Replies

11. He's slick.

I think he is actually quite legally savvy and is a realist.

Transcript from “Meet the Press,” Oct. 29, 2006:

Russert: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here's the latest headline. “Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate ‘values voters’ by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. National Right to Life's political action committee plans to run radio commercials on [Michael] Steele’s behalf ... and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail.” The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you’re a United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

Steele: I don’t--vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we'd have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn't we? I haven't seen that bill proposed. I don't think...

Russert: That's been introduced in the Senate.

Steele: I don't think anyone's going to propose that this day.

Russert: So you wouldn't do that?

Steele: No.

Russert: Would, would you encourage--would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

Steele: I think that that's a matter that's going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken the position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that's ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We're seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

Russert: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

Steele: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

Russert: But what's your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

Steele: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade is a, is a matter that should've been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

Russert: Is it your desire that they keep it in place?

Steele: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

Before the SCOTUS made abortion on demand with no limitations the “law of the land” with the RvW decision, abortion laws were decided at the state level. It was legal in a only a very few places, severely restricted in many others and illegal in many more.

After RvW abortion was made legal everywhere. And look what happens when a state legislator and its citizenry vote to place any sort of limitations on abortion? Stare decisis currently trumps any and all state laws. I don’t like that one bit (and I don’t think Steele does either) but we’d be blind or foolish to think it could be otherwise in the current climate.

As far as a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, as much as I’d like to see that happen, I don’t think there is enough support currently to make that a reality.

The SCOTUS makes bad decisions and past history makes that very evident, but the SCOTUS also does not, in reality like to overturn itself.

Realistically, the best any of us can do right now is to fight for very solid legislation at the state level to bring the abortion issue back to a position prior to the RvW decision.

Fred Thompson took a very similar position:

Reverse Roe & return abortion to states, to allow SOME bans

Q: You believe that abortion is the taking of life; so why leave it up to the states where, as you well know, before Roe vs. Wade, some states allowed abortion on demand?

A: What the situation is now is as follows. Because of Roe vs. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they otherwise would maybe like to pass with regard to this area. If you abolish Roe vs. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules that they might see fit to pass. There hasn’t been a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it wouldn’t pass. What I’ve been talking about is directing our energy toward something that was halfway practical, something that might could get done. So now where we have no states with the option of doing anything about it, then we would have however many states wanted to. You could move from zero yard line, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is where we will remain if we don’t abolish Roe vs. Wade.

Michael Steele is pro-choice for states. Thanks for illustrating that so well.

His position is poison.

Our foundational principles are contained in the founding paragraph of this free republic:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Unalienable rights cannot rightfully be alienated by individuals or states.

Michael Steele's belief that they can be shows clealy that he has no moorings in the principles that make America America.

"The Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny...the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost." - Frederick Douglass