I can read in #7 your rationale for claiming that Simon has "reversed his stance", namely the fact that he has shockingly insisted that abortion is a settled issue over which the governor of a state has no say. The problem with this, aside from the fact that it doesn't make Simon pro-choice at all, is the fact that it's the truth. The governor of a state cannot outlaw abortions.
In #16 you elaborate some: No, you realize the governor of a state cannot outlaw abortion, but there are things he can do. Parental notification, and the like. That sounds great; 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.
Either he does not care about the issue, or he is a coward who does not wish to take the political risk.
There is a third option: perhaps as the governor of a state with a Democratic legislature there's very little realistic chance of even getting such bills placed on his desk in the first place. You think?
And there are plenty of non-restrictive policies that could be put in place right now, by either the state or federal governments, that would break the back of the abortion culture. That's all I ever ask for.
"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)?
Here's one example:
But abortion is popular in California, you say? Well, partial-birth abortion is not
Perhaps not. Are you implying that Simon is in favor of partial-birth abortion and would not ban it given the opportunity? Then just what exactly is your complaint? (Remember, you started this by claiming he had "reversed his stance"...)
Why doesn't Simon respond by attacking Gray Death on this issue?
This is a different question, related to election strategy, and has no bearing on Simon's "stance" on abortion, per se.
Perhaps he simply decided that doing this would not be a good way to get elected. You think? Now, in so deciding he could be wrong. But it still wouldn't mean he had "reversed his stance" on abortion. Not Using Abortion As An Election Issue is not the same thing as Reversing One's Beliefs About Abortion.
but politicians like Bill Simon won't talk about it at all because he is afraid.
Oh, that's why he isn't talking about it. Not because of a conscious decision to say and do things likely to help him get elected, but because he is "afraid". You sure are a mind-reader!
So, I say, if a pro-life politician won't stand by his position and defend it
In what sense is Simon "not standing by his position"? I still haven't seen cited the press conference in which Simon came out and said "I'm pro-choice after all".
Again, all that happened is he acknowledged the reality that the governor of a freakin' state can't outlaw abortion. Does acknowledging reality make him less pro-life? That would not bode well for the pro-life movement....
...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.