Skip to comments.Abortion's 'So-What' Factor (Do We Barf 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 ...
A good editorial for contemplation. You do need to read it though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.”
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.
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.
Open borders George Will... has been paid for by the left wing media over the years...
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.
It seems George Will, a tool of the establishment, is in the tank for Rudy.
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.
(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!
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.
:’) self-ping. If California allocates its votes among candidates, rather than sticking with winner take all, not sure Will’s point holds. self-ping.
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.