Posted on 05/09/2007 4:47:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
the totally redesigned 2001 Honda Accord
WWJDrive: pretty funny.
“He could have refused to sign that landmark pro-abortion bill.”
We HAD been discussing the period AFTER he signed the bill. Tough to go back in time and undo what is already done.
“He could have repudiated it while still in office especially after Roe was announced.”
He could have. That he didn’t doesn’t accrue to his credit.
I don’t know what politics were involved, although I can imagine that a governor just elected, who’d been mocked as being just an actor, not really up to the job intellectually, might not want to admit that he’d just been bamboozled by folks. Especially considering that another Republican politician had lost his national standing after admitting to being brainwashed (irony strikes again).
“I’m not trying to attack Reagan here. This is just his unvarnished public record.”
I understand. But part of the record is that the law as originally written included an exception for fetal deformity, and this was taken out to get Mr. Reagan’s signature.
And that’s real evidence that in 1967, Mr. Reagan was concerned that in liberalizing abortion laws to make room for the “hard cases,” one might go too far and make abortion too readily available. That makes clear that Mr. Reagan was NOT trying to move toward generally available legal abortion.
The law that Mr. Reagan signed, with a little bit of change taking into account what we know about the interpretation of “health” exceptions, is the legal regime that most PRO-LIFERS would endorse today - no abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life [then, health] of the mother.
Mr. Reagan, by his ACTIONS, was no more “pro-choice” then than Mr. Romney is now.
It’s fair to define Mr. Reagan’s position by his own public actions. But it’s unfair to define Mr. Reagan’s position by the actions of others, by the fact that OTHERS misused the law that Mr. Reagan signed.
“Before we start throwing candidates overboard by comparing them to Reagan, we should at least compare them to the real Reagan. Not the mythical Reagan.”
That’s fine. And what Mr. Reagan did was, in my view, an error - a serious one. Yet, the legislation that he signed pretty much reflects the views of most PRO-LIFERS today. It isn’t right, fair, honest, or accurate to say that Mr. Reagan was “pro-choice” as we now define the term.
sitetest
“You’re the one trying to drag Ronnie into this in some big way. Not Romney.
“You’re putting words in his mouth.”
I don’t think so. Did you actually read the article starting this thread?
He directly compares himself to Mr. Reagan:
“He added: ‘But if you go the other direction, as I have and as Ronald Reagan did and (former Illinois Rep.) Henry Hyde and (former president) George Herbert Walker Bush, it’s like the media can’t get enough of it: “Oh, well, why did you change?”’ “
In that Mr. Reagan was never, like Mr. Romney, a pro-abort, I take issue with the comparison. Mr. Romney is NOT like Ronald Reagan in this way.
sitetest
The two had NOTHING to do with each other.
his claim to have been pro-life all along is actually pretty similar to Romney's.
No, Romney signed into law a socialist healthcare plan that included taxpayer-funded abortion AFTER his supposed conversion.
It seems that all of the candidates are now trying to portray themselves as being the most "Reaganesque" and that's fine -- but they need to be prepared to be called to task for their deficiencies. To call Romney "Reaganesqe" only makes sense when he is being compared to Rudy, and that's not saying much.
“Given that Reagan did sign a key bill which led pretty directly to the Court issuing Roe, his claim to have been pro-life all along is actually pretty similar to Romney’s.”
The first part of this sentence is false. Roe was a case that worked its way up from the Texas courts.
The second part of your sentence, thus, is false, in that the premise is false.
However, it's also a non sequitur. The plain language of the 1967 bill was very restrictive. In hindsight, folks know now that liberal courts will interpret the "grave health" exception to mean a wide variety of things. I don't know why folks would assume that Mr. Reagan would have known prior to signing that the courts would abuse the language of the law in that way. Thus, it isn't logical to impute to Mr. Reagan's political philosophy the unforeseen consequences of his action.
The difficulty with the rest of your post is that it entirely ignores context.
In 1967, no abortions at all were legal in California. The legislation that Mr. Reagan signed permitted abortion in limited circumstances, what folks often call the hard cases.
Although I'm one of them, VERY FEW FOLKS want to ban absolutely every single abortion, we call folks pro-life who want to ban the 96+% of abortions that are NOT involved in cases or rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Mr. Reagan's position THEN, as evidenced by the actual language of the legislation that he signed, was about as pro-life as most pro-lifers are TODAY. However, by the time Mr. Romney was governor, the general “law” of the land, as dictated to us by the Supreme Court, was already far more liberal than anything that Mr. Reagan ever signed. In fact, Mr. Reagan’s legislation was actually voided by Roe in that it was far too restrictive of abortion under the Roe and Doe legal regime imposed by the Supreme Court.
If Mr. Romney proposed to sign a bill that would have limited abortion to cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, I’d have called Mr. Romney a pro-lifer, too.
But by the time he was governor, abortion on demand was already the legal regime of the day.
“No one ever made Reagan crawl through the primaries, wearing sackcloth and covering himself in ashes. He said he was pro-life. We accepted that.”
Certainly, because his ACTUAL actions were that of a moderate pro-lifer, someone willing to accept limited access to abortion in limited circumstances.
What is the evidence of this? The actual language of the actual legislation that he actually signed, permitting abortion in cases of rape, incest, and “grave health” risk of the mother.
That is actually the position of most pro-lifers, except that in hindsight (which is 20/20), folks know that any exception past “life of the mother” will be abused.
sitetest
“Although I’m one of them, VERY FEW FOLKS want to ban absolutely every single abortion, we call folks pro-life who want to ban the 96+% of abortions that are NOT involved in cases or rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”
To clarify - the group to which I don’t belong is that comprising pro-lifers who believe exceptions should be permitted in varying circumstances - be they rape, incest, or whatever. I’m what most folks would call an extremist. I don’t believe that abortion should be legal in any circumstances whatsoever.
However, I’m willing to work with pro-lifers who aren’t as absolute as I am, and I’m not going to call them “pro-choice” because they believe that exceptions should be made.
Your post in no way regards the context of things.
His position in 1967 - to permit abortion only in hospitals, only after a committee of doctors (or alternatively a district attorney, in cases of rape) had ascertained that a woman was a victim of rape or incest, or was in dire medical need of an abortion due to grave risk to her health - is about as pro-life as most pro-life folks are today.
As to being related to Roe - please document the connection. I can find none. It appears to be an assertion on your part without any actual evidence.
“And he did not become pro-life in any way that any person at the time could detect until 1975.”
The actual legislation that he actually signed in 1967 would be considered nearly model abortion legislation by most pro-lifers today. By his actual deeds, one can say that he was a moderate pro-lifer.
That he became more pro-life, and more adamantly pro-life over time is wonderful.
But to anachronistically use the terms “pro-choice” or “pro-abort” to him in 1967 borders on dissembling.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was a loud and proud pro-abort (and maybe still is).
sitetest
“Nonsense. Roe did not come from a vacuum. The liberal Warren Court (headed by another California governor) imposed Roe on all the anti-abortion states (like Texas) only after other large key states like New York and California passed such laws as Reagan’s groundbreaking 1968 abortion bill.”
Before proceeding further, you should try to get some of your basic facts straight about this issue.
sitetest
Well, we’re both pro-life absolutists.
Where we may part company is what we should call folks who believe that 96+% of abortions should be illegal.
I call these folks moderate pro-lifers.
Apparently, you don’t?
sitetest
WRONG. Roe v. Wade was handed down on January 22, 1973, Warren Burger was Chief Justice. Warren had been retired for three and a half years at that point.
Rape, incest and health of the mother had NOTHING to do with the Roe decision. Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape, though she has since admitted that this was untrue and that she was coerced into making the allegation. The substance of the Roe decision was based on privacy, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LAW SIGNED BY REAGAN.
You know, it's one thing to try to make a candidate more appealing by trying to RAISE HIM UP TO REAGAN'S LEVEL, it is another thing altogether to try to legitimize the same candidate by trying to TEAR DOWN REAGAN'S LEGACY.
But it doesn’t matter, the ruling never mentioned her allegation of rape. They went broader and made abortion a “right” based on privacy. Had they ruled that all rape/incest victims have a right to abortion, your argument might have some merit, but they didn’t.
Perhaps you’ve lost interest in debating because it appears that you’re unaware of basic facts about the issue, because you’re making assertions without making fact-based arguments to support them, and because you refuse to see that logically, what Mr. Reagan signed in 1967 is little different from what most pro-lifers would like to see in 2007.
“If you think Romney is being deceptive, then just say so. Dragging Reagan’s record into it is a distraction and proves far less than you assert.”
I’ve said long and loud that I suspect that Mr. Romney is a liar. It is HE who dragged Mr. Reagan into the conversation, not me. I’d like him to leave Mr. Reagan out of it, as to me, it’s evidence of deception.
I wish that Mr. Romney had turned out to be an honest “convert” to the cause. But it appears to me that he is a deceiver. Part of the evidence is that he lies about Mr. Reagan.
sitetest
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.