The politics of abortion
Big Blue Wave, the Canadian Blog Exchanges resident anti-abortionist, recently posted about a US bill to ban abortion that everyone, including its most fervant supporters, knows is going to fail... as she puts it, "I strongly doubt it will pass, as this is the House that wanted to fund embryonic stem cell research."
Now for many of us who have had first hand experience with the religious right (for myself, 5 years spent in the American midwest) this is a pretty standard political tactic... get elected on a wave of single-issue voting by promising to fight abortion - but once you are in power, churn out bills that have no possibility of being passed in order to keep the voters happy while using your post to pass laws that hurt (economically) the very people who elected you.
The anti-abortion wing of the US government has no interest in actually banning abortion - they would lose the very cause that gets them elected every four years. Take any population of anti-abortionists and you find that they are not all raving fundies, but can come from a range of backgrounds, have a range of comfort zones when it comes to abortion, and have often very different reasons for opposing abortion. What unites them is an inability to consider a candate in favor of abortion as electable... in much the same way that you and I would consider a pro-torture candidate as unacceptable, no matter what his other views.
I'm often surprised by how the anti-abortion lobby is unable to realize that they are being taken for a ride... if the political right wing seriously wanted to ban abortion, they would have done so in the 80's under Reagan. Twenty five years since the Reagan revolution began, all they have achieved is small concessions, while the main prize remains as elusive as ever. The result is an Orwellian litany of broadcasts from 'official sources' (Agape Press, for one) about the continuing battle, listing small victories here and there, pressing the faithful for more support, more money, more votes, and promising them that victory is just around the corner. But Oceania will never defeat Eurasia, the battles will never end, and the faithful of a new generation will waste their time, energy, and money fighting for a cause their own leaders don't believe in.
As an aside, I found it interesting that in reply to a comment of mine, Blue Wave cited Pat Robertson as an example of a virtuous defender of the faith... I suspect she is unaware of Pat Robertsons support for Charles Taylor, the bloody former of ruler of Liberia, in exchange for gold and diamond mines. I cannot imagine that a woman so concerned about the fate of people in their first nine months would condone Pat Robertsons support for a man best known for having womens and childrens hands cut off. If she is aware, I can only repeat that people will only start taking the anti-abortion lobby seriously when they start showing the same degree of concern for a person after they are born as they seem to show for a person in the first nine months since conception.
Now for many of us who have had first hand experience with the religious right (for myself, 5 years spent in the American midwest) this is a pretty standard political tactic... get elected on a wave of single-issue voting by promising to fight abortion - but once you are in power, churn out bills that have no possibility of being passed in order to keep the voters happy while using your post to pass laws that hurt (economically) the very people who elected you.
The anti-abortion wing of the US government has no interest in actually banning abortion - they would lose the very cause that gets them elected every four years. Take any population of anti-abortionists and you find that they are not all raving fundies, but can come from a range of backgrounds, have a range of comfort zones when it comes to abortion, and have often very different reasons for opposing abortion. What unites them is an inability to consider a candate in favor of abortion as electable... in much the same way that you and I would consider a pro-torture candidate as unacceptable, no matter what his other views.
I'm often surprised by how the anti-abortion lobby is unable to realize that they are being taken for a ride... if the political right wing seriously wanted to ban abortion, they would have done so in the 80's under Reagan. Twenty five years since the Reagan revolution began, all they have achieved is small concessions, while the main prize remains as elusive as ever. The result is an Orwellian litany of broadcasts from 'official sources' (Agape Press, for one) about the continuing battle, listing small victories here and there, pressing the faithful for more support, more money, more votes, and promising them that victory is just around the corner. But Oceania will never defeat Eurasia, the battles will never end, and the faithful of a new generation will waste their time, energy, and money fighting for a cause their own leaders don't believe in.
As an aside, I found it interesting that in reply to a comment of mine, Blue Wave cited Pat Robertson as an example of a virtuous defender of the faith... I suspect she is unaware of Pat Robertsons support for Charles Taylor, the bloody former of ruler of Liberia, in exchange for gold and diamond mines. I cannot imagine that a woman so concerned about the fate of people in their first nine months would condone Pat Robertsons support for a man best known for having womens and childrens hands cut off. If she is aware, I can only repeat that people will only start taking the anti-abortion lobby seriously when they start showing the same degree of concern for a person after they are born as they seem to show for a person in the first nine months since conception.
posted by RedEnsign at 12:27 PM
14 Comments:
Now for many of us who have had first hand experience with the religious right (for myself, 5 years spent in the American midwest) this is a pretty standard political tactic... get elected on a wave of single-issue voting by promising to fight abortion - but once you are in power, churn out bills that have no possibility of being passed in order to keep the voters happy while using your post to pass laws that hurt (economically) the very people who elected you.
Interesting, given that you admit there have been small victories. Do you think Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota is an insincere pro-lifer?
What you're basically inferring, without no evidence whatsoever, is that ALL politicians who claim to be against abortion, are liars, and have no intention of making progress.
That is simply your cynicism speaking.
If you have proof of insincerity, as in a politician claiming to be against abortion, but knowingly introducing a bill he is certain will not pass with the intent of "buying off" the pro-life vote, by all means, please produce it. The American pro-life movement would welcome your contribution to the discussion.
The pro-life movement in the United States is not homogenous. Some are Republican; some are not.
The anti-abortion wing of the US government has no interest in actually banning abortion
You make it sound like it's done by fiat. "Ban abortion!" and all abortions are banned. It's not quite so simple. There is a little matter of a Supreme Court Decision called Roe V. Wade which currently prevents such a banned, and until that is overturned, there will be no abortion ban. This is precisely why there is a move in South Dakota to ban all abortions-- to challenge the court decision, because South Dakota has made every kind of restriction, and they want to move to the next step.
they would lose the very cause that gets them elected every four years
Right, like all us pro-lifers would automatically vote in poor-choicers who would overturn the very same laws pro-lifers fought so hard to obtain.
I don't think so.
I'm often surprised by how the anti-abortion lobby is unable to realize that they are being taken for a ride...
Like you really follow the goings on of the fetal rights movement. Please. Again, opinion in the pro-life movement varies.
if the political right wing seriously wanted to ban abortion, they would have done so in the 80's under Reagan.
Again, Roe v. Wade stops us. The lack of pro-life congressional representatives and Senators stopped them. Be a little more realistic in your assertions.
Twenty five years since the Reagan revolution began, all they have achieved is small concessions, while the main prize remains as elusive as ever.
Considering the opposition, and how twenty years ago, opponents were saying pro-lifers would never get anywhere, and considering how there is very little in the MSM that is pro-life, I'd say that's pretty damned good.
The result is an Orwellian litany of broadcasts from 'official sources' (Agape Press, for one) about the continuing battle, listing small victories here and there, pressing the faithful for more support, more money, more votes, and promising them that victory is just around the corner.
I don't know of anyone who thinks "victory is around the corner'. The main battle is getting Roe V. wade overturned, and even then, every knowledgeable pro-lifer realizes it would be a state-by-state affair, plus a constitutional amendment requiring legal recognition of the unborn child.
But Oceania will never defeat Eurasia,
As if people's minds cannot be changed on that issue. They have been. The momentum is on the pro-life side right now, and has been for the last ten years. People are rejecting the morality of abortion, and if the trend keeps up, eventually, people will accept fetal rights.
the battles will never end, and the faithful of a new generation will waste their time, energy, and money fighting for a cause their own leaders don't believe in.
Again, produce the proof that ALL pro-life politicians do not believe in fetal rights.
As an aside, I found it interesting that in reply to a comment of mine, Blue Wave cited Pat Robertson as an example of a virtuous defender of the faith...
Where? I reported that he supported Global Warming. I am Catholic. He is not a "defender of the Faith" to me.
