Human Events | Ann Coulter | Sep. 3, 2008
John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him — a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.
The media are hopping mad about McCain’s vice presidential selection, but they’re really furious over at MSNBC. After drawing “Keith (plus) Obama” hearts on their denim notebooks, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews stayed up all night last Thursday, writing jokes about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the presumed vice presidential pick. Now they can’t use any of them.
So the media are taking it out on our brave Sarah and her 17-year-old daughter.
They claimed Palin was chosen only because she’s a woman. In fact, Palin was chosen because she’s pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She’s fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she’s a “Republican.”
As a right-winger, Palin will appeal to the narrow 59 percent of Americans who voted for another former small-market sportscaster: Ronald Reagan. Our motto: Sarah Palin is only a heartbeat away!
If you’re going to say Palin was chosen because she’s a woman, you’re going to have to demonstrate that the runners-up were more qualified. Gov. Tim Pawlenty seems like a terrific fellow and fine governor, but he is not obviously more qualified than Palin.
As for former governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, the other also-rans, I can think of at least 40 million unborn reasons she’s better than either of them.
Within the first few hours after Palin’s name was announced, McCain raised $4 million in campaign donations online, reaching $10 million within the next two days. Which shortlist vice presidential pick could have beaten that?
The media hysterically denounced Palin as “inexperienced.” But then people started to notice that she has more executive experience than B. Hussein Obama — the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket.
They tried to create a “Troopergate” for Palin, indignantly demanding to know why she wanted to get her ex-brother-in-law removed as a state trooper. Again, public corruption is not a good issue for someone like Obama, Chicago pol and noted friend of Syrian National/convicted felon Antoin Rezko.
For the cherry on top, then we found out Palin’s ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Defend that, Democrats.
The bien-pensant criticized Palin, saying it’s irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. Liberals’ new talking point: Sarah Palin: Only five abortions away from the presidency.
They claimed her newborn wasn’t her child, but the child of her 17-year-old daughter. That turned out to be a lie.
Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they’re opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain’s vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels.
But at least liberal reporters had finally found someone their own size to pick on: a 17-year-old girl.
Speaking of Democrats with newborn children, the media weren’t particularly concerned about John Edwards running for president despite his having a mistress with a newborn child.
While the difficult circumstances of Palin’s pregnant daughter are being covered like a terrorist attack on the nation, with leering accounts of the 18-year-old father, the media remain resolutely uninterested in the parentage of Edwards’ mistress’s love child. Except, that is, the hardworking reporters at the National Enquirer, who say Edwards is the father.
. . . more
This woman isn’t even supposed to be head of her own family, much less VP of the United States. A wife and mother of 5 should be caring for her children, not working 80 hours a week and neglecting them.
But – we aren’t supposed to deal with all that because Sarah Palin has better political positions than McCain on almost any topic. Because of politics, we’re supposed to ignore the fact that conservatives are now touting the working mother who sacrifices her children for her career as the HIGHEST possible role model.
The feminists won after all, just maybe minus the abortion.
I thought it was very odd that Bristol Palin’s boyfriend — if that’s what he is — the boy who got her pregnant anyway — was not only invited to the convention, but also shared the stage with everyone after Palin’s speech. I found this odd for two reasons: first, the campaign had asked the press to “respect the privacy” of the young couple, and second, the young man himself, and his actions, hardly seem like the kind of thing of which “the base” would approve. What’s going on here?
Jim,
(1) The couple had planned to marry BEFORE she became pregnant.
(2) Having them both there is a CLEAR SIGN to the press to move on and deal with substantive issues rather then unjustified and gutter personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issues in this election.
(3) Showing the couple as an example of how to be supportive of family is another indication of family values. Conservatives are not perfect and make mistakes. It’s how we deal with those mistakes and how we protect innocence and family that’s a radical departure from Planned Parenthood, Obama, the DNC, the leftists, etc…
(4) Palin clearly evidences how she can stand her ground and is NOT AFRAID of the attack dogs, manure-picking, and smear specialists in the mainstream media and the lefstists/radicals infecting the DNC. That takes major cahones! (More than Bush even showed in 8 years in office.) That’s the kind of VP (and future President) who can handle Islamo-Fascists, Terrorists, Iran, Venezuela, China, North Korea, etc..
