Posted on 11/25/2004 9:05:56 AM PST by jobim
THE ABORTION DEBATE
It's the pro-lifers' moment Bush's re-election, the Peterson case and other factors show that the right has gathered steam James P. Pinkerton
November 25, 2004
On abortion, the tide has turned.
Events in 2004 have heralded the moment when pro-life - or, if one prefers, anti-choice - forces gained decisive momentum. This trend cannot be dismissed merely as a victory of Karl Rove and the Religious Right. Instead, deeper forces are at work: the basic instinct to perpetuate the species.
Let's consider the evidence, from just this month. First, George W. Bush, an abortion opponent, won 31 states and a second term.
Second, Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the few pro-choice Republicans in the Senate, was threatened with the loss of his judiciary committee chairmanship - unless he pledged not to block pro-life nominees for judgeships, including for the Supreme Court.
Third, just on Tuesday, Congress passed legislation guaranteeing the right of health-care providers to refuse to take part in abortions. In the cheering words of the conservative Family Research Council, "This is a monumental victory in the fight for life."
Indeed for years now, the right has been winning the fight. In the '90s, conservatives won the moral-intellectual battle over "partial-birth abortion"; most Americans deem it to be an abhorrent practice. In fact, the more time people spend pondering the mechanics of abortion, the less likely they are to support it. In the meantime, pro-life sentiment builds further as ultrasound technology improves, to the point where in utero imaging becomes three-dimensional and all the more vivid.
The coverage of the 2002 killing of eight-months-pregnant Laci Peterson in California illustrated a further shift. Reporters routinely referred to "the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son Conner." That a fetus was thus deemed to be a full person, with a name, was a spectacular success for the right. Scholars call it "semantic infiltration." Indeed, this infiltration was enshrined in a new federal law making it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. Bush himself refers to the bill as "Laci and Conner's Law."
The continuing, growing power of the right-to-life movement has many sources, but the most profound source is basic biology: The human species, like any species, is programmed for its own perpetuation. And yet across the industrial nations, the birth rate has fallen. Births are now at or below the numerical replacement level. The once-feared "population bomb," in other words, has proven to be a "population bust." Three major books have been published of late on this topic, the most recent of which is "Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future," by Ben Wattenberg, a scholar who hardly rates as a traditional pro-life conservative.
One solution to the birth-dearth, of course, is immigration. Yet that brings controversy. A more natural solution, which people yearn for in their bones, is an increase in the birth rate - more patter of more little feet. Hence the surging popularity of "pro-family" policies put forth by "family values"-oriented candidates. And yes, as part of the same swell of feeling comes the impulse to restrict abortion.
To be sure, the pro-choice establishment is deeply entrenched - in the media, in the legal system and throughout the affluent knowledge economy. Yet pro-lifers have growing numbers on their side. How so? People in "red states" are having more children - which is to say, more future voters - than people in blue states.
The abortion debate is hardly settled, but biological instinct, as well as demographic destiny, is smiling on the pro-lifers.
James P. Pinkerton's e-mail ad- dress is pinkerto@ix.netcom.com. Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
One-issue?
That's nothing but a liberal canard.
Here is a partial list of issues that I take an active role in advocating for:
And end to the abortion holocaust.
The preservation of traditional marriage.
Fundamental tax reform.
Educational freedom.
Restraining governmental spending.
Restraining government regulation.
Constitutional government.
Property rights.
Religious liberty.
Strong national defense.
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Restoration of Tenth Amendment rights.
Opposition to racism in all its ugly forms.
Defeat of the corrupt Democratic Party.
Defeat of the liberal MSM.
Voter education.
Grassroots Republicanism.
One-issue? Want more?
Then why don't you run for office?
Just not my role, I suppose.
Maybe ten years from now.
Good luck.
All very good questions. He's threatened them personally, or politically or both. And, while many of them may be conservative, their carreers come first.
Exactly.
Abortion in this country will be outlawed as surely as slavery was outlawed. It is a question of when.
Dear Mark in the Old South,
Actually, I don't think the author is a "Kool-aide drinking" pro-lifer. If I recall correctly, Mr. Pinkerton is a pro-choice Republican.
sitetest
That's not enough, I want more.
I am also with Cicero - like most here, I suspect the worst and expect the GOP to use Specter's eventual betrayal as an excuse to not overturn Roe v. Wade. This will result in the biggest conservative revolt the GOP has ever seen.
That being said, I will wait and see. The GOP is out of excuses - it is time to walk the walk and govern, not just campaign, as conservatives and pro-lifers.
If I am wrong and they really do have Arlen by the shorthairs and we achieve a conservative shift on the SC as a result, I will be the first to admit it. I truly hope I am wrong. It's much more important to me, on this issue, to get conservative judges confirmed than it is to be right about Specter.
But, like many here who have also seen Arlen's deadly betrayals over the years, I am not filled with confidence.
Pinkerton is moderate to liberal, from the James Baker wing of the party.
Why don't you answer his question? What threats?
So, when can I expect the apology for the 'one-issue' slur?
Not me, I'm encouraged by our increasing support for strong measures by Israel.
far too many Republicans are ready to give Arlen the Chairmanship for the promise he made not to obstruct Pro-life nominees for the court
For all practical purposes it's a done deal. It would be better if he weren't on the committee at all.
But he is on the committee, and in my opinion, better that he is a chastised chairman under a microscope than an angry member committed to causing trouble.
BTW, I'm a strong supporter of having strict constructionist judges, and given the situation we've been dealt, I'm not seeing any upside to handwringing at this time.
Well you got me there. It is handwringing, but I still am puzzled why they did what they did with Toomey. In retrospect, they SHOULD have backed him. I think he would have won, and Bush may have taken PA.
Re the civil war...........it won't happen, we will make great strides in the next 4 years in getting on a solid path back to Constitutional law (SCOTUS judges) and even more progress in the following administrations. The hearts and minds or the voting public has made a 180 degree turn in these last decades, and the politicians are being forced to follow. Have faith. The future on this issue is much brighter than the past.
The election is just over and already it doesn't very promising.
The first things we see from the Republicans is a continued push to keep the borders open and give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Then we see a refusal to listen to the people by giving a known pro- abortionist who favors a liberal balance to the courts the chairmanship of the committee that decides what kind of judges we get.
Then we see the reinstatement of funding with American tax payer dollars for the corrupt terrorist organization the PLO and a continued call for the establishment of a PLO state.
Then we see the federal courts poised to annul the vote of the states and the will of the people and like they did with Roe V Wade, make Homosexual Marriage the Law of the land.
All we get is a lame promise for a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage that the President and Republicans knows will never get through the Senate especially in the next four years.
No this doesn't like a very good start.
I haven't answered you because I've been away. What is this thread about? It's about abortion, that's what we're talking about here. And that was what I was referring to because it seems to be your passionate cause. You want an I'm sorry? Fine. I'm sorry that I misunderstood that a thread about abortion really wasn't about abortion.
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.