I suspect she is unaware of Pat Robertsons support for Charles Taylor, the bloody former of ruler of Liberia, in exchange for gold and diamond mines. I cannot imagine that a woman so concerned about the fate of people in their first nine months would condone Pat Robertsons support for a man best known for having womens and childrens hands cut off. If she is aware, I can only repeat that people will only start taking the anti-abortion lobby seriously when they start showing the same degree of concern for a person after they are born as they seem to show for a person in the first nine months since conception.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, The Pope and a host of other pro-lifers run charities that address poverty. But this fact is conveniently ignored.
I have seen ZERO concern for the unborn child from the left, though. You think it's okay for a 6-month-old fetus to be aborted? Where's the outrage about that?
And what about all the dictators and terrorists pro-aborts support, such as Fidel Castro, Hamas and Hezbollah?
This post is not really about "helping" pro-lifers. It is simply a way to call for people to dismiss the pro-life cause, without actually debating abortion. People know very well the unborn is a child. They know from the fact that they have had children themselves, and many have loved their children from conception, but when unborn people are inconvenient, suddenly it's okay to kill them. That double standard cannot hold.
Hi Suzanne,
I didn't think it would take long for you to reply to me... just to address some of your points:
There have been several times in US history when the government could have overturned Roe vs Wade by legislation... during the Reagan years, after Newt Gingrich's conservative revolution (although Clinton would have likely vetoed it) and during the current Bush II administration, with Republicans holding majorities in the House and Senate, holding the White house, and (lets face it) showing a general disregard to any opinion, legal or otherwise, than their own. The fact that they have not passed legislation to deal with Roe vs. Wade speaks volumes.
Is Mike Rounds an insincere pro-lifer? Neither of us can tell at this point... politicians are known for lying and deception, and I have seen similarly 'sincere' pro-lifers who are clearly only in it for personal gain (e.g., Kansas's own Sam Brownback, who started his career as pro-abortion, then switched when he saw which way the wind blew).
You might consider reading the book "Whats the matter with Kansas", which goes into great detail on the themes I've only touched on in my post... it will provide the documented proof you need.
I still find it interesting that you defend Pat Roberton, despite his despicable dealings with the likes of Charles Taylor... I would respect your position on abortion if you showed a similar repulsion to the advocates of torture and killing... unfortunately its that double standard that keeps rearing its ugly head. The charities that Pat Robertson runs (and I would wonder what percentage of that charity is actual help to people in need and what percentage is missionary work) hardly make up for the blood on his hands.
I missed the post where you talk about Pat Roberston and Global Warming, so my comments vis-a-vis Pat are strictly dealing with your selection of him as an example of an anti-abortionist who 'cares for people'. I also find it interesting that my reply to you on that thread never appeared... do you not print opinions that disagree with you?
lets face it) showing a general disregard to any opinion, legal or otherwise, than their own.
There have been several times in US history when the government could have overturned Roe vs Wade by legislation... during the Reagan years, after Newt Gingrich's conservative revolution (although Clinton would have likely vetoed it) and during the current Bush II administration, with Republicans holding majorities in the House and Senate, holding the White house, and (lets face it) showing a general disregard to any opinion, legal or otherwise, than their own. The fact that they have not passed legislation to deal with Roe vs. Wade speaks volumes.
That is really very cynical. I suggest that the Bush administration may have a different view of what is legal, and generally do not dismiss the law.
Is Mike Rounds an insincere pro-lifer? Neither of us can tell at this point... politicians are known for lying and deception, and I have seen similarly 'sincere' pro-lifers who are clearly only in it for personal gain (e.g., Kansas's own Sam Brownback, who started his career as pro-abortion, then switched when he saw which way the wind blew).
Well you're making an argument they are insincere, and usually when you make an argument you should have evidence. If Sam Brownback is not sincere, by all means, present your evidence.
Being a Canadian pro-lifer, I know all about insincere pro-life MP's. We know who claims to be pro-life but doesn't act that way. Sometimes the insincere MP is still the best choice, given the slate of candidates.
You might consider reading the book "Whats the matter with Kansas", which goes into great detail on the themes I've only touched on in my post... it will provide the documented proof you need.
Which is basically a book saying that pro-lifers are stupid for not being left-wing. I am not in this fight for my own self-interest, and neither are most pro-lifers.
If lefties are really interested in helping us, maybe they should show more concern for fetal rights. Otherwise, it's like Hezbollah trying to give Israel advice on how to run the government.
I still find it interesting that you defend Pat Roberton
What did I say about Pat Robertson?
despite his despicable dealings with the likes of Charles Taylor...
I said he's a so-con and pro-lifer and he has charities that help all kinds of people.
I would respect your position on abortion if you showed a similar repulsion to the advocates of torture and killing...
I would respect your opinion more if you showed a similar revulsion to the killing of unborn children.
Why not respect the opinion on its merits? Instead of turning this into what I said or didn't say about Pat Robertson?
unfortunately its that double standard that keeps rearing its ugly head.
But I don't support torture. See, you read into my post a bunch of assumptions that were not there.
The charities that Pat Robertson runs (and I would wonder what percentage of that charity is actual help to people in need and what percentage is missionary work) hardly make up for the blood on his hands.
I don't know that Pat Robertson has killed anyone or that he has assisted with any killing.
You're simply trying to bait me into saying something so you can say "See! See! Pro-lifers are a bunch of whackjobs! Don't listen to anything they say" instead of actually debating the issue of fetal rights.
My support or non-support of Pat Robertson has absolutely NOTHING to do with the merits of fetal rights, and your advice has nothing to do with helping the cause of fetal rights.
I missed the post where you talk about Pat Roberston and Global Warming, so my comments vis-a-vis Pat are strictly dealing with your selection of him as an example of an anti-abortionist who 'cares for people'. I also find it interesting that my reply to you on that thread never appeared... do you not print opinions that disagree with you?
I do. I seem to have remembered at least one comment from you, but it wouldn't be unheard of for blogger to lose a comment.
Have you actually read the book? Its not just a book saying "pro-lifers are stupid for not being left-wing.".
But then, in Kansas there are 'left-wing' people who oppose abortion (and in much of the mid-west). The point of the book is that politicians love single-issue litmus-test campaigns that can unite people who would otherwise vote for different candidates... particularly if its over something that they either can't change, or can put off changing. For the Republicans, abortion is the perfect topic. The unfortunate problem is that now that the Republicans have such unprecedented ability to overturn Roe vs Wade (White house, senate, congress, supreme court) they have done nothing for the past six years except wage pointless wars and spent taxpayers money like there is no tomorrow. They are playing the anti-abortion movement for suckers and they will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it.
The unfortunate problem is that now that the Republicans have such unprecedented ability to overturn Roe vs Wade (White house, senate, congress, supreme court) they have done nothing for the past six years except wage pointless wars and spent taxpayers money like there is no tomorrow.
Well let's see. There's been a PBA ban. There's a law about to be passed that will make it illegal to bring a minor over state lines to violate a state's notification laws. There is an pro-life UN gag rule. Funding for abstinence programs. An Unborn Victims of Crime Bill. A Veto of tax-funded embryonic stem cell research. The designation of the unborn child for medical insurance purposes. The appointment of two pro-life SCOTUS justices. And a bunch of other measures I can't think of.
Sounds like progress to me.
They are playing the anti-abortion movement for suckers and they will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it.
They are making progress, which is what is expected.
You should see the progress that is being made at the State levels.
That analysis does not hold up. A government simply cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling at will.
But even if they are playing pro-lifers for suckers, it's still better than the alternative, which is no pro-lifers, no pro-life laws, no progress whatsoever.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"if the anti abortion politicians wanted to ban abortion, they would have done it during Reagan's time"
Reagan wasn't really pro life as he appointed a pro choice judge to the Supreme Court - something which was a stumbling block at getting Roe V Wade reversed until recently when Bush replaced her (at her retirement) with a pro life judge.
Getting rid of abortion is a slow process because it's a billion dollar business in the US with 1.3 million babies being aborted yearly. Obviously those who provide this "service" are fighting tooth and nail to keep it going because they like going to the bank.
The media is pro abortion so they have been feeding the public lies for many years. These lies are finally being exposed (thanks in part to the internet which gives all of us an equal voice) but it takes time.
It would be a rather discouraging task except we (pro life folks) have a big ace in the hole, so to speak: God is pro life!
Suzanne - the current Bush administration has had no problem introducing sweeping and immediate legislation when it has suited its interests... and yet all it has introduced are small concessions such as the ones you list.
It costs the Republicans nothing to ban aid agencies from mentioning abortion... few Americans are even aware of that... and the PBA ban deals with a procedure only used in a very small number of emergency cases - hardly a big impact. Compare that with the Patriot act, the creation of the homeland security department, sweeping tax cuts, multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts... when war and money is involved, no hurdle seems to great for the current Bush administration. They have the power to ban abortion nation wide tomorrow if they choose... don't you wonder why they haven't in the six years they have been in power?
Bentrider.... I'm curious where you get the figure that abortion is a 'billion dollar business'... could you provide me with some documentation that they have such a profit margin?
Regarding the profits of the American abortion industry:
It's an openly known fact that in the US Planned Parenthood alone makes several hundred million dollars a year in profit.
All this while it receives taxpayer money.
Suzanne - the current Bush administration has had no problem introducing sweeping and immediate legislation when it has suited its interests... and yet all it has introduced are small concessions such as the ones you list.
That still does not prove insincerity. There may be many practical reasons why sweeping legislation is not introduced. What you would have to do to make your point is demonstrate that the Bush administration, which is not entirely pro-life, btw, says one thing, but really believes another, through their own words. The Bush administration would need the help of the Congress and the Senate. It can't do it alone. If you could show, say that a constitutional amendment acknowledging fetal equality could easily pass both Houses and 2/3 of the States, you might have a point. But as we know, that cannot happen. Americans are more pro-life than Canadians. They're not that pro-life, yet.
It costs the Republicans nothing to ban aid agencies from mentioning abortion... few Americans are even aware of that...
If they're so insincere, how come they did that?
and the PBA ban deals with a procedure only used in a very small number of emergency cases
So what? You're saying they're not serious. They made progress. So where's the insincerity? Were you saying they weren't sincere?
There are thousands of cases of PBA in the US every year.
Whether it's one, ten or ten thousand, it's still progress.
And no, it's not only in "emergency" cases. I blogged of a case of a woman who killed her baby when he was diagnosed with a disease. Down Syndrome's babies are routinely aborted, and in later stages, a PBA would be the "best" method to kill them, because the other methods have too high a rate of live births. That's why PBA was developed in the first place.
Compare that with the Patriot act, the creation of the homeland security department, sweeping tax cuts, multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts... when war and money is involved, no hurdle seems to great for the current Bush administration.
That doesn't prove anything about Bush's sincerity on abortion. The Patriot Act could pass because Congress and the Senate agreed with it. Right now, there's a Supreme Court Ruling that prevents a complete ban on abortion, and I seriously doubt that a complete ban would make it through both houses.
They have the power to ban abortion nation wide tomorrow if they choose...
If they chose. Not everyone in the Bush Administration is pro-life. Not everyone in Congress is Pro-life. Not everyone in the Senate is pro-lfie. To ban abortion, it would take a constitutional amendment.
You have simply not provided any evidence directly proving your argument of insincerity on the part of the Bush administration and Republican pro-lifers. All you have is circumstantial evidence that can plausibly be explained by other factors.
don't you wonder why they haven't in the six years they have been in power?
Because they don't have the numbers to do it, and there's a Supreme Court ruling to contend with.
The American People are not ready for a complete ban on abortion. Just look at South Dakota. The pro-life side is struggling in the referendum on the issue. Could you imagine what the reaction would be in the Blue States?
It doesn't sound like we are going to come to any agreement on the republicans abortion strategy, though I do advise you to read the book "Whats the matter with Kansas?"... it will at least give you something to think about.
I would like to see some documentation on the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in profit that you claim is coming from abortion, however. Simply stating that its true isn't enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home