Palin handled this EXACTLY as she should have.
Nicholas writes in #1:
I don’t think a woman who works hard necessarily neglects her kids. For an example from scripture, refer to the 31st chapter of Proverbs, verses 10 forward. Clearly, a woman who performed all of the work listed in the description of a worthy wife would have been terribly busy. Prior to industrialization, daunting amounts of work were routine for women just as they were for men. Somehow the kids turned out okay despite the circumstances.
Also, one of the judges (leaders) of Israel, Deborah, was a woman. You can look that up in the Old Testament. And if you are Orthodox, I wonder if you have a problem with the Empress Theodora, a Saint of the church. She was a leader of men too.
Those women were called by God. They did not stand for election in the public forum. You can’t compare either the system of Judges which were singled out by God, or a monarchical system in which women inherited by marriage or birth, to abandoning your family to campaign 100 hours a week for months.
Are you arguing (like evidently Chris who isn’t approving my posts) that there is no gender difference? There is only one standard – that working moms who park their kids in daycare are the same as working dads who leave the kids at home with mom?
Are we into gender equity now? Is that what we are?
So now, the Left says that working moms who warehouse the kids even though their is no financial reason for two incomes are heroes.
Conservatives now agree.
Liberals says that men and women are entirely equal.
Conservatives now agree. Women should be free to do their own thing, regardless of the impact on the kids.
Where is the difference now on this issue? Sarah Palin doesn’t need to work. She chooses to pursue her ambitions at the expense of her family, and conservatives are aiding and abetting this.
In the meantime, we are losing yet another distinctive element of conservatism in order to try and elect Sarah Palin VP for the love of God.
John McCain still gets the big chair, remember.
Chris writes:
I don’t agree with Nicholas, but this whole episode is somewhat weird, as Chris’ comment exemplifies.
As much as I admire Palin ( at least by what has come out so far), it has to be admitted that her selection was loaded with pandering. Too bad that our politics has devolved thusly.
But how did we get to this point? The truth is that neither Hillary or Obama are qualified to be President. What has Hillary ever done that makes her suited for the “3 am call”? Work in a crooked small-town law firm? Ride your husband’s coattails in exchange for letting him philander constantly? Travel on first-lady junkets? Give mind-numbingly boring lie-laden speeches for 2 years? As for Obama, he has worked full-time on self-promotion for 20 years. His accomplishments, other than looking elegant and giving megalomaniac speeches, are non-existent.
Palin is much more qualified than either of them.
Jim said,
If he had not been on the stage, I expect Jim would have manufactured a snarky comment about that also.
Augie writes: “If he had not been on the stage, I expect Jim would have manufactured a snarky comment about that also.”
A few years ago, around the time of the last election, long-time OT participant Missourian wrote the following about teenage pregnancy:
Unwed motherhood shifted from something shameful to something ordinary, something that the school and others now had to accommodate. This is a huge cultural change. Although the older policy was certainly harsh, it did prevent younger students from becoming accustomed to the “ordinariness” of the unwed mother. As our grandparents used to say “Shame has a good effect on most people.” Many people will restrain their conduct out of a fear of social shame and ostracism, sometimes more than would restrain their conduct out of a sense of morality.
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2004/11/04/election-map-by-county/
I don’t think there’s anything snarky about asking “so which way is it?” Should pregnant girls — and their boyfriends — be on the receiving end of a certain degree of ostracism and feel shame, or should they be “accommodated” and welcomed? I can guarantee you that not many years ago they wouldn’t have ended up on the stage with the Republican nominee for president and shaking hands with him at the airport. I guess I grew up in a different time, but seeing this couple not only at the convention but on the stage felt very odd to me.
So what happened? Have conservative values changed to accommodate the culture?
