Abortion, RINOs and the 2008 Election
May 10, 2009 by Daria DiGiovanni
Filed under Commentary
by
One of the tragic consequences of the 2008 election (aside from Barack Obama becoming president) has been the accelerated attempt by so-called “Big Tent” Republicans to silence social conservatives – or more specifically, to stifle any dialogue pertaining to the sanctity of life. These moderates falsely believe, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary (e.g. the failed campaigns of George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008), that sprinting to the left is somehow the panacea for what persistently ails the Republican Party, and that such “private matters” as abortion are best left out of the public square. (I’d be remiss of course, if I failed to note that Senator McCain is indeed pro-life, a fact he strongly affirmed during his forum with Pastor Rick Warren last year; however, this just proves that “half-way conservatism” is also a recipe for electoral failure).
Even some I know to be “three-legged stool” conservatives are buying into this nonsense. At a recent meeting, a friend of mine expressed her concern for Republican candidates who invoke God and uphold their pro-life beliefs on the campaign trail, as if it’s a crime to actually honor one’s moral foundation and defend innocent, defenseless human life.
With all due respect, I vehemently disagree. And I will never apologize for believing life begins at conception. However, based on my own experience, I would also urge conservative candidates to expand the discussion when it comes to the abortion debate. For example, few people understand why, from a federalist perspective, Roe v. Wade is bad law; unelected, activist judges usurped power from the hands of the people, thus enacting legislation that was not within the scope of their authority. Instead, the legality of abortion, along with ancillary issues like parental consent, should have been determined by “we the people” through the ballot box. Even most pro-choice Americans I know favor restrictions and abhor partial-birth abortion – undoubtedly the most brutal, horrific and inhuman procedure medical science has ever created.
Therefore, conservative candidates can start with the federalist argument. But it doesn’t end there. Why not attack Obama and his alignment with Planned Parenthood? We now have the most radical pro-abortion president ever presiding over the Oval Office, a man who as state senator could not even bring himself to vote for legislation to mandate medical care for babies who somehow managed to survive late-term abortions. This particular piece of legislation, The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was narrow in scope, and in no way threatened Roe v. Wade. Yet, Mr. Obama and his far-left base have more harrowing concern for the rights of radical Jihadists than they do for innocents.
Waterboard a known terrorist to glean information to save thousands of American lives? A moral blight on our country! Throw a defenseless infant into a soiled utility room and leave him/her to die? An example of our country’s progress in terms of women’s rights!
Got that?
Further, those who seek public office on the conservative side of the aisle could excoriate Planned Parenthood itself for repeatedly refusing to comply with the law by reporting the rapes of minors. Intrepid investigative journalist Lila Rose of Live Action.org has done the lion’s share of work in this area; her undercover reporting puts the mainstream media to shame and exposes the hypocrisy of liberals everywhere who’ve falsely named themselves the “champions of women” and the proponents of “choice”.
And yet, Planned Parenthood continually receives taxpayer money, representing a whopping 33% of their income. Why aren’t conservative candidates railing about it? Why aren’t they enlightening the electorate about the organization’s founder Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who openly professed her belief that certain races and ethnicities should be extinguished for the greater good?
Quoth Sanger:
It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.
Sounds suspiciously like something Lenin, Stalin and Hitler might say! And gee, weren’t all three of them racists? It might behoove prospective conservative office-holders to enlighten socially conservative blacks and hispanics on a little history.
Which brings me to another important point. Recently on social networking sites, the question has been raised as to why so many Jewish Americans, 78% to be exact, voted for the Hamas-endorsed candidate over John McCain. From my own anecdotal evidence, gleaned from various conversations, I can sum it up in three words: Roe versus Wade.
Standing in line to watch The Third Jihad at the Muvico in Boca Raton, Florida just weeks before the election, I began chatting with some very nice Jewish ladies, all of whom were well beyond child-bearing age. Without imposing my own viewpoints, I patiently listened for a while as they all expressed their disgust for Governor Sarah Palin, who’d earlier that day enthusiastically expressed her pro-life commitment at a political rally. Apparently, Sarah’s belief in the sanctity of unborn life was a much greater threat to them than the facts that Israel’s enemy Hamas had openly endorsed Obama, or that his career as State Senator for Illinois had been launched at the home of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
No, for these ladies, it was all about “a woman’s right to choose.” They were horrified by the prospect of a Republican President or Vice-President somehow overturning Roe v. Wade. And yet when I assured them that neither McCain nor Palin would have the authority to render such a decision, but in a worst-case scenario (at least in their minds) made the federalist case for abortion law, it was as if I was speaking a foreign language!
