it threatens the life of the mother? Is that what you’re trying to say here?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Yes.
…with the addition that, while I’m not really comfortable with abortion as a form of birth control, I don’t trust that laws attempting to block abortion of normal pregnancies won’t have serious unintended consequences.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Liberalism stopped being a potentially viable economic theory well over a hundred years ago.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM

I agree with you. Liberalism is closely tied to the postmodernist view that truth is relative to the viewer. Funny how that period of moral relativism also spawned the likes of Marx & Darwin as well.

My favorite question for lib-tards: what happens when your morality conflicts with mine? Who do you appeal to for supremacy? In the absence of a faith grounded in the divine, you simply can’t answer that question.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM

My favorite question for lib-tards: what happens when your morality conflicts with mine? Who do you appeal to for supremacy? In the absence of a faith grounded in the divine, you simply can’t answer that question.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM

So, your favorite answer is “I’m right”?

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Is anybody really dumb enough to imagine that Democrats are going to agree to this truce? Of course not. They are going to keep attacking for all they’re worth. Ergo, if we quit opposing them, that is not a “truce.” What Mitch Daniels advocates would be SURRENDERING on that issue.
logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:31 PM

The truce is meant to be within the GOP.
Jimbo3 on July 16, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Exactly. It would be like the English declaring a “truce” with France on the issue of Nazi Germany’s invasion.

And, of course, that is precisely why only a moron would refer to it as anything besides advocating complete surrender.

Do you think it would help you understand any part of this if I typed more slowly?

logis on July 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM

“We might be in a Great Depression, but at least we’re fighting hard on abortion rights.” – Social Conservatives

Notorious GOP on July 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Count to 10:

Seems to me that the “health of the mother” argument boils down to three cases:

If the mother’s health is compromised, but her life is not threatened, I think the best course of action is to carry the baby to the point of viability, then deliver. Killing the baby to make mom’s quality of life better seems wrong to me.

If the mother’s life is at stake, and the baby is viable, then the baby should be delivered, not aborted. At that point, there’s no need to kill one to save the other.

The third case is clearly the most difficult. If the baby is not viable, and mom is at death’s door, then the baby should be sacrificed to save the mother. That said, I would imagine that a doctor would do everything in his power to save both before making that decision.

As for legally stopping abortion, what “unintended consequences” might you have in mind, other than that millions of lives will be saved? Well, I guess that would be intended, yes? What possible harm might come of such a law that would outweigh that benefit?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:00 PM

“Truce” and “bipartisan” are political keywords that mean “agree with the liberal Democrat position.”

Oh, and “reaching across the aisle” is the same thing.

MassVictim on July 16, 2010 at 2:02 PM

So, your favorite answer is “I’m right”?

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Yes. In this case, I’m right.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Advocating against child sacrifice makes republicans look backwards and intolerant?

Ok, your brave new secular world is on its way. Have fun with it while you can.

Inanemergencydial on July 16, 2010 at 1:13 PM

The NRLC, Lila Rose, etc. have done good work making abortion taboo and yucky to many moderates. Most people are in the middle in that they don’t want a blanket role against abortion, but it is something that they’d probably advise a loved one to not get and would consider immoral. I don’t think that there is many soccer moms out there bragging about the abortions they got in college. However, RvW isn’t going anywhere nor is there going to be a constitutional amendment against abortion. And it does turn off moderate voters.

As for gay issues, I’d advise the Republicans to just drop that because it does make them look intolerant and backward. There isn’t another life involved, just the sexual practices of two consenting adults. Plus, CHuckles and other who push the issue generally talk like they’re afraid of getting cooties from gay people.

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM

I’m not sure Daniels knew what he had in mind. It didn’t take him long to jump back into the abortion debate after insisting on calling the truce. And then after that, Life News notes that Daniels called a truce again.

Daniels is an idiot. And his flip-flopping would make Mittens blush.

Kudos to Pawlenty for at least having some intellect. Although I don’t trust him due to his past love for Cap & Tax schemes, he is a million times better than Mitch “Truce” Daniels.

Norwegian on July 16, 2010 at 2:04 PM

“We might be in a Great Depression, but at least we’re fighting hard on abortion rights.” – Social Conservatives

Notorious GOP on July 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM

“We might be killing babies, but at least we’re creating jobs.” – [You?]

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM

The NRLC, Lila Rose, etc. have done good work making abortion taboo and yucky to many moderates.

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM

What this means is that the pro-life side is losing the argument for the moderates. Your suggestion is that we surrender?

Maybe we should fight harder/smarter instead?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Certain “conservatives” have effectively been calling on a “truce” with abortion issues for years. In all that time, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, has continued to profit from federal subsidies. What’s it up to now, one-third or one-fourth of their annual budget? Big news, kids. THERE ALREADY IS A TRUCE!!! Why else would a nation drowning in debt continue to subsidize abortions?

You wanna talk “fiscal conservative”? Fine, explain that, genius!!!

manwithblackhat on July 16, 2010 at 2:12 PM

“Progressivism” would probably be a better word to use. “Liberal” is simply a word the Progressives misappropriated.
Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism. They all mean the same thing.

The mental defect of subjectivism includes a belief that changing labels changes reality. It’s called Doublespeak.

And when you choose to play that game (in this case by by “arguing a definition”) then, with all due respect, it could not possibly matter less what words you use – or in what order you decide to place them.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM

This is a decision that people must make through talks with their family, and their pastor, and if they decide a slave is right for them, then I believe we have to respect their right to privacy.
What we cannot do, is act like radicals, trying to outlaw it throughout the country. We should keep safe, legal,and rare.

El_Terrible on July 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM

AWESOME.

NTWR on July 16, 2010 at 2:15 PM

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I understand that Police are instructed to shoot to kill if a suspect is using a non-lethal weapon (like a club) on a victim. Same thing goes — if the mothers health is threatened, you do what will best preserve her life, even if that means killing the child (provided that is what she wants).

The unintended consequences come from complicated ways of determining which case passes and which doesn’t. I don’t know all the ways they could come up — though it’s probably not as bad for “life/health” exemptions than for “rape/incest” exemptions.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism. They all mean the same thing.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM

No.
Liberalism is what our Constitution exemplifies — government dedicated to the protection of individual rights. Communism, Socialism, and Progressivism are all just ways of using pandering to take away rights. That they like to call themselves “liberal” here in the US is irrelevant.

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Yes. In this case, I’m right.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM

And this is different than them saying that they are right how?

Count to 10 on July 16, 2010 at 2:22 PM

However, RvW isn’t going anywhere nor is there going to be a constitutional amendment against abortion. And it does turn off moderate voters.

You don’t know this because no one knows. The makeup of the Court matters, and my guess is that even Kennedy now would gut a lot of Roe. If I remember correctly, your a mba student from IL. I would agree with you that abortion in general will never become illegal in your home state because that is IL’s value system. That is not the case for many states or how the Court may rule in the future. If GOP presidents gets elected, Roe will go down eventually. States that want it illegal will, other won’t. My guess the GOP will push for a national ban on second third trimester abortions so NY, IL, CA don’t become abortion mill states.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on July 16, 2010 at 2:24 PM

No, Republicans should beat the pro-life war drum like they did prior to 2000 so they can take control of all three branches of government only to have the word abortion drop from their lexicon until they are voted back out of office again like in 2006.

Proving that most of these d-bag politicians only care about the issue if it’s still out there and can get them elected.

Benaiah on July 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM

As for gay issues, [those] who push the issue generally talk like they’re afraid of getting cooties from gay people.

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Actually, not far from the truth. Latest CDC numbers show that 55% of new US HIV/AIDS cases in 2008 are from homosexual men, and the main channel to the hetero population from that group is bisexual and intravenous drug users who share needles. If you look at total infection, that number climbs into the 70% range.

And by the way, how does 4% (that’s the CDC estimate) of the population drive 55% of new infections a major disease, especially when the method of infection is easily prevented by safe-sex methods?

So it’s not so unlikely that “we” (collectively, as a society) are getting “cooties” from gays. You can make it sound cute by using words like “cooties,” but the reality is much scarier.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Social Cons are not a monolithic group either. For instance, I have a pretty libertarian stance when it comes to social issues. The federal government shouldn’t be in gay or hetero marriage IMO. If they need to track (for legal or tax purposes)those who made a pact to share lives with each other we should ALL have civil unions and leave marriage up to individuals and/or states. Marriages are extremely personal and are not universally accepted even within churches. For example, strict Catholics don’t recognize a marriage if it is not performed in a church.

But when it comes to human rights, like the right to life, it’s a no-brainer for me. Especially since birth control is so widely available and free. Having sex is a choice- a choice that sometimes comes with creating new life- life that has a right to life, like it or not.

The fact that Obama Care will start dispersing taxpayer funds for abortion in August has me sickened and angry. 0′s executive order was BS and we should run on that. You can NOT be both Democrat and pro-life, so you can’t be both Catholic and Democrat, etc. etc.

NTWR on July 16, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Why are we always told to compromise our principles and deeply held beliefs in order to not get the wrong person elected? Murder is murder, there is no middle ground.

