Pro-choice Republicans go public
I never believed that Mitt Romney rejected his pro-choice position because of one meeting with doctors and learning what was done to stem cells. Rather, I thought he had one meeting with political consultants who told him he could never get the Republican nomination unless he was pro-life. …
Today, any Republican who believes, as I do, in a strong national defense and fiscal conservatism, and that limited government is consistent with being publicly pro-choice, knows that if she takes the latter position she will get creamed in the primary. …
As a political matter, being pro-life has not helped Republicans. John McCain lost Catholics by nine points. Romney lost the Catholic vote by two points, even after four years of President Obama’s strong pro-choice position and Obamacare forcing certain Catholic entities to cover birth control.
As a results-oriented matter, the pro-life position cannot prevail. In the 39 years since Roe v. Wade, no pro-life president has overturned it and, because that ruling is constitutionally based, no member of Congress can overturn it via legislation. Even Republican-appointed justices would have a difficult time overturning Roe after four decades because of the conservative philosophy of upholding precedent. If Roe were overturned, each state would decide the issue, and, presumably, local politicians would vote their constituents’ position. Many states would approve abortion, so pro-lifers would not attain their goal of outlawing the procedure.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »
Go ahead, get bold. Your position stands on a weak foundation which will be toppled by advancing medicines for surviving preemies and sonograms.
thebrokenrattle on November 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM
I’m pro choice on health care. I believe we ought to have a choice about whether or not we’ll buy insurance and participate in health care related commerce.
Are democrats and these so-called pro choice republicans pro-choice on health insurance? Or just pro-choice on killing unborn babies?
dczombie on November 30, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Abortion is a political issue because pro-abortionists have declared that it must be so, when the only applicable arguments on the matter make a pro-life position the proper one.
22044 on November 30, 2012 at 9:50 AM
I changed my registration. I am no longer a Republican. I never will be again. Time for a new party of Conservatives.
wildcat72 on November 30, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Well, for all the other stupid things she said, she at least got this right.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 9:52 AM
Any society that favors convenience over the life of an infant deserves to be enslaved.
darwin on November 30, 2012 at 9:53 AM
The Bible is very clear on the unborn:
Very clear.
BigGator5 on November 30, 2012 at 9:53 AM
We need to the point of pro-choice-murder. Pro-choice-assault-&-battery. Pro-choice-theft. Pro-choice-fraud.
Only then will we truly be conservative!
Of course, abortion is murder, so we are halfway there on that one.
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 9:55 AM
I’m pro-choice on paying taxes.
Flange on November 30, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Let’s call the sociopath what he really is. Barack Obama is not “pro-choice.” He has voted for the murder of babies born alive.
Right Mover on November 30, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Feelings do not trump life. They never should. The feelings of the mother should not determine the fate of a child.
Comfort over life, the choice should be clear.
Abortion must be called exactly what it is. The feelings and comfort of one person taking precedence over the life of another. Framed like this, I think people will start to turn against it.
I know several women who had abortions, and those choices haunt them decades later in life.
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 9:57 AM
By all means pro-choicers’ make your position clear and unambiguous. You stand for the intentional death of a fetus. You stand for taking a pair of tongs and crushing a fetal brain until white fluid leaks out. You stand for hiring an employee to pick through fetal remains and looking for feet. Go ahead, choose “choice” but at least tell us what you are really standing for.
kringeesmom on November 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Wow – this subject stirs so much passion – most of it is 100% based on solid moral belief.
I am a libertarian by nature, and do not like anyone telling me anything about my choices in life – so ‘LIFE’ as a issue is one that really tears me from side to side.
On one hand – I am a social moderate – I believe people should be free to make their own choices in life – and live with those choices.
One other hand – as a parent – life is so precious and so beautiful – I cannot imagine taking a life.
I’m not alone in this.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM
And yet I just had a conversation last week with some libs that didn’t know about Obama’s votes in the IL Senate. In fact, they thought I was making it up. The media can rot in hell.
txhsmom on November 30, 2012 at 10:02 AM
“The quick and the dead” pops into my head…
Fallon on November 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM
When is the GOP planning to pass laws prohibiting in vitro fertilization? A dozen babeez are murdered everytime this procedure is done.
This must be stopped now.
Pablo Honey on November 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM
The same moral belief that innocent human life is worth protecting.
Hence, if you beat someone up, you get punished. If you beat many people up, you get taken out of society. If you kill someone, you get taken out of society for a while, if you do so many times or in a particularly egregious way, we either take you out of society for life or simply end your life.
Once a sperm and an egg merge into a zygote, the issue is over. It is now a human life. Capable of reproducing in the future. Destroying it on purpose is murder. It is the same moral issue we have with murder.
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Who cares what the Bible says? The Bible is not the law of the land. Not all of us are believers. You are and I certainly have no problem with that, but stop trying to foist your religion unto everyone!
kkaneff79 on November 30, 2012 at 10:06 AM
In other words, sell your soul for political expediency and to make sure you keep your cush job.
Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 10:06 AM
What did he do, break into your house and force you to kiss a Bible? I saw no foisting of anything, just someone expressing his opinion.
Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 10:07 AM
That’s well said – with passion and belief.
I am – as I said – a libertarian – I make my own choices – and therein lies the dilemma – this is about one person’s own choice.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:08 AM
It is so cute that you reprobates are still rebelling against the GOP.
LMFAO.
tom daschle concerned on November 30, 2012 at 10:08 AM
BTW ~ It is the media’s job to purposefully drive wedge memes and exploit cracks and divisions in their enemy’s positions. It is their job and we are their enemy.
Fallon on November 30, 2012 at 10:08 AM
No need for new, they already exist:
http://conservativepartyusa.org/home/
http://americanconservativeparty.org/
thebrokenrattle on November 30, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Whatever. The pro-life movement has several groups of supporters, and I’m not unsympathetic to them, but this bible inspired stuff has got to stop.
Anyone that chooses to life his/her life according to the bible is certainly free to do so, and should do so. But to attempt to frame public policy around what the Bible says is only a whisker better than the theocrats in the middle east.
kkaneff79 on November 30, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Pro-murder? Yeah, thats what they really mean. Palin was accused by the progs for making the wrong CHOICE.
tommy71 on November 30, 2012 at 10:10 AM
I was raised to debate at the dinner table – argue for my thoughts and ideas – and when the arguments were complete – move on.
I was not raised to leave the dinner table just because I felt like others disagreed with me.
Please stay in the party and fight for your beliefs.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Dude was expressing a tenet from the Bible, how you got “You will all follow Christianity or die!” from the comment I can’t quite figure out.
Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 10:12 AM
By all means, “choose”. Let us know where you stand.
kringeesmom on November 30, 2012 at 10:14 AM
I like it – your tag is Bishop – and you’re debating a religious point. That made me smile.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:14 AM
One person’s decision to kill another person. There are two PEOPLE involved in this. Three if you count the abortionist who actually does the murder.
Sorry buddy, but once the egg and sperm merge and create the zygote, that there is a life. It either dies of natural causes or it is murdered.
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM
I choose for myself – not for anyone else. That’s what I was trying to say.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Welcome to the club.
I think the Republican party has moved way, way past the point of “polite disagreement.”
Doomberg on November 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM
You arrogant, ignorant fool. When was the last time you heard of Christians training their children to be suicide bombers? Or stoning a gay person in public? Or honor-killing their daughter?
You’ve obviously never lived in a Middle Eastern theocracy, plus you’re apparently too lazy and/or stupid to do any research.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Pro-Choice, that’s supposed to mean that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body?
Not in America. There is no such a thing as “Pro-Choice”. For instance, even the most progressive liberals deny a woman the agency and right to decide for herself who she’ll have sex with – and for what reasons.
Prostitution is prohibited. So for libbies and conservatives – it’s totally okay for a woman to give up sex for a nice dinner. But for monetary contributions? Oh no!
HondaV65 on November 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM
You make a valid point. My faith tells me murder is wrong. But I don’t want to impose it on others. So, if some guy wants to harm you or your family to pull down some extra coin or something you own who am I to tell society he doesn’t have that right?
hawkdriver on November 30, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Gosh I hope not – remember this – Reagan came along during, and not long after Nixon – and Nixon was as liberal as any Republican in history.
The Heritage Foundation was created to fight Nixon.
Stay in the party and push out those you disagree with – you are a Republican – not “them”.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Hmm
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Yawn.
But the press will love you. And we all know how tough it is when the press loves you.
JellyToast on November 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM
They’re not really pro-”choice”, they’re pro-abortion.
Ward Cleaver on November 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM
I’m in the middle east NOW … and it’s not my first visit.
And – quite frankly I wouldn’t trust Pat Robertson to make decisions for this nation any more than I would the Supreme Leader.
The Bible is fine to live YOUR life by. It’s not fine to force others to live by it. And besides, all you Christians insist that this life is all about overcoming “temptations” and demonstrating piousness and love for the Lord. What good is it to eliminate all those temptations and sin? Who’s a better Christian? One who follows his faith in Gomorrah – or one who is true to it at Liberty Baptist College?
I would submit the former is.
HondaV65 on November 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM
I’m pro-choice. I strongly support the right of liberals to murder their unborn. Charles Darwin’s analysis of this trend would be simple and concise, I imagine. Besides, if liberals see no problem with taxing the unborn into slavery, what makes anybody with half a brain think they’ll actually care whether people murder said unborn once in a position to do so?
For once, it really is for the greater good, and conservatives should afford them every possible opportunity to make “choices” as is feasible. Imagine where we’d be right now if liberals hadn’t been killing their own for the past 40 years. This country would have been postitively Bismarckian 20 years ago.
Maybe it sounds callous, but with all the people saying “let it burn,” I figure the right would’ve taken a similar stance toward liberals culling their own numbers a very long time ago.
mintycrys on November 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Now be a good troll and go back and curl up with a good Koran.
Right Mover on November 30, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Wow – what a great post. Safe travels.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Confess away godless reprobate!
tom daschle concerned on November 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM
And with CarBoy who apparently thinks that visiting Terrorland qualifies him to think our morals can come from a vacuum.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Why do some find it necessary insult and call people names when discussing issues?
I never get that. Seems like such a weak personal trait.
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Had such a postition been taken with regard to “seperate but equal” in 1940 Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land. If Victoria is so willing to have people sacrifice such a deep principal on the alter of political power she’s definitely in the wrong party. Or at least I hope she is.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM
alter = altar. I blame it on the keyboard.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »