Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion's 'So-What' Factor (Do We Barf George Will?)
Washington Post ^ | 28 October 2007 | George Will

Posted on 10/28/2007 7:17:48 AM PDT by shrinkermd

Almost 35 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided to end America's argument about abortion. Because of the court's supposedly therapeutic intervention in the nation's supposedly inadequate democratic debate about that subject, the issue still generates an irritable irrationality that was largely absent before 1973.

...Nevertheless, it is said that if the Republican Party wants to be competitive in California in presidential politics, it must nominate a pro-choice candidate, of which there is only one -- Rudy Giuliani. This is almost certainly true. It certainly is irrational because pro-choice Californians have next to nothing to fear -- just as pro-life Californians have next to nothing to hope for -- from a right-to-life president. The practical consequences of such a president concerning abortion would not differ significantly from Giuliani's consequences. Here is why.

...Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation. But because Californians are content with current abortion law, their legislature probably would adopt it in state law.

...It is not irrational for voters to care deeply about a candidate's stance regarding abortion because that stance is accurately considered an important signifier of the candidate's sensibilities and sympathies, and of his or her notion of sound constitutional reasoning. But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; election; georgewill; giuliani; issue; non; politics; prolife; rudy
George Will is hard to excerpt. He backs the conclusions I gave with findings. I especially liked the Chief Justice Rhenquist discussion about Miranda. That is, even if a judge is opposed the danger is that precedent is followed anyway.

A good editorial for contemplation. You do need to read it though.

1 posted on 10/28/2007 7:17:51 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Well, as a getting older guy I’d never report her. If she was homely I might joke about her with my friends - but never report her.


2 posted on 10/28/2007 7:28:10 AM PDT by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

What was I thinking, I posted in the wrong place. This was about the old dude reporting the Swedish TV reporter for flashing her breasts at him.


3 posted on 10/28/2007 7:29:23 AM PDT by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
in a secular sense, this argument is appealing.

but the moral authority -- the unspoken influence of leadership -- is not to be trifled with.

If you apply the same argument to marital fidelity, you not only get a despicable demeaning of the office, you get a whole lot of bad politics and policy with it -- the kind that can ruin a generation the world over, and perhaps have even more momentous consequences. Here I'm speaking of the preventability of 911 and the loosing of terror on the world that followed it, and Bill Clinton's jerking around in the highest office in the land.

No, in a strictly secular sense, it doesn't matter what the president believes about such things. But in a moral sense -- and leadership is a moral proposition -- it just might be the most important factor.

A president without a conscience is a scourge to the world.

4 posted on 10/28/2007 7:30:49 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (keep the heat on the hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

The points in this article are hard to argue against. No matter WHO is elected president in 2008, it is somewhat unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, it is a near impossibility that abortion will be outlawed in California (the state under consideration in this article). And the reasoning Will applies to California will be applicable in many, possibly a majority, of states. Maybe even a large majority.

I’m not saying abortion isn’t an important issue. It is. But I agree with Will that it is an issue that is, to a very large extent, out of the hands of the President.


5 posted on 10/28/2007 7:49:55 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.

And so is your STOO-PID blather mr Will.

A POTUS's thnking on a subject affects..

So yeah Georgie, a president's 'thinking' means nothing. I think it's time you retire you nimrod. Your brain has turned to mush.
6 posted on 10/28/2007 7:51:22 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

California is not a good example of will’s theory because it will NEVER again vote Republican, even if clinton ran as a Republican. The very people who would consider voting GOP move out everyday. The state is now all but a part of Mexico and abortion is not an issue. More children mean more welfare so “We don’t need no stinking abortions, gingo.”


7 posted on 10/28/2007 7:53:25 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatives live in the truth. Liberals live in lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Prior to Roe, four states permitted unrestricted access to abortion. I'm pretty sure Colly-forrnia was one of them. No reason to believe that would change if Roe was overturned.
8 posted on 10/28/2007 7:57:37 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
What a man believes and what he stands on is called “character”, of which Guiliani is sorely lacking. Perhaps Will needs to get some too.
9 posted on 10/28/2007 7:58:20 AM PDT by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Hmm . . . George Will said evolution is a fact get over it!

I am so glad that gone are the days when conservatives only had this marginal voice to occasionally agree before the days of alternate media!
10 posted on 10/28/2007 8:02:26 AM PDT by RushingWater (Pres. Bush honors Mexican sovereignty over our own - Pardon Ramos/Campeon/Hernandez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

more abortions, more ethnic cleansing. I keep hearing about MS-13 street gang and their ethic cleansing against blacks. Matter of time, the rest of this state will be ethnically cleansed, and the mecca of Armenia, Glendale, Fresno, etc will be wiped clean of all other races, to provide for all the Mexicans in this state, and our government will allow it.

get ready for something we haven’t ever seen before in this country, from diversity to a strong latino only state. all other races NOT WELCOME.


11 posted on 10/28/2007 8:02:39 AM PDT by television is just wrong (deport all illegal aliens NOW. Put all AMERICANS TO WORK FIRST. END Welfare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

No reason to believe that would change? Are you serious?

I think it will be more like 36 states with legal abortions, 14 with laws prohibiting. But one can hope otherwise.

Except for the late term procedures. They might only be legal in three or four states. Though hopefully, none.

The fact is, Roe.v.Wade IS bad policy. The states SHOULD decide this issue for themselves. I totally support Fred Thompson and his views on federalism on this and other issues.


12 posted on 10/28/2007 8:04:51 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Open borders George Will... has been paid for by the left wing media over the years...


13 posted on 10/28/2007 8:08:40 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
"But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important."

I don't believe whoever the next president is and whoever he nominates to the S.C. will make any difference to Roe v. Wade. The only significance of what the "candidate thinks about abortion rights" will be whether the Republican party lives or dies. It cannot exist with any hope of winning elections as the 2nd "pro-choice" party, but then that's probably fine with the Geo. Will types.

14 posted on 10/28/2007 8:09:02 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
This is one of those pieces designed to lure fence-sitters into deciding it's OK to vote for Rudy because "he can win."

It seems George Will, a tool of the establishment, is in the tank for Rudy.

15 posted on 10/28/2007 9:38:39 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Pope to politicians: "(Do) not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Will tries to minimize the argument that only Rudi can win Blue states pretty well.

I think Will still favors Rudi overall but not on the winning-Blue-states argument.

Will also doesn’t like the Religious Right much. But he dislikes even more that issues like abortion dictate the votes of so many folks. So sending it back to the states would clear the decks for Congress, the White House and the Court so that so many votes and so many choices are not dictated by a party’s stand on abortion or a candidate’s stand on abortion.

It does make a lot of sense.


16 posted on 10/28/2007 10:02:05 AM PDT by George W. Bush (Apres moi, le deluge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

(Do We Barf George Will?)

Whether or not we should “barf” George should rightly be left to the individual states, not left to national “ukases”.

The pro-Will camp reminds us how George used to commit his talent in pursuit of conservative aims and ambitions, and, as conservatives, we should honor that (lost) tradition.

The anti-Will folks note that, whatever skills Will had as a writer have been lost in a miasma of mixed messages that only casually embrace conservatism.

In the end, we are left with another George Will Ricecake - colorless, flavorless, and ultimately unsatisfying. He posits that politicians, being politicians after all, might not fulfill a promise (nominate pro-life judicial candidates) and render the question of what said candidate would do as a SCOTUS moot. Wow! I think I’ll stay home and not waste my time voting at all!

Ultimately whether to barf Will must remain a personal choice. We must place some faith in human conscience and reason to do the right thing!


17 posted on 10/28/2007 10:15:30 AM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
The final line of Will's opinion piece: "But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important." In other words, "Social conservatives, get over the idea that you have any meaningful say in who the Republican nominee is. Rudy's going to get it, and you and your issues have become completely irrelevant."

It's hard to say who I dislike more on "This Week", Step-on-all-of-us for enabling the Clinton administration, or Will for going turncoat on us.

18 posted on 10/28/2007 10:29:30 AM PDT by hunter112 (Change will happen when very good men are forced to do very bad things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

:’) self-ping. If California allocates its votes among candidates, rather than sticking with winner take all, not sure Will’s point holds. self-ping.


19 posted on 10/28/2007 11:06:03 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, October 22, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

In theory, if the Supremes can find a constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution, they could equally well find a right to life for the fetus in there, which would make abortion illegal nationwide.

That ain’t gonna happen, of course, but it could. Which is the reason behind the suddenly enormous importance of each individual Supreme Court appointment. Who was on the Court didn’t use to be that big a deal, but if we’re going to allow them to make such important and final decisions for the rest of us, it IS a big deal.

Personally, I prefer the original constitutional way. If you want abortion to be either a constitutional right or constitutionally prohibited, get an amendment passed providing so. But nobody even talks about amendments anymore, since we’ve outsourced constitutional changes to the courts.


20 posted on 10/28/2007 11:14:05 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

A president makes a big difference in national policies and funding.

Aside from that, George Will is clueless, because the whole point is to return the issue to the states. I would be perfectly happy to see it outlawed nationally, as any form of murder of the innocent should be outlawed, but even murder is actually outlawed at the state level.

Most anti-abortion workers feel they could convince on a state level (even in California!), but the Court has effectively prevented them from doing so. Since the President appoints the Justices, then he also has an impact on abortion from that side. So the President really does matter, and we need to know his opinion on this issue.


21 posted on 10/28/2007 11:15:40 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

“Do We Barf George Will?”

Only if he deserves it.


22 posted on 10/28/2007 11:25:14 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Reagan dismantled the Russian empire of 21 conquered nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
... one of the nation's most common surgical procedures ...

This says more about American society than it does about Giuliani or any other one politician.

23 posted on 10/28/2007 11:35:16 AM PDT by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
The fact is, Roe.v.Wade IS bad policy.

There is a HUGE surreality factor. The right to kill a pre-born child is based on "the right to privacy" -- a right which at this point in history apparently ONLY applies to the right to kill a pre-born child.

The "right to privacy" is sacrosanct -- in the context of abortion -- and utterly nonexistent in any other context. In fact, it's gone so far 'round the bend that even an expressed desire for "privacy" is openly construed as being tantamount to "having something to hide."

What a sad, sick state of affairs we've descended into.

24 posted on 10/28/2007 1:54:33 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
This is one of those pieces designed to lure fence-sitters into deciding it's OK to vote for Rudy because "he can win."

It seems George Will, a tool of the establishment, is in the tank for Rudy.

Expect to see more and more of this kind of thing over the course of the primary season. Did you notice the Fox "News" blatantly pro-abortion special yesterday (played repeatedly during the overnight cycle)?

The fix IS in. The Party Elite have decided for us -- they have decided that St. Julie-Annie is to be THE Annointed One, so that we'll have a "choice" between two identical sides of the coin: A leftist, pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-high-taxes candidate in a dress, or, a leftist, pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-high-taxes candidate in pants.

And, even if St. Hillary should really confuse things by showing up in a dress, it won't really matter at all, because this coin has two heads -- Hers on one side, and His on the other.

In the old Soviet Union, people had a "choice" of one candidate. We, on the other hand, have a "choice" between two candidates. How convenient that they're both cut from the same cloth, eh?

25 posted on 10/28/2007 2:02:31 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Wow! I think I’ll stay home and not waste my time voting at all!

You, and a gajillion other ex-voters, who will find Election Day to be the perfect time to spend at home, pulling several decades worth of broken glass out of their knees.

26 posted on 10/28/2007 2:05:30 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.

This is patent nonsense. Presidents wield the veto, the bully pulpit and foreign policy. All three of which can have profound effects on the direction of the abortion debate.

So yeah, a barf alert may well have been in order.

27 posted on 10/28/2007 2:08:03 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
But nobody even talks about amendments anymore, since we’ve outsourced constitutional changes to the courts.

And increasingly, they've outsourced the basis for their decisions to foreign "precedent."

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

28 posted on 10/28/2007 2:10:59 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Salman
... one of the nation's most common surgical procedures ...

This says more about American society than it does about Giuliani or any other one politician.

It's generally considered gauche to make comparisons with "the old German regime" -- but it's increasingly difficult to avoid in rational discourse.

29 posted on 10/28/2007 2:13:59 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe

Yep. Very strange place. Somehow those who are in favor of allowing courts to make our most important decisions for us never seem to realize that courts can equally well rule against their pet ideas.

For instance, it is not entirely possible that a terrorist attack could take out the entire Supreme Court. Would a completely new court uphold all the precedents? Who knows? What idiot came up with the idea of giving total power to the single person who happens to be the swing voter on the court?


30 posted on 10/28/2007 3:00:55 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
but the moral authority -- the unspoken influence of leadership -- is not to be trifled with.

Any person who can't see the incredible evil of the American holocaust (50 million innocent humans killed) has even less moral character than a person who can't see the incredible evil of the Nazi holocaust (6 million innocent Jews killed). If comparison of the number of human beings murdered with government approval in both nations is used as the measure of respective guilt, the US is 8 times more guilty than Nazi Germany, and those in authority who legalize the killing in America will suffer divine retribution 8 times worse than the Nazis. (Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend (harm) one of these little ones.)

But in a moral sense -- and leadership is a moral proposition -- it just might be the most important factor.

A president without a conscience is a scourge to the world.

Exactly my point, but better said.

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God,..........When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."

Noah Webster, 1823

31 posted on 10/28/2007 3:44:44 PM PDT by epow (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: epow
Noah Webster, 1823

excellent.

32 posted on 10/28/2007 3:53:27 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (keep the heat on the hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Core Conservative Beliefs
American Thinker | October 27, 2007 | Bookworm
Posted on 10/28/2007 3:02:02 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1917605/posts

Rudy, the Values Slayer
(A Barf But He Has A Point And A Question For Social Conservatives)
New York Times | 28 October 2007 | Frank Rich
Posted on 10/28/2007 8:57:38 AM EDT by shrinkermd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917511/posts

For the GOP, a New Breed of Governor (Bobby Jindal, A Conservative Who Can Win)
Washington Post | 28 October 2007 | David S. Broder
Posted on 10/28/2007 10:25:18 AM EDT by shrinkermd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917539/posts


33 posted on 10/28/2007 6:04:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, October 22, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Articles like these are hypnotic, soothing....

vote for rudy, vote for rudy...

relax your principles, vote for rudy...

34 posted on 10/28/2007 11:38:52 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
But that's an unfair vote grab! Except if we do it in a red state!/DUmmie mode
35 posted on 10/29/2007 6:37:13 AM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Now more popular than Congress!* *According to a new RasMESSen Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
If you love the Constitution, you will oppose Roe regardless of your feelings on abortion.

Principles matter.

36 posted on 10/29/2007 6:40:21 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Dems want to rob from the poor to give to the rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman; Tabi Katz; Coleus; firebrand; Raquel

Wrong! Dred Scott was a terrible decision and was eventually overturned. There is much a president can do regading abortion such as : back keeping preborn babies in the CHIPs program; sign the child custody protection act and appoint conservative FEDERAL JUDGES. Will has gone dopey in his old age - this is his way of backing Giuliani.


37 posted on 10/29/2007 12:30:15 PM PDT by juliej (Vote GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe

I guess old George thinks it is up there with root canal! Shame on him. George should think of one of his better lines: “Bill Clinton may not be the worst president but he is the worst person to have becom president.”


38 posted on 10/29/2007 12:34:11 PM PDT by juliej (Vote GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

The importance about Roe v Wade being overturned, is that a lot of states have tried to put in place some restrictions over the years that kept getting shot down by the Supreme Court under the auspices of ‘Roe’. If that were not in place, and each state’s citizens were able to decide for themselves, there would be many states with restrictions that would go a long way toward lowering the total number of abortions in the country. Yes, there would be states in which abortion would still be legal, but I daresay that even in those states, there would be restrictions put in place. These would be easier to pass if citizens couldn’t be scared into thinking that any restrictions would be causing abortion to be outlawed.


39 posted on 10/29/2007 8:33:55 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

You are very correct. It has become “Roe uber alles” - Roe above all and it should be overturned. I think somebody spiked George Will’s prune juice because he has been cranky lately.


40 posted on 10/30/2007 5:57:45 AM PDT by juliej (Vote GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: juliej

Georgie misses the entire point of the pro-life argument: Any life we can save counts. New York is another state where abortion will never be outlawed in our lifetime (unfortunately!), but does that mean pro-life residents of NY and CA shouldn’t care about the babies that will be saved in Texas, Louisiana or Utah?


41 posted on 10/30/2007 6:43:31 AM PDT by Tabi Katz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tabi Katz

George is shilling for Giuliani.


42 posted on 10/30/2007 6:47:25 AM PDT by juliej (Vote GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Actually, George Will makes exactly that point in the article. Did you read it?


43 posted on 10/30/2007 7:01:45 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Yes.


44 posted on 10/30/2007 8:24:58 AM PDT by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson