Replies

>>>Since you seem so impressed with Mr. Gans, (for what reason I don't know)<<<

Our own fiscally conservative The Washington Times printed him, did it not?

>>>explain how the Republican party abandoning its 26 year commitment to protecting the unborn<<<<

What commitment? Have they passed a bill banning abortion in the Republican-dominated House? No. Pro-life Republicans compose about 35% of the Republican base, and even the RNC has confirmed this. To appease the 35% that cares more about the unborn than the born (judging from their inactions at orphanages, where fundraising's tougher I guess) the pro-life concept has been given lip service in the party platform time and time and time again. But as they say, platforms are what parties run on prior to the nomination and run away from immediately thereafter. Has the White House proposed a ban on abortion? Of course not. They'll never forget the sting of losing the popular vote even before the economy went South.

>>> fits into creating a "durable message" and your use of, ahem, questionable poll numbers to justify that position would not lead to charges of "defining themselves by polls..."<<<

It's one thing to switch with the polls every few weeks; it's quite another to adapt to political realities over the long term. Maybe 18% of American registered voters are pro-life. Perot got 20% of the vote in 1992, and it was impressive. Why not start a "Life at any cost, and at others' expense" party and see if you can attract as many votes? There are far more fiscally conservative Democrats who would subsequently vote Republican than there are intolerant pro-life Republicans that would be lost to the new proposed political party. Now that campaign finance reform will kick in later this week, proposals like these will resurface more and more. Count on it.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965), passed by the House on July 24, 2002, 274-151.
The Weldon-Stupak-Brownback legislation to ban all human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos (H.R. 2505, S. 1899), passed by the House on July 31, 2001, 265-162.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), a bill to recognize as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime, passed by the House on April 26, 2001, 252-172.
The Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, if this abridges her parents' right to be involved under their home-state law, passed by the House on April 17, 2002, 260-161.
The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691), to prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers for refusing to participate in abortions, passed by the House on September 25, 2002, 229-189.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), which was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2002. This bill, backed by NRLC, establishes that any infant who is fully outside his or her mother and shows any signs of life is a legal person for all federal law purposes. Daschle allowed the bill to clear the Senate on a voice vote because pro-abortion groups decided not to actively oppose it.

It would seem the Republican controlled House has taken a strong pro-life legislative position and that these bills would have all been signed into law by the President (just as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was) if the Democrat-controlled Senate had not blocked them.

That leads to a question: If, according to you, 65% of Republicans are pro-abortion and the party would be better off jettisoning the pro-life "fringe", why are a vast majority of elected Republican representatives pro-life?

A. Because they believe in protecting the rights of the unborn

B. Because their constituents are pro-life and elect them to represent that position.

C. Because they could not be elected without the pro-life vote.

D. You and your poll numbers are a bunch of crap.

I'm taking all of the above.