Replies

I see both arguments on this issue. In our Freerepublic group, pro-life is probably a consistent #1 issue among members, and your thought that if one does not respect life, which is one that has been deemed inalienable by our Founders, the rest doesn’t matter. I agree with some caveats. First, one can be a solid conservative without being 100% of pro-life issues. Some of the pro life issues are political in terms of what is the role of government in deciding the legality or illegality of abortion, and secondly is it a Federal or state issue. Regardless of one’s belief, it became a Federal issue in the early 70s with Roe v. Wade. With that, it became a federal right to get abortion, which is one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. I am not entirely familiar with KBH’s full views on abortion, but it certainly is to the left of the Republican Party and most GOP voters. I am not sure how far left she is on the issue.

The second factor here, is the author’s discussion of pro-life being a single issue whereas some voters will either support or oppose a particular candidate, and here is where I fully agree. The conservative movement is one focused on the proper constitutional role of government and looking for candidates with the overall overriding philosophy of limiting the power of the Federal government and against central planning. IMO, at this juncture we are wise to refocus on supporting candidates which bring this particular core principle with them to office. In many cases, we have ended up with candidates or elected officials who are 100% on the life issues, but who fall far short on a lot of other core principles. This is one of the problems we have with the party drifting closer to big government lite. The first and foremost focus needs to be on electing people that are going to stop this radical growth of government we have seen for some time now.