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.
Maybe the abortion industry is bigger than the tobacco industry!!!
I am also getting tired of Bush "phoning it in". He left for Camp David on Sunday and returned Monday after he "phoned it in".
Why can't he actually go to a pro-life rally?
Bush was at Camp David during the march--that would have been a little more than a stroll out the ole front door!!!
You people that always have to find something to complain about where Bush is concerned have been hanging around with too many dems.
An unhappier group I have never seen than a gaggle of dems. They are always b*tchin and moanin about something. And to drag Bush into this, when he has signed three bills since he took office that do more to speak for the unborn than anything Clinton did, is shameful---
Therefore, shame on you!!! (and a couple of other posters too!)
I think you took a right turn, when you should have taken a left turn, or maybe a U-turn.
I thought he was at camp David or crawford or something. Not that I think he would have came, no President has ever shown, and I doubt any, no matter how pro-life, would.
At least if they have common sense.
Perhaps when you hire handlers who are heathen it makes a difference that your advice comes from their source.
You can lie like any other Clinton and make certain that there is a Specter in office to do the dirty work so that you have the appearance of good and the actuality is other.
At least that covers the Scripture regarding not even having the "appearance of evil".
I can safely predict that it will never fit Bush's schedule to attend the March For Life. It never does.
They do not want to attend.
WHY?
Its pretty clear in the article her solution is to replace the judges.
Unless you have a better idea?
PING
Common sense.
It would be a logistical nightmare.
Think of the inauguration, now, consider that for this to work, he's got to be at the heart of the rally.
If he goes, alot of pro-lifers can't, he might as well be better of calling it in.
If secret service ever said its okay, then, thats a clue to fire them, since obviousley they want a disaster to happen to you.
You were one of the ones I was referring to in post #63, but I will say one more thing to you---
I think that I was thrilled that Sen. Brownback showed up in person, and that President Bush called at all!
If you think about what Washington D.C., and the President had gone through for the 4-5 days before the rally, I would think you would think twice about being so upset.
What difference does it make if he is there if person? He wouldn't have called in for ALL to hear, if he wasn't sincere in his pro-life stance. There is no law that says he had to even acknowledge the March was even held.
And I repeat, how are we to remove those judges with whom Ms. Coulter does not approve.
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.
Agreed. "Changing hearts" is usually tripe and an expression used to disguise lack of courage in changing law.
I've never heard of anyone who thinks abortion should not be "available" to save the life of the mother.
Then, frankly, Ann hasn't met anyone who has really thought this through. With this "exception" on the books there will never be any shortage of doctors willing to "certify" that continuing the pregnancy constitutes a "risk" to the mother's life. This OK by you, Ann? This isn't "lunacy", this is a rational concern.
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.
Uh, sorry, but no. Americans have voted and do vote. Congress has the Constitutional power to a) impeach Judges who support abortion, b) remove all pro-life legislation from the purview of the Federal courts, and c) call abortion a violation of Federal Civil Rights (which it certainly is) and override any State that would attempt to keep it legal. Americans continue to vote for legislators who refuse to do any of these three things.
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... 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."
Self-report polls are complete BS, and wouldn't be taken seriously did they not support the pro-life Great Truth and orthodoxy that abortion is the fault of beastly men. In other polls BTW, heterosexual women consistently report less sexual partners on average than heterosexual men. (An impossibility.)
Once again, NARAL and I are in agreement! It's a "woman's issue"; could you men please just butt out?
When hell freezes over, Ann. Or at least when the vast majority of women vote for politicians who will outlaw murder.
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.
Uh, no, not when the poll is taken on Election Day, which is the only one that counts, and where women vote for pro-abortion candidates in greater numbers than men. Many of the seventy-two percent of women who said they wanted first-trimester abortion illegal voted for candidates committed to do just the opposite.
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.
Well, I hope so. Unfortunately, what people say, and what they actually do, often don't match.
O.K. Good point.
Has any president ever addressed any march or rally of any kind that was held on the mall in Washington?
Laura Ingraham was talking about this today and she was disappointed too.
If you have watched C-Span 2 at all during the last 4 years, you would know that it will be difficult to replace the judges, because the dems have filibustered and obstructed all of Bush's favorite judges---
He has vowed to put them all up again, and Specter has promised to get them all through to a floor vote. Now, if Frist will just make the dems play by the rules, some of the activist judges will be offset by strict constitutionalist judges.
It won't be easy though because Reid is already being racist about Clarence Thomas, and has vowed to obstruct just like his ole pal Daschle taught him to do!!
Please get married, Ann, and bring us joy with a little Ann or Andy.
That would make a very powerful statement.
You too, Michelle.
Ding, Ding, Ding!,,,I think we have a winner here Johnny!
Michelle Malkin has at least two children that I know of, maybe more.
BTTT
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.