Dear Vicomte13,
I'm fascinated by some who allege that President Bush has not promised to overturn Roe.
What does it mean that all children, born and unborn, will be protected in law? How is that to be achieved without overturning Roe? Roe sets down an unmoveable right to kill unborn children. Without overturning Roe, not a single unborn child can be protected in law.
Did Mr. Bush mean it when he said he is working toward a day when every child, born and unborn, is protected in law? Or did he not?
If he did, then the intention to protect every child in law must include the intentions for those actions required to accomplish that overall goal. Perhaps someone can enlighten us as to how children will be protected in law without overturning Roe.
As for what happens after Roe is overturned, well, the immediate aftermath would be that abortion would be mostly illegal in about 27 states, and late term abortion would be largely illegal in about 40 states.
After that, it's a political fight. Fought in Congress, in the legislatures of the states, in battles for governorships, etc. That's fine. We "rabid" "extreme" "nutjob" pro-lifers are up for that. If we win, we win through the political system.
If we lose, we lose through the same way.
Right now, we aren't losing through the political system. We're losing in spite of the political system. Culturally, our country is becoming more pro-life. But it means little in the way of law, because Roe blocks any change on the issue of abortion.
Overturning Roe merely turns the question back to politics.
But without taking the steps necessary to overturn Roe, President Bush cannot truthfully say that he is working toward the day when all children, born and unborn, will be proteced in law.
We pro-lifers who have supported the Republican Party, donated our time, money, energy, blood, sweat, and tears, are merely asking that President Bush do his part in furthering the goal of protecting all children, born and unborn, in law. His part is to make sure that a Republican Senate approves judges and Supreme Court Justices who are open to the question of Roe, rather than who view Roe as "inviolate" (the word of some creep from Pennsylvania).
The moment is here. The time is now. It is unlikely that things will get much better. It is unlikely that there will be a more propitious time to appoint these judges and Justices than during this second term in office of President Bush. If he doesn't do it in the next four years, he won't get another crack at it.
If he doesn't appoint Justices open to the question of Roe in this term, then the Justices he does appoint will lock in Roe for another generation or two to come.
If he doesn't get it done, he will have broken his promise.
In that case, the Republican Party will have broken faith with a key constituency, and that constituency would then no longer owe any loyalty to the Republican Party.
sitetest
Actually, culturally is the bigger and better change, IMO, because if the culture changes, you change the demand for abortion, which means there are fewer of them even if they are still legal.
And realistically, even if Roe is gone, without the cultural change, laws will change if necessary to provide for abortions to be just as available as they are now.
Your constituency has never been loyal. You are a pain in the a$$. You whine, you complain and if you don't think you are getting your way you stay home on election day.
You are not considered part of the republican base by anyone except democrats, and they are always wrong. This election was not about you. It was not about abortion.
Your turnout numbers as a percentage were no greater than before. Nobody in the party held your hand this year. Nobody promised you anything out of the ordinary, and certainly no promise has been made to overturn Roe.
What Bush said, he meant.