Perhaps it’s enough to say that not all women are the same, and that not all men are the same. Perhaps instead of wholeheartedly embracing the notion that people are “equal,” we can just embrace the notion that no one is better qualified to determine how a couple divide up their labor and child-rearing than the members of that couple.
I’d answer you at length, Jim, but it wouldn’t be approved for posting anyway.
In short, however, don’t expect consistency. This is about an election, and Sarah Palin is now the new Reagan. Criticism of her is not allowed. You can do it, because you are offiically ‘liberal’ and they can just yell at you and say, “Shut up, liberal! Look at the hypocrites on your side! They love teen pregnancies and day care and nannies!”
Measured against the worst of the Left, of course, most conservatives don’t come up too badly. But compared against our own stated principles, well then we don’t fare too well.
Note 8. Missourian was talking about cultural attitudes. Liberalism for the most part, and feminism almost exclusively (Feminists for Life is the only exception I know of), has acculturated the free sex attitude (free condoms, abortion as birth control, warring against abstinence programs, etc.).
Conservatives aren’t free of the moral devolution however. See Peggy Noonan’s brilliant essay, The Culture of Death. They are affected, especially the young, just like anyone else.
How, then, do you deal with this? From my perspective, the Palin’s are doing it right. The daughter is pregnant, they accept it, and their decisions are based on an ethic of life which translates to support of the daughter, acceptance by the daughter and boyfriend that their decisions have ramifications, and love of the unborn child.
Is it a perfect situation? Not by a long shot. But life is full of imperfect situations. My hat goes off to them for not taking the easy way out, in this case aborting the child and keeping the entire matter a secret.
My question to liberal moralists (not directed to you Jim) is this: would it have been better to abort the baby? My hunch is that many would be pleased a punch to see the baby aborted. Why? What really angers them most is that this family, despite its flaws and mistakes — which is to say they are like most of us, and most of us know it — reflects the values of many Americans about the intrinsic value of human life.
How else do you explain the New York Times — the New York Times! — giving a front page spread to the daughter of Sarah Palin? They sense their hold on the culture slipping, and they are slipping into panic.
Nice attempted dodge, Phil.
Let’s break this into policy terms shall we? The new conservative position on this issue:
“Women and men should discuss their future child rearing and decide for themselves which one will be the primary caregiver. Men and women, depending on personal circumstances, are equally able to nurture and care for young children, so no pressure should be exerted on either partner to choose a ‘traditional role.’ The couple should be free to decide who stays home with the children for themselves, free of societal pressure or negative stereotyping. Of course, either a nanny or daycare is equally valid, should both partners choose to work. Should the woman and man decide that their careers need to take precedence, then no pressure should be applied that might run counter to this decision. It is perfectly alright to put children in daycare, or hire a private nanny if funds are available. Therefore, we should not judge a family’s decisions, no matter what they are, as long as the children are fed, clothed, and seem to be happy. Raised at home by their mother, a stay-at-home father, in a daycare environment, or raised by nanny – all of these are morally equal and acceptable in all circumstances.”
Now, exactly how does the new conservative position differ from the standard liberal one?
Of course, we could modify it somewhat and say, “We prefer mothers to be at home with their children, but we will not judge or criticize mothers who place their careers ahead of their family as long as we like their policy prescriptions and their presence on a national ticket helps defeat a Democrat.”
Father – I have no idea what angers them or doesn’t anger them. What angers me is that there is not the slightest angst at all over this. The baby should not be aborted. The parents should get married. That is all fine, but the girl is being hailed as heroic. She is not heroic. She’s a knocked up teen who spent her life in a Protestant church but still had premarital sex anyway. This isn’t a one-time mistake. She sat in a congregation, shouted ‘AMEN,’ listened to the preaching each Sunday, went to the Youth Group, and got busy with her boyfriend anyway.
She has a rich family, lots of connections, and will do fine with her new husband. In fact, now that mom will be VP, she can ride the gravy train all the way to the station with her new husband, who will probably become the youngest influence peddler on K Street.
Having your own baby in this situation is not heroic. It’s just normal. Women having the babies they are carrying is just normal. Mothers killing their babies is the part that is not normal. The girl doesn’t deserve lionization. She doesn’t deserve all this. Neither does her absentee mom, who inattention contributed to this situation.
