Dear Cold Heat,
"What Bush said, he meant."
When he said that he was working to have all children, born and unborn, protected in law, what did that mean?
Please explain to me how protecting unborn children in law can be done without undoing Roe, either through amendment to the Constitution, or through a decision of a differently-constituted Supreme Court, or through legislation (a speculative approach) that takes the abortion question out of the hands of the courts.
How can unborn children be proteced in law without undoing Roe?
As for loyalty, I have pulled a straight Republican Party ticket since I was old enough to vote, since 1978. I have voted in every federal and statewide election from 1978 on. I have even voted for Republicans who were iffy on the question of life, to strengthen the Republican Party, to get to the point where the party would be strong enough to take decisive action against Roe.
I have donated to the last several Republican presidential candidates.
I and my wife have performed volunteer work for Republican candidates and the Republican Party.
I did my small part to elect Gov. Bob Ehrlich in the state of Maryland, the first election of a Republican governor in 36 years. Even though he is officially pro-abortion.
I have done these things because the Republican Party has been the pro-life party.
Now, it is possible to take the first steps to reverse Roe. Now is the time. It is merely the fulfillment of part of the party platform.
Do you have a problem with President Bush keeping his promises?
Do you have a problem with the Republican Party executing a long-standing part of its platform?
sitetest
It has no meaning or effect.
Bush will protect life to the limits that he has. He cannot and did not advocate overturning Roe.
This is a social problem, and not a governance or constitutional issue. Most rational people can understand how it came to be and that it will take internal changes in social norms to effect change in this behavior.
Roe protections exist because of public demands for it.
Those demands are still there. Roe will not go away until the need for it is long gone, and even then it will likely remain for some time to come.
Social moray's on life are beginning to exhibit some changes, but we are far from a solution.
It would be my expectation that Roe and the death penalty might see a situation where the law remains, but the use of these practices gradually fade away without fanfare.
You cannot change these things through political or constituency battles. These things are interlaced into our social fabric.
Roe is not going anywhere for some time. However, additional restrictions and changes can be made at both fed and state levels with Roe still in effect.
Roe was bad law to begin with, but this fact will not eliminate it. It will stand for a very long time. The emphasis of change should be directed at the use of abortion as a option.
The fact it may be legal should not stop the eventual demise of this option as social changes catch up with reality.
Anybody who doesn't think this is a major issue for the party should ask themselves why Ronald Reagan made it a wedge issue and elevated it to national prominence in the party?
Why are they turning their backs on Reagan and the platform? They are disloyal republicans and don't have a clue about the great moral divide in this country.
Anyone who would demand that we should put party above principle sounds more like a fascist than a republican.
And he can't stand our "whining" about abortion?? Must be easier to ignore the silent SCREAMS of the murdered babies that way. I wonder if this person really has a conscience or just chooses to ignore, for whatever reason, this great evil that is perpetrated on the innocent everyday.