Replies

The main advantage Kucinich has in his efforts to bob and weave on the abortion issue is that during his time in Congress, the pro-life movement has focused on incremental reforms rather than sweeping changes like the human life amendment.

Mr. Antle needs to understand that when you can't pass a law to outlaw the killing of a baby with 3/4 of its body outside the womb, "sweeping changes" are not in the picture. I'm amazed at pro-lifers who think that we can succeed with a human life amendment even though we can't pass a partial-birth abortion ban.

The fact of the matter is that Americans do not want "sweeping changes." I believe in sweeping changes; I don't mind advocating sweeping changes; but I'm not deluded enough to believe that our failures have been the result of not being radical enough in the measures we bring to a vote. Our failures result from the fact that America is about evenly split on whether abortion is right or wrong and still generally leans against the idea of banning all abortions.

Another point is that many of us see no justice in sending a rape victim to jail for refusing to carry the child forced on her by the rapist. We don't want the innocent child to die, but we recognize that the criminal justice system exists to punish crime and not to make happy endings. Refusing to carry the child under those circumstances should not be a crime.

I've voted for many pro-life candidates who disagreed with me on the rape exception. We are so far from a general abortion ban that this difference is largely academic right now. However, every article by "Patrick Henry" type pro-lifers suggesting that we aren't on the same team makes me more likely to rethink those votes. If my support for the exceptions means that my vote isn't good enough for these folks, I'll spend it on other candidates.

Abortion - Not About Sex
Bill

I am actually in total agreement with you. I am not saying that the pro-life movement's shift to an incremental strategy was a bad thing - I have in fact written in support of it. My only point was that Kucinich is using the fact that a good deal of recent pro-life legislation could be supported by people who favor keeping abortion legal - but subject to some restrictions and without public funding - to claim that he has not changed his position on the issue.

My argument in the piece is that he had an opportunity in 1998 to highlight his differences with pro-lifers on abortion and he failed to do so. Instead, he competed for pro-life votes and amassed a record adequate to prevent the state's biggest pro-life group from endorsing the right-to-life activist who was challenging him. His current pro-choice stance does in fact amount to a change of position. I was not trying to make the case that the Patrick Henry Men represent the only valid way to advance the right to life. I

I hope that this explanation clarifies things.

Best,

W. James Antle III