Posted on 01/13/2006 1:40:57 PM PST by madprof98
A pro-choice Republican who spoke with NEWSWEEK but didn't want her name used said she is more worried about Alito after hearing him testify, and wishes the Democrats would spend their time finding a candidate to beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries "or we're going to get four more years of judges like this."
[snip]
"Any activist will tell you they'd rather have the issue out there than to have it resolved," says this pro-choice Republican, who has worked on the Hill and for various Republican interest groups. "If Roe were overturned, we'd be electing Democrats as far as the eye can see."
[snip]
So what is the most likely scenario? The fight over Roe is not imminent. . . . She expects Alito to vote to erode Roe, and then the argument will be, sometime in the not too distant future, that the ruling is a shell, and it will be overturned.
Then the battle moves back to state legislatures, and some places—like Utah, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Oklahoma and South Dakota—would outlaw abortions while other states, like New York and California, would be decried by the Right as "abortion mills." Politically, the end of Roe would crack open the Republican coalition in the country and on Capitol Hill. The party is full of secret pro-choicers, Republicans who signed on to a package that included the pro-life position with the belief that it would never happen. They've kept their mouth shut all these years, but they'll be mad as hell and not willing to take it any more. "Even if there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, there ought to be," says this pro-choice Republican. "It's an American virtue.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Ever notice how liberals talk about "pro-choice" and "affirmative action". If it was called "abortion" and "racial and gender preferences" few would be for it.
Language is a tool.
I think she means that Hitlery can't possibly win the general election, but who knows. After all she claims to be a pro choice Republican. They do exist.
A pro-choice Republican who spoke with NEWSWEEK but didn't want her name used
teddy k is that you again
Although she's getting a little more sophisticated in her explanation of how the undoing of Roe v. Wade will take place, she's still stuck on the old dichotomy that has it overturned with the question of abortion returned to the states.
There's still a federalization option, just like with the death penalty, where each instance of the practice must be referred to the federal courts and processed just like a death penalty. Wouldn't matter what the states did in that case.
I went to the site to read the whole article..but when the first sentence had the LIE that Lindsay Graham's query about whether Alito was a "closet bigot" was what sent Mrs. Alito out of the room crying...
I quit...because the whole article became bogus..no need to read on.
The statement that did it for me was Eleanor's comment about how the Republican party is full of 'secret' pro abortionists. The Pubbies are the original big tent. Has she ever heard of Arlen Specter? The ones who have to keep their beliefs secret are pro life Democrats.
At the risk of being overly simplistic on a Friday afternoon, the whole Roe discussion is an utter smokescreen for what the Dems conveniently overlook. They claim that a "majority" of Americans favor "choice" (i.e., death for unborn children). If that is so, overturning Roe presents them with absolutely no concerns. A reversal of Roe would not make abortion illegal; it would just return the issue to the states where, to hear the libs' claims, abortion rights would plainly be protected by the "majority" they claim. In fact, the majority could, right now, without any concern about Roe vs. Wade, simply request that the various states grant protection to murder, uh, I mean, abortion rights NOW. Armed with this new state-created protection, they could abandon their trips to DC each year, confident in their "majority" insulation from the Supreme Court.
One problem. Libs implicity acknowledge that the majority of Americans in fact supports at least some form of protection for the unborn. And, of course, at least one half of this majority are the very women whose "rights" the libs purport to protect.
You gotta love what passes for logic on the left.
The writer goes from accusing a republican senator of making Mrs. Alito cry, to then going into a conspiracy theory saying it may have been scripted while lying through her teeth.
She cites a "pro-choice" republican, but gives absolutly nothing, for all we know, this could have been someones maid who got fired and hired.
She goes even more absurd since its clear this "pro-choice republican" wants a democrat to win the presidency and is worried that the democrats won't win because the nominee will be Hillary.
What kind of republican works for republican groups and wants democrats to win elections?
This whole article is a giant clusterf#(k of things.
Doesn't this woman have an editor?
Or was she just drunk and typed this up while sitting with a bottle of brandy and some pills somewhere?
Good point...and I thought the fact that Specter came out today...and said he was voting for Alito...
SHOULD have burst their bubble just a little bit.
Well, its one of those things alot of folks can't wrap their heads around.
Polls say a majority of Americans want abortion legal, run the same poll and with the same people, and they'll also support every single restriction you can think of.
I had a lefty college professor who got confused by the whole thing, since her defination of "pro-choice" was abortion on demand supporters, which she assumed was the majority, so never understood who people who said they support abortion wanted it restricted.
FWIW, most media polls define people who believe abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or threat to a mothers life, as "pro-choice" depending on how they define the choices.
I.E. If you believe it should be legal in some cases, then you fall under the category it should be legal, and are counted among those who support a legal right to abortion, even if you only wanted it under only those circumstances. It inflates the numbers.
"Utah, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Oklahoma and South Dakota"
Might want to add: Idaho, Texas, South Carolina, Arkansas...and I'm sure, a few others.
I think it very, very likely that Eleanor make it all up. I suspect this is done a lot. I don't believe ANYTHING in a WaPo associated publication, it's all DNC propaganda.
Democratic senators, instead of trying to find a 'right' in the Constitution - where none exists - should, if they had the courage, propose a Constitutional amendment ensuring the right to abortion; up front - out in the open. Then we will see how long, if ever, it takes for the states to ratify.
I have never figured out why no one asks Kennedy and his fellow travelers the question: Senator, why not simply introduce legislation to amend the Constitution instead of relying on judicial interpretation, eh?
I usually tgape the "McLaughlin Group" show on Sundays..because Clift is on it, along with Tony Blankley..one of the joys is watching the alternating looks of amazement, disgust, and revulsion pass on Tony's face whenever Clift goes into one of her screeds...The director obviously realized this some time ago..and has a perverse sense of humor...it's now automatic..whenever Eleanor talks..the camera cuts to Tony..check it out yourself..
Here's the thing, though. No constitutional amendment would be required, just a law. The dems know that in fact there IS no majority on their side. Nothing stops any state or Congress from passing a law explicity protecting abortion rights. That it has not been done is proof enough itself that there is no majority-- no in the red states and not even in the blue states. One would think that New York and California would long ago have granted abortion rights to their women. They don't have such laws because there IS NO MAJORITY on their side. It is as simple as that. They must thwart the majority by court fiat in order to keep their murderous custom alive and its killers compensated.
Everytime someone on the Sunday Talk Show thread references that show...I smack my head in disgust that I didn't watch...
I will make a point of watching this week...thanks for the reminder!!
McLaghlin annoys me of late..he's become very liberal..Pat Buchanan is a good contrast with Clift...
Good point and....wait, what exactly can anyone trust in regards to Eleanor?
Pro-life Californian
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.