An assessment of the role of Roe in the 2008 presidential election

RenewAmerica.us ^ | 1-22-2007 | Helen Valois

[EternalVigilance]

National security v. national identity

Let's say a masked gunman is testily aiming an automatic weapon at two helpless hostages — an able-bodied man, and a trembling toddler. "Please, I beg of you," the grown-up implores, hands held high in the air, "if you must mow somebody down, by all means, make it him. I ardently hope that neither one of us has to die, but if push comes to shove, well, frankly . . ."

Now, what kind of person would take such a stance? What kind of a country would? And yet, with the 34th anniversary of the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision upon us, that is approximately the attitude being urged upon those Americans still concerned about the survival of our democratic republic at all — not by liberals, mind you, but by some of conservatism's leading spokespersons. I'll explain.

Any regular listener to Alan Colmes' counterpart in his various media incarnations is by now well acquainted with what might be termed the Hannity Doctrine: the contention that the war on terror must be admitted as superceding all other political priorities. One need not disagree that liberty is to be vigorously defended to disagree with the right-to-life-related conclusion this popular talk show host and others are drawing about it: that the attacks on our country by radical Islamists changed not only what Americans ought to be concerned about, but somehow, the very essence of what our nation is and has always been. Is Sean really saying this? He is, if we think through the implications of his 2008 presidential race philosophy.

What does it mean to say that conservatives ought to support any candidate of any party, with any voting record on other issues, as long as s/he is strong on national defense? It means that the primacy of the right to life over the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been submerged and ignored — not by foreign enemies, but by America's own defenders. Ours is the land defined by the Declaration, and that inspired historical landmark recognizes that everyone is "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights," in a certain undeniable order. Yet, with all due respect to Jefferson and his confreres, do we really need the guidance of political genius to tell us that the right to live in freedom hinges upon the right to live in the first place, and not the other way around?

The most basic of our founding documents appeals to what it divine and immutable, then, in accord with what is natural and reasonable. That is why it is called a "declaration," and not a "thesis," or an "editorial." For this reason neither Osama bin Laden, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor a multitude of misled voters, nor a gaggle of oligarchs in black robes, nor Sean Hannity himself, can change what American principle objectively is. Despite what the manipulators of our political process try to tell us, national security is not the rival of national identity. The two are partners, with one of them (hint: not the one Mr. Hannity alleges) necessarily claiming a surpassing degree of logical, moral, political, and spiritual importance. Does one burn down one's own house, in an attempt to thwart a potential arsonist? Divest one's self of all assets to become safe from a feared robbery attempt? Then why on earth would we accept the notion that we must deprioritize defending the right to life if we wish to begin effectively defending the right to liberty; that we must voluntarily quit being Americans ourselves, in order to keep radical Islam from abolishing Americanism?

Sean says, to his credit, that he is still pro-life, despite his willingness to back politicians who don't "agree" with him on the "domestic issues." (Abortion is a worldwide phenomenon claiming logarithmically higher numbers of victims than terrorism ever has, so why it is considered to be something contained within our particular coastlines, I have never understood.) All he can possibly mean by this, however, is that he has not stopped to think through to the conclusion of his own commentary. To claim that the cause of overturning Roe has to move to the back of the bus, now that the war on terror has officially begun, is to say that those of us who have already had a chance to see the sun and feel the free breeze on our faces have more of a claim to continue doing so than those waiting in the womb have to take their turn at all. It is to say that the protection of our own interests is of greater urgency than the protection of theirs.

This is not a "pro-life" position, howsoever modified. This is nothing but the core pro-choice contention in its vilest, most prejudicial form. Grown-ups of all ages know indubitably that it is their special privilege to prioritize the weaker among us — either literally, as many members of our military and other security forces do on a daily basis, or sacrificially, as every parent, and teacher, and mentor, and civil servant (etc.) does in a whole plethora of ways. At least, that is what grown-up Americans have always believed and done.

For the record, it must be noted that Sean Hannity is far from the only one pushing this new and illegitimate "conservative" system of "single-issue" voting. Just the other day, for instance, Roger Hedgecock was admonishing Rush's audience to wake up and smell the post-9/11 coffee. Sean just happens to be the highest profile member of this mentality. How many more people he and others will be able to convince remains to be seen. It may prove enough, arguably, to sweep a RINO team into the White House in two years' time. If that happens, it will be a black, black day; I for one would rather see America martyred than see her commit the suicide of moral cowardice. But if we pull together in insistence not only on the right to liberty but also on the right to life which undergirds it, refusing the erzatz political "necessity" of pitting the one against the other, we may not finally have to witness either of those unspeakable outcomes. In the last analysis, then, the war on terror has only made the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade even more urgent — certainly, not less so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helen M. Valois is a homemaker and mom currently residing in the northwoods of Wisconsin. She has a Master's Degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville, and is a member of the MI (Militia Immaculatae) movement founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe. Her articles and book reviews have appeared in a number of publications since that time.

[EternalVigilance]

Not all threats to our republic, or to the security and safety of the American people, are from the outside.

