On the contrary, Newt Gingrich's revolutionaries were the ones who had the nerve to introduce the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which set off a national debate over late abortions and their consequences to the child. This, in turn, created cultural change. Not only did it grow pro-life public support generally and solidify the social consensus against late abortions, but it also made the pro-life agenda politically easier to accomplish by showing those in this country who are not pro-life exactly why pro-lifers are. All of a sudden, we weren't a bunch of woman-hating neanderthals, we were possibly a group of humanitarians legitimately concerned about the suffering of children. We were "on to something," as the liberal columnist Richard Cohen put it. But, I suppose you also disapproved of taking the political risks involved in pushing this ban, didn't you?
Please, just try to imagine a gubernatorial candidate saying in a debate "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at conception, and I will make this mandate my first priority as governor." This is not welfare reform we're talking about.
I wouldn't expect a pro-life candidate to put it in those terms, anymore than I would expect a pro-abortion candidate to say "I think it should be mandated that every public school student be taught that life begins at birth, and that abortion is therefore morally justifiable." The pro-abortion candidate would not say this, even though that is essentially what he supports and what is already going on in many schools. A more sophisticated way to sell this pro-life policy would be to turn the concept of choice back on the pro-abortionists by saying "There can be no choice in abortion if the decision is made by a woman without a full understanding of the developmental issues concerning the unborn child. While abortion is currently legal in this state, it should never be practiced in ignorance. I, therefore, support a full range of common sense policies designed to educate the public about fetal development and abortion alternatives so that we may insure that women, and those who counsel them, are making an educated and informed choice they can live with." There, you see, doesn't that sound a lot better? Now, tell me, are you this politically unsophisticated on all issues, or just abortion? Perhaps you're better at welfare reform?
The conclusion is clear, his [Simon's] personal beliefs are what they are but he has no intention of violating the power of his position
And he would not be violating his position as governor at all by aggressively advocating informed consent, a partial-birth abortion ban, and cultural initiatives to reduce abortions. And what does it matter if his "personal beliefs" are pro-life if he won't act on them? I hear that Richard Riordan is also supposedly "personally opposed" to abortion. And, of course, he too would have done nothing as governor to stop or reduce the practice. So, we agree then that, as it stands, there really is no serious difference between Riordan and Simon on this issue, right?
No, I didn't. Why do you suppose I did? I already mentioned earlier on this thread that I agree that a ban on PBA is not as controversial (with the public as opposed to the media) as (say) a statewide mandate to teach pro-life lessons to public school students would be.
[proposed policy speech] There, you see, doesn't that sound a lot better?
Sounds ok to me. Send it on over to Simon. Maybe he'll read it, maybe he won't. My only disagreement with you here is that I don't think Simon's failure to adopt and read a policy statement such as this makes him "not pro-life".
You and he simply have a disagreement over election strategy. I happen to think his is a more winning strategy, but whatever. We'll find out, I think.
Now, tell me, are you this politically unsophisticated on all issues, or just abortion? Perhaps you're better at welfare reform?
???
I reckon I'm no more or less "politically unsophisticated" (whatever that means) on this issue than on any other.
Anyway, I was just rephrasing your proposed policy. helmsman in post #31: "Why not mandate that all public school children, at regular intervals, be taught and reminded that unborn children are human beings too."
I guess you too are "politically unsophisticated" at times. For what it's worth I agree with you that the way you rephrased this proposal in post #59 sounds much better from a political/PR standpoint.
And what does it matter if his "personal beliefs" are pro-life if he won't act on them?
Exactly my point. It doesn't! (Any more than it matters what the opinions about tax policy are of the town Dog Catcher.) Now if we can make enough paranoid knee-jerk slightly-pro-choice-because-they-haven't-really-thought-it-through California voters understand this, then Simon can win. Otherwise it's Governor Davis for 4 more. Understand yet?
I hear that Richard Riordan is also supposedly "personally opposed" to abortion. And, of course, he too would have done nothing as governor to stop or reduce the practice. So, we agree then that, as it stands, there really is no serious difference between Riordan and Simon on this issue, right?
I don't know. We will see what, if anything, Simon does as governor, won't we?
If he wins, that is.