Pontifications

Pontifications

Was Nixon anti-abortion?

posted by David Gibson | 8:43am Wednesday June 24, 2009

Nixon salute.jpgWell, sort of. Newly released tapes show that in the wake of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, Tricky Dick worried that legalized abortion would lead to ”permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.”

But he also saw abortion as “necessary” in some cases:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, according to the NYTimes report, before adding, “Or a rape.”

As dotCommonweal blogger Mollie Wilson O’Reilly says, “You have to keep reminding yourself that the president knew he was being taped.”

Or as Andrew Sullivan notes, “So the 37th president would have aborted the 44th.”

Nixon’s always dodgy views on Jews emerge again as well in a phone conversation between him and Billy Graham–who also has had issues with dodgy statements on Jews–usually when talking to Nixon. In the latest transcript, ”Graham complained that Jewish-American leaders were opposing efforts to promote evangelical Christianity, like Campus Crusade. The two men agreed that the Jewish leaders risked setting off anti-Semitic sentiment.”

“What I really think is deep down in this country, there is a lot of anti-Semitism, and all this is going to do is stir it up,” Nixon said, adding later: “It may be they have a death wish. You know that’s been the problem with our Jewish friends for centuries.”

But Watergate he didn’t see as a problem. So it goes…



Previous Posts

Moving on, and many, many thanks...
So...my recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from PoliticsDaily.com to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That means, in short, that I'll have to sign off from blogging h

posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 | read full post »

Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored the new look Calvin in an essay at PoliticsDaily, "Patr

posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
 In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time. And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation. Anyway, hence the long absence. Apologies to those who have chec

posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco: Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's contribution in developing countries" were key topics of discussio

posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »

Signs of the times: Obama's eye
Yes, this photo of Obama ostensibly eyeing a young woman (apparently a 17-year-old delegate from Brazil--where are her parents?!) at the G-8 Summit is the hottest Google search item. And of course the question of what Obama was thinking is a leading Fox News story. So it goes, even as the

posted 12:26:05pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(1)
post a comment
Mareczku

posted June 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm


It is interesting to note that Nixon was against abortion but approved of it in cases of rape or if the parents were of different races. I remember as a young person that a lot of people felt like that back then. Until 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. In fact, there was 80% or higher opposition to interracial marriages in the 1950′s and 1960′s. This is much higher than today’s opposition to same sex marriage. I wonder if any Catholic priests officiated at mixed race marriages in violation of state laws and what happened to those that did. After the Supreme Court decision of 1967, it seems that the Church in the US grudgingly went along with the law and did allow marriage between people of different races. It is interesting that today in most places this is not even an issue.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.