Kissmygrits on July 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM

The ONLY way to do anything about Roe v Wade is to get at least one and probably two constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The only way to do that is to elect a President and a Senate. The best and maybe the only way to do that is to get the Tea Party on board with a strong emphasis on the fiscal side.

burt on July 16, 2010 at 2:32 PM

You don’t know this because no one knows. The makeup of the Court matters, and my guess is that even Kennedy now would gut a lot of Roe. If I remember correctly, your a mba student from IL. I would agree with you that abortion in general will never become illegal in your home state because that is IL’s value system. That is not the case for many states or how the Court may rule in the future. If GOP presidents gets elected, Roe will go down eventually. States that want it illegal will, other won’t. My guess the GOP will push for a national ban on second third trimester abortions so NY, IL, CA don’t become abortion mill states.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on July 16, 2010 at 2:24 PM

You are never going to get someone less conservative than Kennedy in that seat when Kennedy finally retires nor are as many states as you think going to outlaw abortions there. I think even in places that might be more conservative, a majority of voters aren’t going to be willing to dictate people’s private lives. Pro-life politicians are pandering to the social cons (about 15% to 20%) of the electorate on that one because they know that it’s empty rhetoric. Abortion will likely stay legal, but continue to be immoral.

Illinidiva on July 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM

@Count to 10:

I guess what I’m saying is that we should try & deliver the baby and give it a chance at life as opposed to aborting it whenever possible. As for rape/incest, I can’t see how killing someone makes the rape better.

As for your concern about the legal intricacies of the “special cases,” I’m willing to haggle thru a few years of figuring out intricacies, or as I call them — “lives” — if it means I can save 100,000 babies a year.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM

The ONLY way to do anything about Roe v Wade is to get at least one and probably two constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The only way to do that is to elect a President and a Senate. The best and maybe the only way to do that is to get the Tea Party on board with a strong emphasis on the fiscal side.

burt on July 16, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Burt, that’s a good point. Prolifers have their best chance of advancing their goal by electing GOP candidates in 2010 & 2012. That said, given the nature of our position, we can’t compromise lives to save lives. We still have to hold to our argument.

That doesn’t mean that social cons & moderates can’t form a coalition to defeat the Dems in the next few elections, however. We are much closer to each other than either of us are to the Dems.

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Maybe things go hand in hand more than we realize. Maybe if we stop killing 50 million babies other aspects of this country will improve as well, like the economy.

Irenaeus on July 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Maybe things go hand in hand more than we realize. Maybe if we stop killing 50 million babies other aspects of this country will improve as well, like the economy.
Irenaeus on July 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Social rot is social rot. When you convince people that their actions can be completely divorced from all consequence; they don’t have to work to earn the goods and services that others create; they don’t have to protect and provide for their own families; they don’t even have to raise their own children — then people become more like sheep than humans.

And there is absolutely no way anything good can ever come of that.

logis on July 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM

A liberals perspective in the 1850s????

El_Terrible on July 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM

sarcasm on\

It’s a States’ Rights issue dagnabit. States have the right to deny rights to certain individuals. The 10th Amendment absolutely grants this power to the State.

That Abraham Lincoln guy is going to take away our States’ Rights so we better hurry up and create our own country. Let’s shred the current Constitution, write our own new and improved version, and pick a fight that we can’t win. In due time, we will be able to shift the blame to Lincoln for causing this whole mess to begin with.

Who’s with me????????????

/sarcasm off

rukiddingme on July 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Which is precisely why Pawlenty is not and never has been a serious candidate for national office. Well that and his Fred Flintstone ideas about science.

MJBrutus on July 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Which is precisely why Pawlenty is not and never has been a serious candidate for national office. Well that and his Fred Flintstone ideas about science.

MJBrutus on July 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Ad hominem much?

RationalIcthus on July 16, 2010 at 7:08 PM

I have more respect for someone who sincerely believes abortion is not murder than for someone who believes it is but opposing it is not a priority.

itsnotaboutme on July 16, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Fred Flintstone ideas about science.

MJBrutus on July 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Surely you refer to the silly idea that life can spontaneously arise out of non-living matter, which, generations ago, Pasteur demonstrated can’t happen, right?

itsnotaboutme on July 16, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Truce? Either it’s murder or it isn’t, there’s not a jot of middle ground on that point.

True conservatism lacks complication. Bravo, Bishop!

oakland on July 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Ed, abortion is something that needs to be very close to eliminated. I’ll agree that far. A federal law is neither the Constitutional nor the appropriate way to do this.

This is a item not mentioned in the Constitution. If we presume, as is a common argument here, that the commerce clause has been distorted too far, isn’t this yet one more gross distortion? Therefore this is something that must be left up to the states.

It is also not appropriate to have a federal law against abortion simply because the federal government is already bloated and this would be one more intrusive item of bloat.

So when you are discussing federal law there is no standing for an abortion debate. It simply does not fit. Take it up with the individual states.

And as a side point to those who declare it to be “murder” in all cases it is obvious they have not thought it through to its logical consequences. Is it murder to refuse care to a patient that is needed to assure the patient’s survival? If so, what if that care requires either the baby or the mother die? Who wins? Is this something for the government to decide or something for the half dozen or fewer people who are most intimately involved to decide?

Before making blanket laws think it through to its logical side effects. This is something Democrats and children seldom do. I thought Republicans were men and women who had grown up.

{^_^}

herself on July 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM