Why wasn't abortion made illegal when the Republicans had all the power?

[rlg94086]

Not surprising that the Republican party has done so little about reducing abortion. Fifty years ago, the Republicans had the closest ties to Planned Parenthood. But in 1972 the liberals gained control of the Democratic Party and denied power to Catholics in the national leadership. Catholics opposed to abortion gradually moved to the Republican Party but they weren’t welcomed with open arms by a Party with a long Protestant history. Only when southern evangelicals also came into the Party did the majority become pro-life. Many liberal Republicans crossed the Aisle to the now liberal Democratic Party, but enough remained–including the most affluent members–that the pro-choicers have strong support in the GOP… Reagan was pro-life, but Nancy is pro-choice. Judge Clark is pro-life, but Jim Baker is not. The head of the party only reluctantly follows the heart. Look at the poor reception that Pat Buchanan got at the 1992 convention.

I think your assessment of the situation is fair, with the exception that Pat Buchanan’s poor reception had nothing to do with his pro-life stance.

As I have said before, a Republican majority was not enough. We need a pro-life majority. Since not all Republicans are pro-life and very few Democrats are pro-life, we did not have enough to introduce an amendment, which is what would be required. Then, even if it passed both houses and was approved by the president, it still would have required passage by the states.

 

[steveandersen]

The problem with that very partisan cynicism is that on the CAF, the threads regarding abortion and politics (from both sides) are non-stop…not just at election time.

Well elections are sort of non-stop now
The current presidential campaign is at least a year old and the inauguration is still 11 months away
And with congress up for grabs every 2 years…
It can be non-stop

But yes you are right it isn’t just for elections.
It is useful for when key bills are to be voted on or when judgeships open up.

Aside from the horror of abortion itself the worse part of Roe is the split along party lines. I think there could be more pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans

If the system reverted to the pre Roe standard politicians would be more able to reflect their constituents’ views.

Your cynicism should at least have a little bit of evidence to back it up, don’t you think?

It is a party platform issue every election cycle isn’t it?
It is a line item in stump speeches?
Is it raised whenever judges are appointed?
yes

Is there some sinister party hack in a back room somewhere gleefully rubbing his hands together as he instructs his minions to release the anti/pro abortion hounds? No.

But parties are large organizations and I wouldn’t say that every single member holds to every single party plank with the same conviction. And professional campaign managers are there to get their boy elected

So it is indeed possible (cynicism aside) that abortion, taxes, war, social issues, etc are used as rallying cries.

Otherwise, I could make the same argument regarding liberal anti-war stances which seem to be more prevalent while a Republican is in office but strangely silent when a Democrat is in office bombing the heck out of people.

Well historically, with the exceptions of Lincoln and Bush II, Republican presidents haven’t gotten us into large wars (and to be fair southern secession started before Lincoln was inaugurated) so I’ve never seriously bought into the notion that liberal and anti-war are one in the same.

 

[rlg94086]

Well elections are sort of non-stop now
The current presidential campaign is at least a year old and the inauguration is still 11 months away
And with congress up for grabs every 2 years…
It can be non-stop

But yes you are right it isn’t just for elections.
It is useful for when key bills are to be voted on or when judgeships open up.

Aside from the horror of abortion itself the worse part of Roe is the split along party lines. I think there could be more pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans

If the system reverted to the pre Roe standard politicians would be more able to reflect their constituents’ views.

It is a party platform issue every election cycle isn’t it?
It is a line item in stump speeches?
Is it raised whenever judges are appointed?
yes

Is there some sinister party hack in a back room somewhere gleefully rubbing his hands together as he instructs his minions to release the anti/pro abortion hounds? No.

But parties are large organizations and I wouldn’t say that every single member holds to every single party plank with the same conviction. And professional campaign managers are there to get their boy elected

So it is indeed possible (cynicism aside) that abortion, taxes, war, social issues, etc are used as rallying cries.

Ah, so it isn’t cynicism then. You just recognize the fact that Republican issues rally Republicans to vote and Democrat issues rally Democrats to vote. That isn’t a cynical view - it is just logical. Next you are going to tell me that Catholics are bringing up Catholic issues.

steveandersen:

Well historically, with the exceptions of Lincoln and Bush II, Republican presidents haven’t gotten us into large wars (and to be fair southern secession started before Lincoln was inaugurated) so I’ve never seriously bought into the notion that liberal and anti-war are one in the same.

I’m glad. I was just having this very discussion via email with a theologian at my parish who claims that Democrats are anti-war. I told him to look no further than the last Democrat’s bombing campaigns.

 

[steveandersen]

Ah, so it isn’t cynicism then. You just recognize the fact that Republican issues rally Republicans to vote and Democrat issues rally Democrats to vote. That isn’t a cynical view - it is just logical. Next you are going to tell me that Catholics are bringing up Catholic issues.

I’m not convinced that it is either a Republican or Democratic issue.

Prior to Roe you would find much larger variance on the issue across party lines
Look at the distribution of judges in the opinion by party that appointed them

I’m glad. I was just having this very discussion via email with a theologian at my parish who claims that Democrats are anti-war. I told him to look no further than the last Democrat’s bombing campaigns.

Democrats or many or them happen to be anti- this war
Republicans have been anti- other wars

To suggest that just because one party used force in the past means they can never be against the use (or more appropriately the continued use) of force in the future is a strange notion. Force is one tool among many that is available to states; legitimate debate over when, how, and if to use it is perfectly ok.

Isolationist & non-interventionists have come from both parties although they were traditionally associated with the Old Right (TR split the party to oppose Taft). They were often more often anti-war but shouldn’t be confused with pacifists who are anti-war for different reasons.

 

[scott1228]

I think that it is very important that we stay on this issue and bring it to the forefront again. Candidates need to be grilled on where they stand and WHY they hold the positions that they do.

In addition to prayer, we need to open up the pocket books and send money to pro-life politicians.

No, we won’t get a constitutional amendment overnight. But we can make progress, as the past has shown us.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m not convinced that it is either a Republican or Democratic issue.

Prior to Roe you would find much larger variance on the issue across party lines
Look at the distribution of judges in the opinion by party that appointed them

Democrats or many or them happen to be anti- this war
Republicans have been anti- other wars

To suggest that just because one party used force in the past means they can never be against the use (or more appropriately the continued use) of force in the future is a strange notion. Force is one tool among many that is available to states; legitimate debate over when, how, and if to use it is perfectly ok.

Isolationist & non-interventionists have come from both parties although they were traditionally associated with the Old Right (TR split the party to oppose Taft). They were often more often anti-war but shouldn’t be confused with pacifists who are anti-war for different reasons.

Well, Clinton used force against Serbia. But he did so at the behest of the Europeans and with minimal risk to the forces. He even kept the Army from moving from Albania into Kosovo to prevent casualties. Bush 4I used virtually our whole European force against Saddam in 1991, but that was at the behest of Kuwait, the Saudis and the other Gulf States. Bush 43’s mistakes seems to have been that despite what they said, neither the Europeans not the Arabs wanted Saddam taken down. His decision to do was consistent with Clinton’s policy going back to '98, and this is why Hillary voted to go to war, but they turned against the way once the difficulty of the situation became clear. They don’t like the way that the war has led to an increase in the size of the military.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not convinced that it is either a Republican or Democratic issue.

Prior to Roe you would find much larger variance on the issue across party lines
Look at the distribution of judges in the opinion by party that appointed them.

We don’t live “prior to Roe.” Today, it is a Republican issue, in that the Republican Party is pro-life. There have been some justices put in place by Republican presidents who are “pro-choice” in their adjudication (i.e. they believe the Constitution protects the freedom of a woman to have an abortion); however, you can’t think of judges purely from a Republican/Democrat point-of-view. You have to look at how they view the Constitution. Presidents and their advisors make the best guess about a judge that they can. When they are confirmed and sitting on the bench, they may or may not adjudicate the way you expect them to.

If we really want to end abortion nationally, we would need an amendment to the Constitution, stating that life begins at conception and confirming the fundamental rights of the living. To do that will require more thin a slim majority of Republicans who are majority, but not all, pro-life. We will need a super-majority of pro-lifers (of any party) and 3/4s of the states…which is an even greater challenge.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have said this over and over again:

To my friends who consider themselves Democrats, purge your party! Deny nomination to pro-choice candidates. Recruit, groom, and support pro-life candidates.

To my friends who consider themselves Republicans, continue to purge your party! Deny nomination to pro-choice candidates. Recruit, groom, and support pro-life candidates.

You will note that in the recent primaries one Republican (who is no longer a candidate, and can, I hope, be discussed) was seriously “pro-choice.” Many knowledgeable people though he would be a shoo-in for the nomination – but he faded fast, with only a handfull of delegates, and soon threw in the towel.

 

[ProVobis]

Good example. Seems as if in today’s environment using the fear factor of terrorism carries much more weight than whether the candidate intends to overthrow Roe vs. Wade. The current administration in fact says that Americans are not ready to accept the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. Is this a phony excuse or not?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good example. Seems as if in today’s environment using the fear factor of terrorism carries much more weight than whether the candidate intends to overthrow Roe vs. Wade. The current administration in fact says that Americans are not ready to accept the overturn of Roe vs. Wade. Is this a phony excuse or not?

Look at how many people on this Catholic forum will tie themselves in knots to justify supporting pro-choice candidates. If Catholics are not ready to overturn Roe vs Wade, and keep voting for pro-choiice candidates, how can the nation as a whole be ready?

When we can unite, stop making excuses for supporting pro-choice candidates, and start purging both parties of such people, then we can say we have made a start in getting the nation ready to accept overturning Roe v Wade.

I have said over and over, abortion is the Catholic sin. We have the power to stop it – or greatly reduce it – but we refuse to use that power constructively…

 

[MelanieAnne]

Look at how many people on this Catholic forum will tie themselves in knots to justify supporting pro-choice candidates. If Catholics are not ready to overturn Roe vs Wade, and keep voting for pro-choiice candidates, how can the nation as a whole be ready?

When we can unite, stop making excuses for supporting pro-choice candidates, and start purging both parties of such people, then we can say we have made a start in getting the nation ready to accept overturning Roe v Wade.

I have said over and over, abortion is the Catholic sin. We have the power to stop it – or greatly reduce it – but we refuse to use that power constructively…

 

[Adonis33]

Look at how many people on this Catholic forum will tie themselves in knots to justify supporting pro-choice candidates. If Catholics are not ready to overturn Roe vs Wade, and keep voting for pro-choiice candidates, how can the nation as a whole be ready?

When we can unite, stop making excuses for supporting pro-choice candidates, and start purging both parties of such people, then we can say we have made a start in getting the nation ready to accept overturning Roe v Wade.

I have said over and over, abortion is the Catholic sin. We have the power to stop it – or greatly reduce it – but we refuse to use that power constructively…

Very well said!

 

[1234]

…because congress is elected by the American public. And the vast majority of the American public don’t want to make abortion illegal in all circumstances.

Period.

 

[vern_humphrey]

…because congress is elected by the American public. And the vast majority of the American public don’t want to make abortion illegal in all circumstances.

Period.

If we Catholics would not support pro-abortion politicians, precious few of them would get elected. We are the swing voters in this issue – and too many of us swing the wrong way.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s remarkable to encounter a “pro-choice” Catholic. All of sudden you’re in this strange land where everything is upside down, where sin is only a sin if you think it’s a sin, and pro-abortion politicians can be supported with a clear conscience as long as you yourself don’t have an abortion.

The only “normal” thing I’ve found with such persons is that they know that actually having an abortion would be a sin, but it’s only a sin FOR THEM. That’s where it ends. They don’t see any problem with taking a political position that results in someone else having an abortion. They view their own hands as being clean because they haven’t had an abortion and that’s all that matters. It’s truly astounding.

So I agree with you Vern, we need clean our own house up first.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s remarkable to encounter a “pro-choice” Catholic. All of sudden you’re in this strange land where everything is upside down, where sin is only a sin if you think it’s a sin, and pro-abortion politicians can be supported with a clear conscience as long as you yourself don’t have an abortion.

The only “normal” thing I’ve found with such persons is that they know that actually having an abortion would be a sin, but it’s only a sin FOR THEM. That’s where it ends. They don’t see any problem with taking a political position that results in someone else having an abortion. They view their own hands as being clean because they haven’t had an abortion and that’s all that matters. It’s truly astounding.

So I agree with you Vern, we need clean our own house up first.

I am reminded of those “good Germans” who read the Nazi propaganda (like Der Sturmer), saw the boxcars loaded with starving and brutalized Jews roll by every day, could smell the smoke from the crematoria when the wind was right – and had “no idea what was happening.”

 

[Adonis33]

It’s remarkable to encounter a “pro-choice” Catholic. All of sudden you’re in this strange land where everything is upside down, where sin is only a sin if you think it’s a sin, and pro-abortion politicians can be supported with a clear conscience as long as you yourself don’t have an abortion.

The only “normal” thing I’ve found with such persons is that they know that actually having an abortion would be a sin, but it’s only a sin FOR THEM. That’s where it ends. They don’t see any problem with taking a political position that results in someone else having an abortion. They view their own hands as being clean because they haven’t had an abortion and that’s all that matters. It’s truly astounding.

So I agree with you Vern, we need clean our own house up first.

Many Catholics that I talk to that vote for pro-choice candidates state that - while they personally are against abortion - they feel it is a moral issue that should not be decided in the polls. They do not want to push there views on somebody else.

I remind them that slavery was also a moral issue - but they typically dismiss the arguement (quickly) stating that there is no comparing slavery to abortion.

It’s kind of sad - they get emotional when they talk of somebody going without health insurance - but think nothing of somebody ribbing a baby apart limb from limb.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Many Catholics that I talk to that vote for pro-choice candidates state that - while they personally are against abortion - they feel it is a moral issue that should not be decided in the polls. They do not want to push there views on somebody else.

I remind them that slavery was also a moral issue - but they typically dismiss the arguement (quickly) stating that there is no comparing slavery to abortion.

It’s kind of sad - they get emotional when they talk of somebody going without health insurance - but think nothing of somebody ribbing a baby apart limb from limb.

They can be quite combative at times too, maybe it’s some kind of ploy, I don’t know. But I’ve had them (I’m still talking about Catholics tho’) accuse anyone who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade of really just wanting the ability to prosecute women who have abortions and throw them in prison. I guess at that point you can’t have a reasonable discussion. Sometimes I’ve gotten so frustrated!!

 

[ribozyme]

It’s kind of sad - they get emotional when they talk of somebody going without health insurance - but think nothing of somebody ribbing a baby apart limb from limb.

You seem to be describing the Daily Kos bloggers and I think like that. BTW, under a utilitarian scheme, a fetus is not considered a person. It seems that a fetus lacks the ability to feel pain (or have interests) before twenty weeks after conception.

 

[rlg94086]

You seem to be describing the Daily Kos bloggers and I think like that. BTW, under a utilitarian scheme, a fetus is not considered a person. It seems that a fetus lacks the ability to feel pain (or have interests) before twenty weeks after conception.

Thanks…we are familiar with the arguments of people who don’t accept that human life begins at conception. It is a non-scientific argument…utilitarian or not.