Posted on 01/26/2005 5:29:50 PM PST by Rummyfan
Maybe he is an idiot. On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past Monday – I was going to say "birthday of Roe v. Wade," but that would be too grimly ironic even for me – President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a "culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts."
Actually, what we need least of all is to "change hearts." Maybe it's my law background, but I think it's time we changed a few judges.
The "changing hearts" portion of the abortion debate is over. ATTENTION, PASSENGERS: We're now entering the "minds" portion of the "hearts and minds" journey on abortion. We've been talking about abortion for 32 years. All the hearts that can be changed have been changed. By some estimates, 35 million human hearts (and counting) have been "changed" by abortion.
Judging by her comments this week calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice," we've even changed Hillary Clinton's heart. (And who would know better than the sad, even tragic choice offered to New York voters in 2000 herself?)
Hillary went so far as to say she had "respect" for those who believe that "there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."
I've never heard of anyone who thinks abortion should not be "available" to save the life of the mother. There was never a law in any state that prohibited abortion to save the life of the mother. If Hillary "respects" even this (nonexistent) lunatic fringe of the pro-life movement, she must adore the rest of us!
The only thing we need to do now is to start "changing laws." A culture of life cannot even begin – much less be sustained – until we change the law and repeal Roe v. Wade. Only then can we tally up how many hearts have been changed.
If, right now, pro-lifers had already succeeded in changing the hearts of every last person in America – including Hillary Clinton! – abortion would still be legal in every state of the union. It's a "constitutional right" – taking its place alongside all those other "sad," "tragic" rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as religious expression, free speech, freedom of assembly and so on. Who was it who said, "Free speech should be safe, legal and rare"?
Only when at least five members of the Supreme Court stop pretending to see a secret, hidden clause in the Constitution, discernible only to members of the American Civil Liberties Union, and repeal Roe can Americans finally vote on abortion. This is a right we have been denied for 32 years. In effect, a 32-year gag rule has been imposed on those of us who respect every stage of life.
The National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) claims that if Roe were overturned, 19 states would immediately outlaw abortion, and 19 more would soon follow suit. This is the one issue on which NARAL and I agree: Pro-lifers already have changed the hearts of Americans about abortion!
Abortion was not terribly popular when Roe v. Wade was first concocted in 1973 – by seven male justices and their mostly male law clerks. Abortion – like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage and removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance – is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.
We know it wasn't popular with actual Americans back then because 46 states had outlawed it in a once-common procedure known as "representative democracy." Reflect on the fact that among the things more popular than abortion even back in 1973 were white-guy afros, lime-green leisure suits and earth shoes.
In the intervening 32 years, abortion has only become less popular. People have seen sonograms of smiling fetuses, they've seen the mangled remains of aborted babies, they've heard the ghastly arguments from NARAL termagants, and they've seen untold women marking the birth dates of their terminated children with weeping and despair.
In a Los Angeles Times poll a few years ago, 57 percent of respondents said they believed abortion was "murder." Seventy-two percent of women and 58 percent of men said they thought abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. (Among men currently listed on NBA rosters, the figure was even lower.)
Note that men in the poll were more supportive of abortion than women, which is perfectly in keeping with the pro-abortion orthodoxy that men should have no say in this matter, unless they're saying "yes, dear." Once again, NARAL and I are in agreement! It's a "woman's issue"; could you men please just butt out?
Despite the fact that feminists cry and try to make people feel guilty about opposing a "woman's right" to abortion, men always support abortion more than women – no matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked. Curiously, single men aged 18-34 are the cohort most dearly devoted to a woman's "right to choose."
Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be "changing hearts" is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more ñ- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We've been changing hearts for 32 years – I think we're ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. And NARAL agrees with me! How about it, liberals? Prove me wrong! Let Americans vote.
I have, and there are alot of them.
I would remind people, that before giving an opinion on this, ask a pro-life doctor about it.
I know one doctor who supports abortion, and, in conversation, couldn't think of anything off the back of his head where abortion would somehow saves a womans life over say a "C section" or such.
Granted, he was sure there was something, he just couldn't think of it then.
Ha, ha. Yeah, Hillary is so smart. Ann made Hillary look like an idiot and she did it with half her brain tied behind her back. So much for your phoney pandering words Hillary. You could care less about 6 month old preborns, 6 month old postborns, 6 year olds, or 66 year olds. What a shameless b*tch.
Ann Coulter with a gun. WOW! Do liberals get nervous when they see this picture?
I think this is a bit silly, which is unusual for Ann.
In the first place, GW Bush is the first president ever to directly address the annual pro-life march on Washington. Even President Reagan refrained from doing that, although his pro-life stance was undoubted. Bush has addressed the rally every year and has not allowed the press to intimidate him.
In the second place, GW Bush has been part of the process of changing hearts and minds. No, he didn't do it directly himself, but he has helped. The last three elections, over which he has presided, have more and more clearly shown that people are moving into the pro-life camp. Even the liberal press recognized it last November, and their hearts are filled with fear. Why else is Hillary pretending to want to compromise on abortion issues now?
In the third place, I believe GW Bush does intend to appoint good judges. That remains to be seen, but so far we have no major reason to doubt it. Specter is cause for grave concern, but we should wait a few months to see how the judicial appointments start to play out before withdrawing our support from Bush.
There was no way that Roe v. Wade could be overturned until the voters supported it and we had a president in a position to change the court. I believe the majority of the voters now do support it, or can be persuaded to do so over the next four years.
Usually Bush is a man of deeds rather than words. When it comes time to change the laws, he will say so. But he would be foolish to say such a thing BEFORE he has gotten new appointees onto the Court. Why give the leftist media ammunition to start a fight now, before the debate over new justices actually starts?
First things first. Nominate and confirm the judges. Then urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Ann's job is to talk. Bush's job is to act.
I don't like the "win their hearts and minds" garbage either. Someone to a radio show said, "Grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". Now that's the approach I want our government to take.
Ms. Coulter is absolutely correct: Most Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. What's blown the cover from this barbaric practice are the advances in medical technology over the past 30 years. The superstitious delusion that "it" is not a baby can no longer be maintained. There's a simple logic to it: if it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant.
It's long past time that we took off the gloves by changing a lot of judges and return to writing our own laws.
The most egregious blasphemy in it is when people call it a "constitutional" right. We acknowledge in our Founding Documents that our rights come from God and are guaranteed by our Constitution. Calling abortion a "constitutional" right is saying that God approves of it.
No, that's not true. The most fanatic abortion rights supportors are women who have had an abortion.
It's very difficult to change a heart when your government is not only condoning an action (abortion), but has pronounced it a precious 'constitutional right'. Kind of cuts the legs out from under the pro-life argument, doesn't it?"
Yep.
The President has a nice vision but I have to agree with Ann.It will be very difficult to change the law, but It is even harder to change that many hearts.
So true. I always make it a point to avoid an abortion debate with someone who's had an abortion. It's a tough sell arguing with a guilty conscience.
Ironic isn't it that San Francisco outlaws smoking even outside in the parks, but I bet it has more pro-abortion people per capita than most other cities in the US.
Who would have thought 20-25 years ago that smoking would become as socially UNacceptble as it has.
That means (hopefully) that abortion will become a LOT more unacceptable in the future. One thing that might help is too call it what it is --- pro-baby killing!!!
Don't worry. He'll get real religious before pushing through immigration reform. He always starts playing the religious card when he wants to distract people.
Exactly. It's like a drunk - they don't know that they are not addicts, they just know that they better not be.
It's oft been said that "womens' lib" is really "mens' lib," because it absolves them of all responsibility.
That may be the reason that the Playboy empire donates so much money to the feminist organizations.
Killing a baby.... well, that's ok. But second-hand smoke? Ohmigawd! Call the police! Sometimes I think San Francisco is deliberately tempting God.....
It's an old saying made popular among the troops in the Nam as an ironic response to the General's "Hearts and Minds" policy of pacification in country.
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.