...send a parental notification bill to a Governor Simon's desk and I reckon he'd sign it. (Leaving aside for the moment that with the current and foreseeable makeup of the state legislature this won't happen...) Presumably you think he would veto it (what else can you mean by accusing him of having "reversed his stance"?). This, I deny.
Here you show how narrowly you evidently view the abortion conflict. Abortion is much more than a war over legalities, bans, restrictions, or policies of the state. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a cultural struggle, which can be influenced by discussion and debate. In a previous post, I pointed out public opinion gains that the pro-life movement enjoyed during and after the national partial-birth abortion debate. The pro-life congressmen who fought for the ban on PBA were very aware that the Supreme Court would likely strike the ban down if passed. They also must have known that, even if the ban had gone into effect, the doomed babies that had been scheduled for a partial-birth abortion would simply have been rescheduled for an alternative abortion procedure just as vile. They would still die. But true pro-lifers fought for the ban anyway because they knew that the debate would move the focus of the abortion debate to ground where the pro-life side was strong, and also that discussing the vile procedure would change people's minds about all abortion. They were absolutely right, a fact easily confirmed by reviewing most recent polls done on the subject.
So, what I mean when I say that Simon is not truly pro-life, is that he will not fight the battles that will advance the pro-life cause politically and culturally -- because he has, himself, given every indication that he will not. Why, then, should pro-lifers enthusiastically support his candidacy? When he will be nothing but a neutral force? And, yes, yes, I know he will sign pro-life legislation that comes to him. But he will not fight for it, and that makes all the difference! He will not move the pro-life cause by attacking pro-abortion extremism in the legislature and in his political opponents. He could do this easily by calling for a ban on PBA, or for other mainstream pro-life policies, and aggressively fighting for them. Would these bills make it through the legislature? Of course not. But the debate would be devastating to the abortionists culturally and, ultimately, politically as well! So, to advance the pro-life cause, which is what I expect pro-life politicians to do, they must fight by attacking the pro-abortionists where they are weak. Simon has not shown he is willing to do that, and I refuse to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and hope that he will.
"Plenty", huh? Wow, that sure sounds like a lot. Can you name some other things on this long list besides a strengthened parental notification law (which stands no chance of being written, currently)?
I'm so glad you asked. I have suggested several cultural initiatives in the past that could be sponsored by government to reduce demand for abortion. Now, before I start, I will warn you that nearly all of the following involve expenditures of tax money. If you see a problem with that, then you can blame the Supreme Court for forcing it to this. But spending money can be just as effective as passing statutes, so it's not really so bad. If you are at all familiar with the crisis pregnancy center establishment, you will know that they already do an excellent job of dissuading women from having abortions. The problem is that they lack sufficient resources to do this on a large enough scale where it would have a profound impact on the numbers. This should be the first position any pro-life candidate for anything should commit to -- supporting government funding, either state or federal, for CPCs at a level that would allow them to discourage abortion to substantial effect. This can be done with no intervention from the courts, since the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government is within it's rights to favor childbirth over abortion, so long as abortion remains legal. Another policy that could have profound cultural effects in reducing abortions is that of fetal-development education in the public schools. Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too. This would obviously serve to remove the rampant ignorance that exists, particularly among the young, about the developmental realities that exist concerning the unborn. This program could be financed by government and required as compulsory for all schools that receive grants of any kind from the state or federal government.
Then there are other policies that could be modeled after current cultural efforts the government is already undertaking in other areas. For example, the state of California seems to have decided that it wishes to discourage smoking by launching media campaigns warning people not to do it. Well, then why not discourage abortion in the same way? Yes, in fact, this could be done nationally as well. Run some ads, on a sustained basis, that tell people that abortion is, oh the scandal, wrong! Then direct them to alternative options. No restriction here, no violation of the "right-to-choose," but I'd bet the reductions in abortion numbers would be noteworthy.
So, you see, there is, in fact, plenty that any government in the United States could do, including the state government of California, to reduce abortions now. To make cultural change happen that will lead to abortion's extinction as a mainstream practice. But, this will only happen if pro-life politicians fight.
Again, this is not "according to them". This is just the truth. He could do things at the margins, as you point out, but "abortion is not an issue that the governor will have much power over" is, on balance, a 100% true statement. Right?
Anyway, I'm still trying to understand where is the "reversal" in all this. Did Simon claim early on that he would try to mandate (say) that all CA public school students be taught that unborn children are life? And then backtrack? Or what? Just because you are dissatisfied with the strength of his rhetoric doesn't mean he has "reversed" himself.
[Gov not having much power over abortion issue] Apart from the fact that this is untrue, it clearly sends an unmistakable signal that he is not interested in this issue
1. It's not untrue, like I said. 2. It doesn't "send" that signal at all (although you may of course be receiving such a signal, depending on your mentality and expectations.
Let's use an analogy. I'm a person who strongly favors (say) a Flat Tax. Now let's say I run for local town Dog Catcher. I acknowledge in my first campaign press conference that Dog Catcher doesn't have much power over the income tax issue. Does this "signal" that I'm "not interested in" the issue? Or just that I am reasonably conversant with reality?
Maybe Simon does indeed sincerely care about abortion, but realizes he won't be able to do much about it. Especially if he doesn't get elected. Isn't that possible?
I conclude, therefore, that he is operationally pro-choice.
I'll go you one further. The next governor of California, whoever he is, will be (by your standards) "operationally pro-choice". I guess you will be disappointed. Sorry.
No matter what he says he believes in, the end result of his time as governor will be abortion on demand with a strong-as-ever abortion culture to feed it, no different than what exists right now.
You are probably right.
I fail to see why this electoral reality should add up to me disliking Simon or concluding that he "reversed" himself.
Abortion is much more than a war over legalities, bans, restrictions, or policies of the state. It is also, and perhaps primarily, a cultural struggle, which can be influenced by discussion and debate. In a previous post, I pointed out public opinion gains that the pro-life movement enjoyed during and after the national partial-birth abortion debate. [...]
Ok, I'll grant all this. If Simon's #1 concern was rolling back the tide of abortions, then, and changing the culture, then I agree with you, he'd be conducting his campaign much differently.
He wouldn't win, of course.
I guess we can conclude that he is running for governor because he wants to be governor, and not as part of a mission to roll back abortions. I can understand and respect that such an attitude isn't strong enough for you. (Of course, it's pretty difficult to conceive of any politician with a reasonable chance of winning who would satisfy you in this respect...)
Anyway, having granted all that, where is the "reversal" in all this? I still don't see it.
So, what I mean when I say that Simon is not truly pro-life,
Actually, you said something much different before: that he unofficially "reverse[d] his stance" on the issue, remember?
For the record I agree with you that Simon is (by your implicit definition as outlined here) "not truly pro-life". Very few politicians are.
Why, then, should pro-lifers enthusiastically support his candidacy?
Do you think that Mr. Davis will do a better job for the pro-life cause?
And, yes, yes, I know he will sign pro-life legislation that comes to him. But he will not fight for it,
Possibly, you are right, we will see. (You seem a little too certain of what Simon Will Do for my tastes, but whatever, perhaps your powers of prescience are stronger than mine). Anyway, so where is the "reversal", again? I'm still a little unclear on that point.
Simon has not shown he is willing to do that, and I refuse to close my eyes, cross my fingers, and hope that he will.
Ok. I think you're probably right and it's good that you're not getting your hopes up too much.
This should be the first position any pro-life candidate for anything should commit to -- supporting government funding, either state or federal, for CPCs at a level that would allow them to discourage abortion to substantial effect. [..]
Sounds reasonable to me. You are certain that Simon won't do this? How so?
Also, who will direct CPCs to discourage abortion more, in your view: Davis, or Simon? Just curious.
Another policy that could have profound cultural effects in reducing abortions is that of fetal-development education in the public schools. Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too.
I dare say that any gubernatorial candidate suggesting this or advertising his intent to do this will doom his chances of winning (and therefore doom any chances of the policy actually ever coming to fruition). I don't see how advocating that candidates take what would be quite obviously losing positions would help the pro-life cause.
For example, the state of California seems to have decided that it wishes to discourage smoking by launching media campaigns warning people not to do it. Well, then why not discourage abortion in the same way?
Same reason. See above.
If you truly want these policies to be enacted, you don't want gubernatorial candidates advertising their intent to enact them during the campaign. If you do want candidates to suggest these things during the campaign, you obviously don't want them to win (and therefore obviously don't care if the policies are enacted, per se).
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see that advocating policies such as these would hand Sacramento to Davis on a silver platter. It would sure cause a national debate and get Mr. Simon onto 60 Minutes and so forth - the resulting demonization process would be a sight to behold. But he would surely lose.
I agree with you to a certain extent (and, I suspect Simon does too) about some (more moderate) issues - PBA, parental notification, etc. But these two ideas would simply be considered too "extreme" and "controversial", and the media would have a hissy fit - and I think you know it.
Anyway, I certainly don't see how Simon's failure to advocate these things can be construed as a "reversal". Has he ever advocated anything like this in the first place? (Has any major party candidate?)
So, you see, there is, in fact, plenty that any government in the United States could do, including the state government of California, to reduce abortions now.
In principle, I guess I agree with you that a Governor Simon "could" theoretically do these things (public school life education, media anti-abortion campaign).
But certainly not without becoming Governor first. And there's the rub, you see.
But, this will only happen if pro-life politicians fight.
Maybe. But nothing will happen if they all lose.