I think this is a brilliant piece by Helen Valois.

God bless her.

[upsdriver]

I am a conservative. I support the war on terror. But I will not now or ever vote for anyone who is not for the full protection of a baby in the womb. There is never an instance when it is allright to kill a baby, be it rape, incest, or just because you were too careless and can't be bothered with the inconvenience of it. The GOP had better not even think of putting forth a candidate who is ambivelent about abortion or they will go down in flames. Is that clear enough?

[xzins]

In a time of war, is it more important to win the war or to value the unborn?

Pregnant women should be given rifles and told to fight when the enemy is at the gate. That happened in pioneer America. I'm sure it's happened elsewhere.

Giving their life in the fight is not the same as saying that their lives were forfeit because we were in a fight.

We don't shove the pregnant women outside the fortification and leave them to the mercy of the enemy, because the fighters inside can last longer without them.

And the truly long view includes future generations.

Hannity is overcome by New York politics, and his words cannot be trusted when it comes to Guiliani.

[EternalVigilance]

Is that clear enough?

It sure is to me.

Lots of GOP hacks got their fingers in their ears, though. I hope they aren't allowed to take the country the rest of the way down.

[EternalVigilance]

And the truly long view includes future generations.

Amen. The framers of our Constitution agreed, and put the lives of those generations yet to come on equal footing with their own, and our own.

Preamble, U.S. Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Democratshavenobrains]

The Democrats have effectively co-opted the pro-life handle by running conservative sounding guys in Red and Purple states. The elections of Webb and Casey show that.

[upsdriver]

I am getting tired of all those on this site who will support someone they think can beat Hillary or whoever but are not willing to defend the unborn. I just cannot accept that. Rock hard principles in support of babies can't be compromised. Thanks for your support!!

[EternalVigilance]

Likewise.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Limbaugh says moderates are liberals. I agree with him.

Yet, the Republican establishment in Washington keeps trying to cram moderate liberalism down our throats...

[EternalVigilance]

I agree too. With Limbaugh and with you.

[TigersEye]

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Effects

45,951,133

Total Abortions since 1973

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[EternalVigilance]

A truly brilliant post.

[TigersEye]

I thank you.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Lots of GOP hacks got their fingers in their ears, though. I hope they aren't allowed to take the country the rest of the way down."

You, like many got caught up in the GOP/Conservative movement. There is no longer Party support. The Democrats coopted the GOP with something called moderates or in Conservative terms RINOS. To them it is called triangulation. That will put Hillary in the WH in 08.

The first step was getting these moderate Repuublicans into office. The next step is putting the GOP mods too far to the right and bringing in Dem "Conservatives" who are really liberals. After that it will be to get rid of the "Blue Dogs" and really go liberal.

Ideology and the GOP no longer go hand in hand. We are walking around with the same tired old message; abortion is wrong, gay rights is wrong, the death penalty should be used. I been hearing this from the GOP for 30 years and nothing has changed since then.

I don't feel like being a martyr. I want to win. If you want to stay home because your candidate is socially liberal and more people support them then the Conservative, then don't complain when you get the liberal.

Protect my country, allow my child to get the properr education, and don't tax me into oblivion. The rest will work itself out. If 06 didn't teach Conservatives anything, then nothing will.

[EternalVigilance]

Your closing two paragraphs make no sense to me.

But you will be hardpressed to find where I've threatened to "stay home." Hardpressed indeed.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I agree too. With Limbaugh and with you.

Limbaugh is right 98.4% of the time. We can make up the other 1.6%...

[Sun]

Today I was listening to the speakers at the Pro-LIFE! rally on EWTN shortwave.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, and Senator Brownback spoke at the rally, and they BOTH are running for president.

If any other presidential candidates spoke that I'm not aware of, please let me know.

Remember Duncan Hunter and Senator Brownback at the GOP primaries. I hope they raise a lot of money. Money is the best way they can get their message out.

[Sun]

"I am a conservative. I support the war on terror. But I will not now or ever vote for anyone who is not for the full protection of a baby in the womb. There is never an instance when it is allright to kill a baby, be it rape, incest, or just because you were too careless and can't be bothered with the inconvenience of it. The GOP had better not even think of putting forth a candidate who is ambivelent about abortion or they will go down in flames. Is that clear enough?"

I agree.

[Sun]

While I like Sean Hannity, he needs more prayerful thought to come to the right decision.

As an aside (kind of) besides being pro-partial birth abortion, Sean's friend Guiliani wouldn't be so good on terrorism, IMHO, because he was in favor of ILLEGAL immigration when he was mayor (and still is), which would make it even easier for terrorists to enter our country.

[oceanview]

its pretty easy to figure out the equation here.

If a Dem wins in 2008, Roe will not be overturned for the next 25 years. That's an iron clad guarantee. All the lib SCOTUS members will retire during the period of Dem control, and the 5 votes for Roe will be retained.

most freepers don't like Rudy, and don't trust McCain on social issues. OK, that's fine. If you'd like to have a GUARANTEE that Roe will stand for the next 25 years, send someone up there like Brownback to get slaughtered in 2008.