Who is saying this is heroic? — unless of course the culture has gotten so debased that keeping a child appears heroic.
I’d prefer that this wasn’t public at all, but since it is the family seems to be handling it well. What else can they do? It used to be that children were out of bounds in political campaigns, but no more apparently.
Oh, lots actually. I am quoting the first article on WND I came to:
I agree. This shouldn’t appear heroic at all. The consensus from Republicans is that Bristol’s pregnancy is great political theater. We are now supposed to admire a family in which a 17 year old gets knocked up out of wedlock.
For what? Because abortion was off-the-table? My wife and I didn’t even have genetic testing before our babies were born. No need. No matter what the babies had (one is special needs), they were going to be born regardless.
So, yes, the official Right is celebrating Bristol as a hero, as one of the Palin family who is full of small town heroism.
Fr. Hans writes: “What really angers them most is that this family, despite its flaws and mistakes — which is to say they are like most of us, and most of us know it — reflects the values of many Americans about the intrinsic value of human life.”
I really don’t have a problem with Palin’s family. Frankly, how they choose to handle their affairs is none of my business. I just wish that the same consideration that the right extends to Palin’s family would also be extended to everyone else who doesn’t happen to be a vice presidential candidate.
There are failings on both sides. The difference is that the failings of liberals are seen as emblematic of liberals. Were Obama to have a pregnant teenage daughter, that would be portrayed as evidence of the inherent immorality of liberals in general. Were Obama or his wife in any way associated with an organization that even suggested that their home state might want to secede from the U.S. it would be the end of his campaign. If Palin is not blamed for attending a church in which the preacher makes controversial statements, why blame Obama for that? Again, which way is it? If we’re going to blame, let’s blame everyone; if we’re going to exonerate, let’s exonerate everyone.
Fr. Hans: “My question to liberal moralists (not directed to you Jim) is this: would it have been better to abort the baby?”
No, I don’t think so. My question to conservatives is whether it would have been better for the government to make that decision for her, or whether it was better for her to make that decision for herself. The fact that she made the decision for herself, and could have decided otherwise, is what makes it a profoundly moral decision, and something for which she should rightly be praised.
Nicholas writes: “I’d answer you at length, Jim, but it wouldn’t be approved for posting anyway.”
Welcome to the club. Personally I would prefer a system in which the hand of the moderator rested a little more lightly on the posts. But it’s not my blog and I’m not the moderator.
By the way, this is an excerpt from Counterpunch, which just highlights the fact that the Left has picked up on the inconsistency in the message about Palin:
The fallout from this on the conservative side will be long-lasting and bitter. It didn’t take this to beat Obama. We could have done that without this. Now, of course, he celebrity will destroy Obama, but what is the price?
I don’t think a “policy position” that men and women are always equal is necessary; it’s enough to acknowledge that not all men and women are the same.
Sure – which means that the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing people to do much of anything in a free society.
However, that doesn’t mean you abandon your standards of normal behavior. We can’t have this both ways. We can’t state that family should come first, and that women should choose to stay home with their small children if at all possible, only to then turn all non-judgmental and Feminist because we like the absentee mother’s political stances.
The Left doesn’t notice its own double-standards, but they do notice ours. So do legions of young people who now think that Christian conservatives and their family-is-the-most-important-thing line are a bunch of liars. Palin can go back to work 3 days after delivering a disabled child who desperately needs her mother.
Who is caring for that child? Who is raising that child? Her husband? A nanny?
Do you know? Do you care? Well a lot of young women planning their futures care. Is the moral of the story that if you can afford a nanny, then keep working, but daycare is bad?
When that baby starts to cry asking for mama, who is on a state visit to Egypt, does that matter?
To me, as the father of a disabled daughter, it matters. Often my wife is the only person who can soothe my child. Not me, not grandma, just mama. Because mamas are different. Daddy isn’t the same.
But now we are the same, aren’t we? Or we could be. When the conservatives no longer hold the line, what are we left with?
Note 16. Jim responds to my question:
That’s the proper polemical response, but it doesn’t touch on the deeper point. I think the fact that Palin didn’t abort her Down’s Syndrome child enrages pro-abortion liberals, the ideological types who understand that the polemics don’t mute the offense experienced by the conscience about abortion, and strive to keep any evidence that might awaken the conscience out of view. It reminds me of when Sen. Barbara Boxer had armed guards remove a young woman from Congress to prevent her from testifying about surviving her abortion in infancy.
Fr. Hans writes: “That’s the proper polemical response, but it doesn’t touch on the deeper point. I think the fact that Palin didn’t abort her Down’s Syndrome child enrages pro-abortion liberals, the ideological types who understand that the polemics don’t mute the offense experienced by the conscience about abortion, and strive to keep any evidence that might awaken the conscience out of view.”
I spend time on all sorts of blogs, conservative and liberal. On the liberal blogs I have never read anything to indicate that liberals are enraged by Palin’s decision to have a Down Syndrome child. In fact there are liberals who have Down Syndrome children and children with other disabilities.
In general, what I have read on the liberal blogs is simply that they want women to be able to make a decision in the same way that Palin was able to make a decision.
As you know I have spent a lot of time on this blog over the last few years. During that time I have read a number of arguments against abortion, both theological and philosophical. Being pro-choice means more than being able to decide whether to have an abortion. More importantly, it means being able to decide for oneself the merits of those arguments — to consider for oneself whether a fertilized egg or fetus is a human person, and the moral implications thereof.
Either the woman makes that evaluation for herself, or the State makes that evaluation for her. That’s not a polemical point; it’s a fact. It’s either one way or the other.
The decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term is a momentous decision, a potentially life-altering decision, possibly the most important decision that a woman will ever make. To take that decision from the woman and place it in the hands of the State is a HUGE intrusion into a woman’s life. If the State can make that decision, then what decision can it not make? What power does it potentially not have?
In previous posts here, Glen Chancy has referred to State power as the “ring of Sauron.” The ring of Sauron is very attractive, and draws both liberals and conservatives to its power. The problem is that you never know who is going to end up with the ring of Sauron.
This year the ring of Sauron may end up in the hands of the Republicans, and if something happens to John McCain, even into the hands of the religious fundamentalist Sarah Palin, whose views on abortion are very close to what one finds in countries such as Iran, run by Islamic fundamentalists. She or McCain may be able to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. And you will rejoice. In future years the states or even the federal government may ban abortion, and you will rejoice some more.
But the ring of Sauron is very durable; it outlasts you and me, and it is impossible to know who may end up with it 50 or 100 years from now. I would ask you to reflect on this: if the State can force women to carry pregnancies to term regardless of their wishes, it can just as easily force women to terminate pregnancies regardless of their wishes, which as you know has happened in China.
So it’s either the individual or the State, and when you remove choice you end up with the State. But which State? One like Iran? Or one like China? Something to consider.
Jim –
There is a different between the STATE and individual states. Properly speaking, the abortion debate was a question of state law before the Supreme Court nationalized it. The question for the federal government is simple – is abortion a federal issue?
The answer is – no. It is not a federal issue. It is now, and should always be, a state issue which will end up with a wide patchwork of laws. There will be some states with legal abortion, some with no abortion, and a lot of states in between.
The ‘ring of Sauron’ here was seized by a Court that had no jurisdiction in the matter, but which seized it anyway to impose a one-size-fits-all solution that enshrined abortion as a Constitutional Right, and invalidated all state laws.
Now the entire political system bears responsibility for this and many other instances in which co-equal branches of government rolled over and played dead for the Courts, but this is the more egregious. There are even pro-Choice advocates who are smart enough to realize that in a post-Roe v. Wade world, the Republican base would shatter.
The day after Roe is overturned, the Democratic Party suddenly becomes competitive again. This is issue is not helping the Dems, and keeps the Republican base wedded to the party through thick and thin.
I do NOT see this as increasing the power of the central state. It decreases the power of the central state and returns sovereignty to the people.
My solution to the Roe issue would be for the Executive Branch to refuse to enforce the decision and permit states to operate under their own laws. Barring that, I suppose we will be treated (at some point) to a reversal. At which point, states will be free to run their own affairs.
I remember you arguing in favor of states’ rights on PAS? If states should be free to legislate in that arena, why not abortion? The federal government has no business in areas such as medical THC, abortion, PAS, or a whole litany of other things.
Nicholas writes: “It is now, and should always be, a state issue which will end up with a wide patchwork of laws. There will be some states with legal abortion, some with no abortion, and a lot of states in between.”
The Republican platform expresses a different point of view: “We support a human life
amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” The Fourteenth Amendment approach is described by one group as “the Ultimate attack to end legalized Abortion in America once and for all.” http://www.unbornchildren.com/
I’ve heard the states-rights argument before, but that’s not what is currently being advocated by the Republican party.
Nicholas: “I remember you arguing in favor of states’ rights on PAS? If states should be free to legislate in that arena, why not abortion? The federal government has no business in areas such as medical THC, abortion, PAS, or a whole litany of other things.”
Well, people argue about states rights with respect to all sorts of issues, and since I’m not an attorney I can’t really evaluate those arguments. From a common-sense point of view, it makes sense for me that states should establish their own rules or restrictions concerning PAS. I live in Oregon, the only state in which PAS is legal. It involves a number of laws and administrative rules that govern the program. These include medical conditions for which PAS may be authorized, waiting periods, physician responsibilities, record-keeping by the State Health Department’s division of Vital Statistics, and so on. Given all the details involved it’s hard for me to imagine that the feds could craft a “one size fits all” solution. One top of that, even in Oregon it’s a fairly rare occurrence, typically used by patients with end-stage cancer, most of whom find hospice and other palliative care satisfactory.
(Interesting that you bring up PAS. Just today I saw my doctor and asked him what he thought about PAS. My doctor is a conservative Christian and he simply said “it’s against my faith, so I haven’t developed an opinion about it more than that.” Under state law he can simply opt-out, which I think is appropriate.)
With abortion, I think the situation is very different. PAS is a medical option. Medical marijuana is a medical option. Both are legal in Oregon, but used by relatively few people. In Oregon fewer than 20,000 people have medical marijuana cards out of a population of around 3.7 million people. In 2007 fewer than 50 people ended their lives with lethal prescriptions written under the PAS system. I support both programs, but I would not consider them expressions of fundamental rights.
As I stated before the right to an abortion is all about the woman being able to decide the moral issues for herself. If a state appropriates that decision to itself — even one of the 50 states and not the national State — we end up with the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale.
That, dear Jim, is a classic example of a platform that was crafted to appeal to the base, but is a practical non-starter. There is no chance whatsoever of a Human Life Amendment. (Not that I favor it anyway.) It is there to provide red meat to the base of the Republican Party. It’s an electoral ruse.
Now back to real issues. The overturn of Roe v. Wade, or its blessed rejection by the other branches of government, would simply return the situation to where it was in 1973, which would include a patchwork of laws. These laws would be decided based on the political system of each state.
That is decidedly NOT the situation today. The situation today is that a large number of people believe abortion is murder. Another group believe that abortion is a woman’s right, and not murder. In politics, when two sides conflict, the normal result is compromise. That is why all European states have at least some restrictions on abortion, even though most allow it. The compromises have been worked out over time.
No one feels disenfranchised. No one feels that the system has cheated them. The laws get tinkered with, but the Europeans feel that the game isn’t rigged.
Now, don’t be fundamentalist on this. You tend to be an absolutist on abortion rights, and it’s annoying. The question of abortion is a political one. So is medical THC, and so is PAS, and so are a host of other issues. You can’t consider any of this to be a fundamental right, as our civilization has never recognized them as such. However, simply because something is not a fundamental right doesn’t mean that the government has any business in it.
But, the realm of influence of local communities versus the federal government is different. The federal government should be barred by the Constitution from prohibiting a single abortion. It should equally be barred from forcing states to lock up THC users from their medicine.
If you drive it down to the state level, then it becomes an issue for the political system in each state. No one then feels the game is rigged. Everyone has their fair say, the laws get adjusted. As community standards change, the laws change. Abortion becomes another issue as it is in European nations.
Now, Jim, what is it with you and this issue? The Liberals have had themselves crucified on this thing for decades. Obama is about to get destroyed. Once again the Democrats will lose national office and the major rallying cry for the base will be, “Overturn Roe!!!!”
You can’t win this debate. You can’t make Orthodox believe life begins at any time other than conception. What you and the liberals could do is defuse the issue at the national level by pitching Roe under the bus.
But you guys just can’t seem to think that clearly. It’s sad, really. One more election lost by the Dems by appealing to a on over 50 female demographic that is the only one who remember a pre-Roe world and are absolutist on the issue.
It does seem to put one in a bind. Two questions–
1) If a single woman, or a married woman with no children (or grown children) ran for public office, such as Vice President or President, would it be possible to support that candidacy? Or should it still be opposed, because, as you write, “This woman isn’t even supposed to be head of her own family, much less VP of the United States.”
2) What’s the best option for conservative Orthodox persons who don’t want to support Palin’s candidacy but are uncomfortable with Obama? It would seem that perhaps a write-in candidate would be a good choice, because that would provide a measurable way for Republicans to see who people voted for in lieu of the McCain-Palin ticket.
Isn’t there anyone running for office in the U.S. who isn’t spoiling for a fight with a massive, nuclear armed state that is not posing any threat to us?
Note 26. Nicholas writes:
Not “spoiling for a fight” necessarily, but certainly not understanding what our policy in Serbia has wrought: Kosovo Prelude to Georgia?
Nicholas writes: “In politics, when two sides conflict, the normal result is compromise. That is why all European states have at least some restrictions on abortion, even though most allow it. The compromises have been worked out over time.”
I don’t have a problem with some kind of compromise, but in a previous post you described what that compromise would be:
There will be some states with legal abortion, some with no abortion, and a lot of states in between.
So “compromise” in this context means that women in certain states, perhaps even in entire regions, would not be able to get abortions, perhaps not even in cases of rape or incest. Look at Mississippi — at this point there is exactly one clinic providing abortions. And in an act of what you might see as “compromise” the religious right is trying to shut down that one last clinic. This is in addition to other existing restrictions on abortion: emergency contraception is difficult to obtain, women have to go through State-mandated counseling before getting an abortion and then wait 24 hours, and abortions after 12 weeks’ gestation are prohibited. I suggest that having outright bans on abortion gives a whole new meaning to the concept of “compromise.”
And then, after abortion becomes illegal in many states, the fight simply shifts to the other states where abortion is legal, as anti-abortion activists try to eliminate it there also. Might I suggest to you that this would not in any sense be compromise.
Nicholas: “The situation today is that a large number of people believe abortion is murder. Another group believe that abortion is a woman’s right, and not murder.”
For the people who believe that abortion is murder, I suggest that they not get one. Again, I’m not arguing for abortion. I’m arguing that the woman in question should make the moral decision about abortion for herself.
Nicholas: “You can’t win this debate. You can’t make Orthodox believe life begins at any time other than conception. What you and the liberals could do is defuse the issue at the national level by pitching Roe under the bus.”
I wouldn’t have a problem pitching Roe under the bus were the other side interested in actual compromise. They aren’t. There’s no evidence that they are interested in compromise. You basically say as much with respect to the Republican platform. As you say, the platform is a non-starter. But you also note that it is an “appeal to the base.” It shows what the base really wants. And I can’t imagine that the base is going to say “now that abortion is illegal in the South, it’s Ok with us if Oregon, Washington, and California continue to murder the unborn.” No, at that point the base is going to throw states rights under the bus and continue the fight at the federal level. It’s all in the platform, there for everyone to read.
The only way around such compromise, Jim, is to have a single national policy on abortion. The fact is, that we are a very divergent nation in terms of regional sentiment. The only reason that abortion has been shielded from regulation is that the Supreme Court declared it to be an absolute, Constitutional right. This is silly, of course, but there it is. They said, and 30 years’ worth of politicians have lived with it to win elections.
If you eliminate Roe, then what do you propose to replace it with? You said you would be fine throwing Roe under the bus, but you keep arguing for abortion on-demand as an absolute right. That means no restrictions allowed. Without Roe, abortion reverts to a state matter. Some women, in some states, will be denied the right to kill their babies.
They would be, of course, free to travel to states where killing a baby is legal. And they would be free to move to states where killing a baby is legal. And, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and all the other organizations would be free to lobby, petition, etc. to make baby killing legal in those states which chose to make it illegal.
In a post Roe world, I see no real involvement for the federal government. I simply don’t see states where abortion is legal or tightly restricted trying to restart a national policy.
Now – if Roe gets pitched what are you suggesting? Congress take over and usurp the right to dictate abortion policy to the States? Where does Congress’ authority end, if it can legislate in this area? I don’t believe the Drug War is legal because Congress does not have the power to outlaw a substance. That was why the Prohibition Amendment was necessary to the Constitution. Without it, Congress was powerless to ban alcohol. We abandoned that precedent in the post-WWII era, but my goal is to see us get back to that time.
Absent an actual amendment to the Constitution, I would fight to keep Congress or the federal government from establishing any restrictions on abortion, which is a state matter only and should reflect the will of the people expressed through local elected representatives.
Nicholas writes: “If you eliminate Roe, then what do you propose to replace it with? You said you would be fine throwing Roe under the bus, but you keep arguing for abortion on-demand as an absolute right. That means no restrictions allowed.”
You can have all sorts of restrictions on abortion and still make it available. You can, for example restrict abortion after 12 weeks gestation. You can require counseling and a waiting period. You can eliminate public funding for abortion. You can provide incentives for adoption. On a personal level opponents of abortion have the “power of the jawbone” to try to convince women that abortion is morally wrong.
Nicholas: “Some women, in some states, will be denied the right to kill their babies.”
Well, that’s your personal spin, and the view of many others. But it’s not clear to me why women should be subject to the “tyranny of the majority” to the extent that abortion is completely unavailable. And again, if the majority can dictate that, what can they not dictate? Can the majority make birth control illegal? Some conservative Christians don’t see much difference between birth control and abortion. Were those folks to constitute a 51 percent majority in a state, does birth control go out the window? Can the majority make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state for the purposes of getting an abortion? Will certain fertility procedures be banned? Could a state ban prenatal genetic testing? Under your view of states rights, it seems that virtually everything having to do with reproduction could be mandated by the state, and that women — and men — would have no “rights” in any meaningful sense. And this, in a whole range of decisions that are some of the most personal and important that anyone could make.
Nicholas: “They would be, of course, free to travel to states where killing a baby is legal.”
Would they? Women with money probably could, and a lot of poor women probably couldn’t. But I don’t see why the state couldn’t make such travel illegal. Tom Brinkman, a legislator in the Ohio House of Representatives, sponsored HB 228, legislation that would have made it a felony to “Transport another, or cause another to be transported, across the boundary of this state or of any county in this state in order to facilitate the other person having an abortion.” [Sec. 2919.12.(A)(2)]
Of course you’re going to say that the legislation didn’t go anywhere. But the point is that it shows the intent of anti-abortion activists. And their intent has nothing to do with compromise or states rights. For them states rights is just a Trojan horse, after which you can forget about states rights.
Nicholas: “Absent an actual amendment to the Constitution, I would fight to keep Congress or the federal government from establishing any restrictions on abortion, which is a state matter only and should reflect the will of the people expressed through local elected representatives.”
At which point you’ll be accused “permitting the murder of unborn children” in other states in which it is legal, by the same people who now accuse me of of the same thing. Really, the only difference between your position and mine is that I see abortion as an inherent right of the individual, and you see it as a right that can be granted to the individual by a state. Today people like me are denounced by the religious right. Tomorrow, you’ll be next. Welcome to the club.