Pro-lifers and the GOP in '08

So much for progressive pro-lifers.

I think it is indicative of rigorist binary thinking. If we are picking between two men that are each going to throw a woman off a cliff, I'm comfortable with someone claiming the 5' cliff is preferable to the 50' cliff. That becomes nonsense when the cliffs are 48' and 50'. At some point reasonable people can come to an agreement that the difference in positions is trivial. McCain hasn't given any real indication that he cares about ending abortion, so why is he given so much credit? In the end, Obama hasn't given any indication he will do anything other than maintain the status quo. How is this so different from McCain? I can certainly understand folks who would reject both candidates on that basis, but why would pro-lifers give McCain a big gold star?

Scott:

It would depend on the basis for that hypothetical decision. If it were a pure federalism decision, reversing Roe on Tenth Amendment grounds, a federal statute outlawing abortion in all 50 states would be just as problematic. But if it were simply a decision that there is no constitutional right to privacy or a "define the nature of the universe" right and that Roe (and its evil forebear Griswold) and Casey were simply reversed as wrongly decided, then a federal law outlawing abortion on say, Congress's power to define personhood under the 14th Amendment, is a viable strategy.

McCain hasn't given any real indication that he cares about ending abortion, so why is he given so much credit? In the end, Obama hasn't given any indication he will do anything other than maintain the status quo. How is this so different from McCain?

The President's personal views on abortion (and most other hot button culture war issues) don't matter much substantively. Aside from shaping Administration positions on relatively marginal Federal funding issues -- on which the President's partisan appointments are a lot more relevant that what he/she personally believes -- all a President can do is appoint judges and justices.

The culture war issues, from religious expression to abortion to gay marriage, have all been created by courts that departed radically from both the text and the historical interpretation of the Constitution in order to impose left wing social values on the country. It's all well and good to say that bringing the courts back in line with the Constitution won't be sufficient to achieve real progress on these issues -- but it is a necessary condition. Without the courts, whatever opinions politicians express on life issues, sexual issues, religious issues, etc. is just blather. They have all been taken out of the people's hands by the judiciary, acting extra-constitutionally.

And while we cannot guarantee that McCain judicial appointments will be great from a pro-life perspective (although there is good reason to believe they will be), there is not the slightest possibility that ANY judicial appointment by a Democratic President will be acceptable.

As I look at it, if RvW were overturned today the 40 most populous states in the union would have continuous legalized abortion for decades.

We're very slowly winning the war for the unborn, but we're not there yet. Until a majority of the country can really finally see the moral travesty of abortion on demand, things won't change. As a matter of critical realism and propriety I have to consider where my vote (or lack of) will make a difference--and a Commander in Chief who can keep us out of war is the most plain and important effect my vote can have at this point.

That's not defeatest thinking. I fight as hard as I can to help people open their eyes to life-ethics and justice for the unborn. We'll get there eventually, God may it be sooner than later.

Moving America towards a "culture of life" can not depend on the actions of politicians (or judges), but that doesn't mean we give up on politics. Obama would be an absolute disaster in terms of pro-life. I know how disheartened many "crunchy cons" are with the war and with Bush, but voting for Obama is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Obama would be no more effective than McCain in bringing home the troops. He might very well make things worse out there. As he asserted about a month ago, he would not hesitate to go back into Iraq in the event that Al-Quaeda consolidated control there following a US withdrawal. And he would have no hesitation putting US troops into Pakistan (without the Pakistani government's knowledge let alone approval) if events warranted.

As for who is more pro-life, just examine their voting records over the years (McCain in the US Senate; and, Obama in the IL state senate and in the US Senate). It's a no-brainer as to who is more pro-life. Witness, too, Obama's response in the last Democratic debate to the question: What vote in the Senate do you most regret? It wasn't his vote to continue funding the Iraq war. Oh no, it wasn't that. What Obama most regretted was his vote to delay (in order to allow more review) the decision by local courts to let Terri Schiavo die.

Yup - what Obama most regretted... "delay [in convicting] Terri Schiavo [to death]"

Why does this confident schuckster snake-oil salesman need to rely on the rigor mortis of an American tragedy to win votes? Hope y'say? Tell that to Terri's grieving parents...

At first, I thought Simon (at 4:33, not 4:14) had left nothing for me to say, but much as I agree with him, I think there's more.

First, not only is "bringing the courts back in line with the Constitution" instrumentally good so that we can use political processes to "achieve real progress on" the social issues the courts have usurped, but it's important for its own sake that checks and balances be intact. When the courts usurp an issue, it takes sustained supermajorities to right that wrong.

Second, because the courts have usurped power on particularly on two social issues where the public is deeply divided, many politicians have been all too willing to let the issue rest while focusing on pork barrel and empty symbols (e.g., talk of prayer in public schools). Additional factors only increase the inertia, including that the inordinately influential talking class tends to be on the courts' side on the most notable usurped social issues.

Thus, it is important that judges appointed not only be suspected of holding the correct positions on issues where Republicans are forced to vow that they have no litmus test, but that they be genuinely committed to judicial restraint generally, since correcting the court's usurpations politically is doubly-difficult.

"In some ways, pro-lifers really shouldn't *want* a strict-constructionist overturning of Roe, because pretty much every state except perhaps Utah and Alaska will probably vote to keep abortion legal. Further, it wouldn't be a matter of returning to old "therapeutic" abortion laws (which had restrictions), but pretty much "on demand" laws."

Stephanie--there is nothing stopping the states from doing that now. Overturning Roe won't do anything to make abortion "on demand" in the states. In fact, and I'm just speculating, I sometimes wonder if a pro-choice libertarian leaning position, which favors legal abortion but not wishes to repeal all government support, would have a lot of success.

Nick--you make an argument based upon practicalities--that greater evil would result from imposing a ban on abortion. I don't quite buy that argument--but it is valid nonetheless. Roe takes that power away--it elevates abortion to a legal/metaphysical right, and examining our tort law in areas such as wrongful birth and wrongful life--a public policy good.

Nick, I'm pretty sure abortion was not as common in the 1950s as you think. Going by Planned Parenthood articles of the 1950s deaths from illegal abortion in the 1950s were also fairly low. (Infertility and damage was a bit more common though)

There was a study alleging abortion was higher in nations that ban it, but this study was hugely flawed. Poor nations with high rates of fertility were called "nations in abortion restricting regions" whether they restricted abortion or not. They did not compare nations that had similar pregnancy rates, but different laws, with each other. As is they showed that per-pregnancy restrictive nations had less abortion. (Not that they mentioned that, this was Guttmacher after all)

Still I'd grant the maximal "Pro-Life" position would probably not fit many in the Pro-Life movement and some plausible ideas to reduce abortion would make me uncomfortable. For example Germany has a much lower rate of abortion than us so government benefits for mothers and maternal healthcare could possibly reduce abortion.

Oops: the PRO-abortion guy got creamed in the primaries.