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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Christian Sharia, indistinguishable from Islamic counterpart (or is it competition?).
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM
I appreciate the suggestion.
However, I sympathize with my fellow HAers who are familiar with Honda’s body of commenting and record of adding little to the discussion.
22044 on November 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM
HondaV65 on November 30, 2012 at 10:22 AM
So, what should our laws be based on, genius?
JannyMae on November 30, 2012 at 10:35 AM
In principle I agree with you totally…but the hard reality is that the part you quoted is 100% correct.
The anti-abortion movement has barely made a dent in four decades of campaigning because this wretched mess started from the SCOUTUS, and anything less than a reversal by the SCOUTUS will not work. We’ve been basically trying to break through that like a man trying to dig his way out of a cave with a teaspoon.
I agree that the Republican party has abandoned conservative values. But on this issue they’re saying “this position is getting us nowhere” and they’re right. Folks, it’s time to recognize that we won’t be solving a problem that is deeply rooted in spiritual issues with a political solution.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Old testament. That would be Jewish Sharia…
Then again, American sharia is pretty much the same. Death penalty for murder for example. Taking away of freedom for taking away of property. So what say you to our laws against murder, theft as well as the penalties for causing a miscarriage against the will of the mother?
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 10:37 AM
This is the problem with anti-Christianists.
I do not, nor will I ever, require that the country follow the bible. I will actively fight any requirements to attend church service, pay tithes, volunteer with the poor, or any number of other “requirements” of the bible. (You’ll note I put that in quotes.)
However, I believe the purpose of government is to protect “Life, Liberty, and Property.”
My faith informs me that unborn Life is LIFE. Therefore, it is the purpose of the government to protect it. And I further beleive That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. I’m working towards the altering it.
But, of course, all you see is: CHRISTIANISTS WANT TO CREATE A THEOCRACY!!1!!1!1111!
No, I want a government that lives up to its supposed purpose.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Post-modern moral relativism, indistinguishable from totalitarian counterparts, and their competitors…
tom daschle concerned on November 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM
FTFY.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Christian Sharia, indistinguishable from Islamic counterpart (or is it competition?).
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Yes. Lord. We Christians just run all over the place, beheading folks.
Schmuck.
kingsjester on November 30, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Exhibit #2.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:39 AM
It is not an issue of faith. It is a scientific fact that it is a HUMAN life. Period.
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Stop using taxpayer money for abortions and let women do whatever they want as long as it’s on their own dime.
darwin on November 30, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Even that would be a major improvement!
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Where you just recently talking about Conservative hyperbole, Einstein? Your comment is ridiculous and there is no comparison. I could very easily say the social mores prgressive have succeded in pushing have made a liberal Sharia I have to live under.
hawkdriver on November 30, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Oh please.
Ward Cleaver on November 30, 2012 at 10:41 AM
I’ll also note that my faith informs me that property is worthy of protecting.
I suppose my opposition to the horrid verdict of Kelo vs. New London is also another example of trying to impose “Christian Sharia?”
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM
lester: The face of wishy-washy moral relativist leftism.
Right Mover on November 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Ok – I appreciate that
jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM
lester should not be taken seriously.
22044 on November 30, 2012 at 10:42 AM
I don’t believe my faith is in conflict with science. However, I’m not going to try to hide behind their god when mine is more than sufficient.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Says the person who supports the slaughter of millions of babies.
Flange on November 30, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Even a cursory study of the life of Jesus vs. the life of Mohammed proves that to be total nonsense.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Prostitution is illegal because of the same principles behind “pro-life” mentality. S3x is for reproduction only and a sin otherwise. Church’s endless crusade against cond0ms and contraceptives is also along that same stone age ideology.
And as one of the “libbies” I see nothing wrong with legalized prostitution. At the very least, the Police will have to deal with fewer dead hookers and health conditions will improve significantly.
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:44 AM
FTFY.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Goes further than taking life. It seems to suggest literal body part for body part. Iran and Saudi Arabia do that frequently. Seen those reports of people sentenced to “surgical eye removal” or hand cut off?
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Good point. If Christians were actually trying to impose “Chistian Sharia” as you called it, we’d be asking for abortionists to be chopped up and have their brains sucked out.
We’re only asking for them to be tried and punished as murders.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Ahhhh, I seen now. Christianity is junk because it does’t jive with lesters desire to have the nature and extent of recreational sex as he would desire. It all becomes clear. “Do as thou wilt” – there’s a real worldview to mold your life around.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM
*murderers
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:50 AM
You* would if it weren’t for the wall of separation. You did for centuries in absence of the wall.
(*not you personally)
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:51 AM
There are wars I oppose. That’s also about life and death. Do I get a say?
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Lester the prostitute’s son is the endgame of CarBoy’s foolish mentality. Either a nation gets its morality from the Bible, or it gets it from somewhere else and then whines about the Christians in its midst if not persecutes them.
But “somewhere else” inevitably degrades to legalized death and debauchery. The Romans had gladiator arenas and “temples” where rutting like monkeys was how you worshiped. We have abortion, and if molester had his way, STD-ridden prostitutes on every street corner.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 10:53 AM
That wall didn’t exist for the first 120 years of this country’s existance and I don’t recall any mass beheadings or hands being cut off. You’ll have to point that out for me.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Oh we’re going to play that game. I’m glad we can trust that athiests would run a country better and not bundle people off into concentration camps or murder millions of people in the fields.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM
You dope … the “wall of separation” is meant to protect religion from government. You really are a liberal … ignorant of everything except the propaganda you were spoon fed and greedily lapped up.
darwin on November 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM
You* would if it weren’t for the wall of separation. You did for centuries in absence of the wall.
(*not you personally)
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Say what? Are you this stoopid in real life? Please, cite your source, or stop pulling it out of your nether regions, you bigoted idiot.
kingsjester on November 30, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Hence the lower-case “l”.
lester lower-case all the way.
Right Mover on November 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM
So, had you not be brought into the Christian faith you would have believed murder to be morally acceptable?
kkaneff79 on November 30, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Exodus wants us to cut off arms and take out eyes. The fact that we’re not doing it doesn’t change that.
Quran is the same in Iran, Saudi and Turkey. The first two follow it to the word. Turkey doesn’t, for now.
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Well, at least Toensing is honest about being pro-choice and doesnt insult us with this “Im-pro-life-but-only-in-private”-bullsht.
Valkyriepundit on November 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM
lester on November 30, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Please cite that exact verse. Thank you.
kingsjester on November 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Abortion is legal in America. Abortion will remain legal.
No one can change that. Ever. Anyone that tells you different is just using you.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with being pro-life. That’s called having an opinion. There is everything wrong with being anti-choice.
Especially from those that talk endlessly about the evil of government power. But, they want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.
They don’t ever stop and think about how that power could be turned around by the left to enforce population control. Good thing none of it will ever happen.
Moesart on November 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Not for a few hundred years. I didn’t say that Christians are the same as those who wish to live under a ME theocracy. What I’m saying is that using religion as a basis for changing public policy is the same as the people that do it in a ME theocracy.
kkaneff79 on November 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Abortion is legal in America. Abortion will remain legal.
No one can change that. Ever. Anyone that tells you different is just using you.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with being pro-life. That’s called having an opinion. There is everything wrong with being anti-choice.
Especially from those that talk endlessly about the evil of government power. But, they want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.
They don’t ever stop and think about how that power could be turned around by the left to enforce population control. Good thing none of it will ever happen.
Moesart on November 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM
darwin on November 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM
disregard. Hit the wrong button
darwin on November 30, 2012 at 11:03 AM
The entirety of the left is anti-choice … with respect to everything.
darwin on November 30, 2012 at 11:04 AM
And what you’re deliberately not seeing is that using the Bible as a basic for public policy is a good thing but using the “holy book” of a bloodthirsty moon god is NOT.
Without some sort of backing for public policy, at best you have “because this is what our society THINKS is fair/right”, and the possibilities go downhill from there.
IMHO our nation is going to have to learn the hard way that laws have to be inspired from someone greater than the flickering candles of mortal minds.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM
This issue doomed America. Thanks ladies.
bob77 on November 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM
“… limited government is consistent with being publicly pro-choice …”
Uh, well – only if you believe that a ‘limited government’ means that children have no rights and that they do not deserve government protection or a say in the choices made with their lives. Is it not one important function of OUR government to make sure that all Americans are equal and receive equal protections? How can anyone defend murdering a child in the womb and not defend murdering a child outside of the womb? The slippery slope becomes more slippery and bloody with each passing day. Murder is murder – even when a completely defenseless victim’s screams are not audible to the naked ear.
Pork-Chop on November 30, 2012 at 11:06 AM
With respect, I will say, that’s your faith, and while I fully support your right to have it, completely disagree with it, as it is predicated on nothing more than your ‘belief’ in God.
To say that humans are incapable coming up with a set of laws that govern society in the absence of divine inspiration is nonsense. Your argument and the inspiration of divinity in the behavior of people is refuted by the countless acts of savagery committed by the devout throughout the history of man.
kkaneff79 on November 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM
kkaneff79 on November 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM
You do know that our Founding Documents were written, based on our Founders’ Judeo-Christian Belief System, don’t you?
kingsjester on November 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »