In keeping abreast of the potential Republican candidates for the 2012 presidential elections, it has become clear that among the “weak playing field” of opponents are myriad views on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. However, there is one issue that the vast majority* of Republicans seem to be unable to diverge on: abortion. This review of all the established candidates sums up the danger that abortion rights will face should America elect a Republican to office in 2012. Although some potentials are not on the list (John Huntsman, Michele Bachmann), their views are no different. Since the deciding vote in Roe v. Wade, abortion has always been a contentious political subject.
While I am fiercely pro-choice, I understand that others are not. Although I don’t agree with them, just as I feel women should have a right to decide their fate, I understand that people have a right to their own opinions. What I do NOT respect is the blatant partisanism that prevents a legitimate Republican hopeful from publicly supporting the right to abortion. It is likely that at least one of these candidates privately believes in a woman’s right to choose, but despite this feels forced to be politically opposed to abortion. This is despicable, just as it is despicable that to be considered as a serious presidential candidate, one must claim to be religious. When will we be able to change this state of affairs?
*In fairness, I must excuse Gary Johnson, who, despite his many flaws, bravely believes that a woman should be able to choose for herself.
John Galt
L.B. Jeffries
First Time Blogger, Long Time Reader
atyp1cal
maceaver
Elspeth Reoch
Vade Mecum
The Lamplighter
Kate Chopin
Tat review left out the most important part of Ron paul’s stance–that abortion is none of the federal governments business, and that it ought to be up to states to decide the issue.
I understand the value of state’s rights. However, I think this should be a federal matter. Individual rights should be protected, insofar as we want the create a ‘brand’ around the US. I believe abortion (the right to choice, I believe it to fundamentally be) to be something we as a people need to support. This is one of the cases where I believe top down regulation to be more important than the ability for states to choose.
Pingback: Congress Eliminates Funding for Teaching Abortion « Life Without a Net
To me it’s more about what the Constitution authorizes than which issues are important and which ones aren’t.
Not to try to give anyone a lesson on the Constitution, because God knows it seems to be all we hear on right wing talk and from Republicans these days (most of whom don’t really respect the Constitution to begin with), but the document was a basically a compact between the states whose people agreed that a federal gov’t could be created for a few limited purposes, and thatthe federal gov’t would have a few delegated powers, the rest retained by the states.
Once you start deciding yourself (or that one important person or group of people) knows which issues are important and need to be enforced en masse, you end up disregarding the Constitution, which is basically a safeguard against unlimited gov’t power. If you don’t have that as a framework, you’re just relying on goodhearted people always being in power, and we all know that rarely happens.
I know the Supreme Court decided in Roe that there was a Constitutional right to abortions, but that’s pretty much a disregard for the document. Nothing in it even remotely speaks to or contemplates abortions. I feel like I say it too much on here, but that’s a whole other argument! Living Constitution vs. Strict Construction…
That said I do not disagree with you that it’s an important right, and I wouldn’t be opposed to a movement trying to make it a Constitutional amendment…but I guess they don’t really need to do that since the Court already sees it as a Constitutional right.
My issue with Constitutionalist arguments is that the world has changed significantly since it was written, over 200 years ago. It’s sort of like the right to bear arms. In the eighteenth century, sure it made sense to be armed at home – the country was a much wilder place then than it is now. But times change. And the reality is that now, this right from the Constitution causes more violence than it prevents – which certainly wasn’t the intent. It’s the same with abortion in my mind. They didn’t need to guarantee it primarily because there weren’t many safe ways to do it (if any at all) and extramarital sex was a lot more rare than it was today.
That being said, I agree with you Dan that it’s an important right – and it would be a step forward to have it protected in the Constitution. The issue with it being a Court decision is that people keep trying to roll it back. Having a Constitutional amendment would be a huge win. Though I’ve been thinking a lot about it, and actually, if it weren’t guaranteed Federally, I actually think it would be great to have the states be able to choose. That way, you could easily go to a different state to have one done if your state didn’t allow abortions. That though is secondary to it being protected Federally, I think.
Pingback: abortion » Blog Archive » Congress Eliminates Funding for Teaching Abortion « Life Without a Net
If the constitution is no longer relevant or is too arcane to serve as a guide for what powers the federal govt may exercise, then you have to rely on the good faith of elected officials, and believe that they’ll never overstep their bounds.
The constitution didn’t speak to much bc most powers were thought of as being left to states. But because pols on the right and left ignore or distort the constitution today, they find everything as being justified. The federal government basically has unlimited power.
Presidents can now take us to war whenever they want, they can enforce things like DOMA and obamacare and anything else they want. The constitution is there to limit them.
states are what makes great testing grounds for ideas too. problem with ron paul is that he wants to throw everything to the states and go back to the basics. Individual Rights need to be federal though, I agree. But stick to the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness with the federal government. Stay out of everything else.
My stance is there needs to be better definition on when life begins. Why not get it out there. Many people aren’t happy with the current law, whats wrong with defining it further so that everyone can get closer to the truth?
Pingback: You Might Be A Republican If… « The Fifth Column
Four days ago I started my search to address concerns with abortion rights, since I am considering becoming a political candidate. Based on that research I have some thoughts – If states have defined that a patient can be removed off of life support through the authorization of a living will contract? Why can’t women remove the life support from an unborn child?
I believe all religious groups have the right to believe in life and practice their beliefs and I believe in separation of Church and State. Thus I need someone to tell me why if a 17 year old youth on life support in a hospital has the right to be die based on the his future and why has State and Federal Governments become involved in stopping legal abortions – based on Amendment 1, Amendment 9, and living wills and death definitions?
I believe a waiting period is fine; however I believe it’s against the law to isolation abortion funding from Federal Health Programs and reimbursements. Tami Stainfield
Griswold and Roe vs Wade
Tami–I think you better do a little research on the foundations of Griswold and Roe before you start talking about it on the campaign trail. Their Constitutional basis is a farce, so going that route isn’t going to help you out at all.
Also, I think your analogy between a seventeen year old indicating through a signed contract that he doesn’t wish to be kept alive via artificial means and a woman choosing to terminate the life (or not?) of an unborn child is pretty weak. I think your best bet is probably arguing that the fetus (at least before a certain point in the pregnancy) is not actually a life, and can thus be terminated at will.
First Roe vs. Wade was based on four major constitutional principles that have upheld the test of time and should be used in prosecuting more social issues in the United States – like internet crimes, mind control abuses, etc. Amendment 1, 9, 10, 14′ Privacy, Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law.
My argument was all objections to Roe vs. Wade have been based “on when life begins” thus living wills and life support legislation have defined what constitutes death. Roe vs. Wade was based on a trimester formula, as you have outlined and States have now defined – the fetus is not alive. Thus, this infers that current debates are religious based – which makes me ask why State and Federal Governments have moved to eliminate this medical procedure in health clinics and international programs (PEPFAR).
I personally found the arguments and interpretations of our constitution strong in Griswold and Roe vs. Wade– the arguments were based on law and facts versus emotions and special interests.
My arguments were not weak, maybe just not communicated appropriately – hope this helps to clarify. Tami Stainfield
I’d like to hear how 1, 9, 10 and 14 apply to abortions. Roe was based on a revisionist reading of the Bill of Rights, as are many cases that rest on different amendments in that document.
When the Bill of Rights was contemplated and ratified, it was simply to add a few very basic principles of freedom (speech/association, due process, warrant requirement, etc.) that the Federal Government could not take away from individuals. To pretend that any of them meant something modern is to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights entirely. If you can change that document to fit whatever modern contingencies suit your fancy, then what good is having the document at all? Why not simply allow elected officials to just craft good policy, and cliam in to be Constitutional?
I’m not even an ardent pro-lifer, I just can’t take these tortured misunderstandings of the Constitution. Those misunderstandings are what’s wrong with the country today (that and lack of understanding Econ 101 by politicians).
I would also add that supposed pre-viability babies have actually been viable many, many times, so one might say that an objection to the trimester theory is based in fact. But again, even recognizing the trimester theory rendered wortheless, my argument isn’t about science, it’s about the federal government overstepping its bounds, which it’s done non-stop for the last half century plus.
You need to read Roe vs. Wade and the Constitution. Sorry, you are the one that does not understand the Constitution of the United States. Are you joking? Tami Stainfield
There are seven articles and 27 amendments.
Your view of the constitution, one in which the document’s meaning changes as society evolves, seems ok (to you at least) when it concerns abortion rights, but then your crowd is the first to act bewildered when things like the Iraq wars, DOMA, and the Patriot Act are put in place and found to be Constitutional.
It’s the same tortured view of the document, only it comes from neocons. If you make the Constitution an evolving document, you’d better be comfortable with those actions too.
It’s my belief the Constitution of the United States was and remains the most significant document every written to protect a society against imperialism. Our current politians, scholars and citizens no longer understand or appreciate the events that transpired to construct each word, article and amendment.
The political behavior and principles outline in the Constitution of the United States come from men that lived in societies where oppression, persecution, intolerance, elitism, classism, and racism were unimaginable – they created a document to protect people from men who could not rule justly.
I lived in Africa for seven years – I respect the courage and visionary thinking of these men; I ponder how have we evolved as people and have we upheld the values and political behavior required to maintain a just society built on liberty, happiness and justice. Have we protected America from imperialistic concepts?
My vision says the Constitution is no longer a document used to protect the rights of man. I sincerely hope we see the error in our thinking and revisit the purpose and reason for its creation. It may be the most misunderstood and unappreciated document in World History. Tami Stainfield