In the final analysis, liberalism is such an ingrained, if illogical mindset that conservative candidates cannot possibly convert more than a scant few of them. However, this is still a center-right country, and by educating voters on some very real truths they will never get from the mainstream media, they can win their support without compromising their pro-life principles. As for the RINOs? I suggest they immediately cease the “listening” tours in favor of something known as real leadership. Perhaps they could watch a few You Tube videos of Ronald Reagan as a refresher course on how it’s done.
Popularity: -0% [?]
What an odd article. You discuss this issue as if people who are pro-choice are stupid, and that is why they are pro-choice…yet the language you use shows that you don’t understand. How odd.
First of all, the Supreme Court didn’t “enact legislation”… the judiciary does not make law. The role of the judicial branch is to interpret the law, and they interpreted the federal Constitution. The Constitution, may I remind you, beings as “We the People.” Therefore, interpreting the Constitution by the “unelected” branch of government is ensuring that the core rights and liberties guaranteed within that document are protected as the supreme word of the people. THAT is what the Constitution is: the word of the people. So the argument that it was “activist” of the Supreme Court justices to interpret the Constitution this way is odd. Do you believe that you have a right to marry? Because these “activist” justices determined that. Do you think you have a right to parent your children? Or was that activist as well? Should you have the right, as an individual adult, to obtain condoms from a store? The right to refuse medical treatment? These “activist” judges gave you these rights.
While you are “assuring” women that Republican presidents don’t have the authority to overturn Roe v Wade, you are making yourself look just as idiotic as you are claiming these women are. Of course the president doesn’t have this immediate authority, sheesh. But this president will have the ability to seriously affect the composition of the Court. Look at how old many of them are! Stevens is almost 90 years old! THIS is how the President has a HUGE affect on the Court, and thus on Roe. Get a few more Scalia-like justices, and women are screwed.
Yuck. This blog post reeks of idiocracy.
Hi there:
Idiocracy?
I think you mean idiocy. Idiocracy is what people the persons in Washington, the Supreme Court included, have turned this country into.
Ms. DiGiovanni’s point was that the Supreme Court “legislated from the bench.” Get the play on words? Are is that too “idiocratic” for you?
Simple, her whole point was, “Why in the world is an entire party looking as if it is siding Jihadist terrorists yet seem as if they do not give a rat’s ass about the unborn lives women carry?”"
We get it that women have a right and say about how they carry their lives and their bodies, but it would be real nice if the persons on the pro-choice side acted as if they remembered, that for nine months they are sharing the body with another occupant. This occupant may be the one who one day cures cancer, colonizes Mars or runs for Congress to make this nation less “idiocratic” for “idiocrats” like you to live in.
Yuck. You response reeks of idiocy.
An odd article? Only if one believes the purpose of the Supreme Court is to enact legislation. The last time I checked the US Constitution, it was not. And yet, not one American ever had the opportunity to vote on whether or not abortion should be legalized; nor did any citizen of this federalist nation ever have a say in related issues such as parental consent for minors.
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion based on a decision made by a few unelected members of the Judiaciary Branch, which is why it is bad law according to the United States Constitution and our Founding Fathers. That is one of my points here.
Whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood’s continual cover-ups of the rapes of minors should enrage all Americans, especially womens’ rights advocates. And this is an organization that receives 33% of taxpayer funding! Anyone who truly cares about women should be highly disturbed by that. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist who wanted to eliminate races she believed were inferior, including blacks (who are still under the false belief that the Democrat Party cares about them). Hillary Clinton recently praised Sanger…see the hypocrisy? And if you don’t believe me, I did include links to my sources; you might want to check them out.
Another point: why should taxpayers fund abortion, even if it is legal?
Bottom line: the GOP should be educating voters on this issue for a variety of reasons. And all of us who believe in the sanctity of life should be proud of our convictions, including candidates for office.
By the way, I never called anyone stupid, and in fact, referenced my pro-choice friends (all intelligent women). Even they believe there should be restrictions on abortion, thus supporting my premise that most Americans favor limitations on the procedure, including parental consent for minors.
Not sure when standing up for the rights of the people became an exercise in “idiocracy” as you call it, but of that’s the case, your real problem lies with the US Constitution.
the average IQ is 100
by default half the people are stupid
and they vote
we are doomed
on a serious note abortion should be a states right issue…we have lost touch with out federalist roots, to our imminent destruction….
“Idiocracy” was a movie. It seemed rather fitting for this post. Check it out.
Thanks for NOT reading my comment. All of your responses are rebutted there. Maybe if I repost it you will read it:
The role of the judicial branch is to interpret the law, and they interpreted the federal Constitution. The Constitution, may I remind you, begins as “We the People.” Therefore, interpreting the Constitution by the “unelected” branch of government is ensuring that the core rights and liberties guaranteed within that document are protected as the supreme word of the people. THAT is what the Constitution is: the word of the people. So the argument that it was “activist” of the Supreme Court justices to interpret the Constitution this way is odd. Do you believe that you have a right to marry? Because these “activist” justices determined that. Do you think you have a right to parent your children? Or was that activist as well? Should you have the right, as an individual adult, to obtain condoms from a store? The right to refuse medical treatment? These “activist” judges gave you these rights.
The “play on words” did NOT come across because she didn’t MAKE a play on words. She said they “enacted legislation.” No…no they did not. If she said legislated from the bench like you did, sure. But she didn’t.
I suggest you guys study Constitutional law before spouting off about the Constitution. And maybe reading up on the history of our country, including the history of the creation of the Constitution. It is very informative, and it might help you understand.
What kills me is that people will discuss these “activist” judges with COMPLETE disregard to the fact that this type of “activism” has being going on since the creation of the Supreme Court. Look at McCulloch v Maryland…the Supreme Court plucked a Congressional power outta their asses and said it is within the power of Congress to establish a national bank. Nowhere in the first amendment does it say what speech should be protected and what shouldn’t; in fact, the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Yet this “activist” Court has created exceptions to that rule, obviously not within the wording of the first amendment. Obscene speech is completely unprotected; do you know how the Court determines if something is obscene? They look at it. If it appears obscene, it is unprotected. If not, it is protected. And this is how it is done! But who cares, right? All you guys care about is the hot-topic issues that piss you off, completely ignoring the fact that THIS IS JUST HOW IT IS.
Constitutional law is complex. To understand it fully, you have to study it. You can’t just pluck out what someone else has told you and argue it to be true. Doesn’t work.
IDIOCRACY.
Hello again:
Why yes, we are commenting on something we know nothing about. Typical liberal response hide behind “You should study the constitution…”
We have.
And our biggest gripe and complaint is that the Supreme Court does not uphold the laws, it creates the laws, which was not intended by the Constitution, hence our annoyance.
The Supreme Court is the same court that said segregation was fine and it upheld slavery.
And as we have said…the Supreme Court ends up creating laws (ie. Roe vs. Wade)
Holy crap, it never ceases to amaze me how many times I have to repeat myself.
The Judicial branch interprets the laws. That is its role. It is given the task to interpret the Constitution. And guess what? It is a document created in 1787, and has through the centuries been interpreted in many, many different ways. In 1905, it was interpreted to mean that you have a fundamental right to contract your labor, meaning any law regulating your ability to work (minimum wage laws, the number of hours a week you could work, regulations on dangerous working conditions, etc) were unconstitutional. And then in 1937, they decided that the right to contract was no longer a fundamental right under the Constitution.
This is the way it is, this is the way it has been since the creation of the Supreme Court. You only care about it in regard to Roe v Wade. This same court, AS I ALREADY SAID, that protects your right as a parent to raise your child, protects your right under the Constitution to marry, your right to procreate, your right to refuse medical treatment, your right to KEEP the government from infringing upon these rights that the Court determines is within your right to liberty. I don’t hear you complaining about THOSE rights, those rights protected for you by the Court and can be found nowhere within the text of the Constitution.
And the Supreme Court held that segregation and slavery was constitutional, yes. The “Founding Fathers” as everyone is so enamored with, stated that black people were three-fifths of a person in that blessed document. Many of them owned slaves. Upholding segregation and slavery based upon the intentions of the “Founding Fathers” gave us Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson. Which everyone today agrees with as being so horribly wrong.
Call it what you want. Call it creating laws. But be %*&#! consistent! Why aren’t you protesting EVERYTHING else? I’ll tell you why: because you want these “activist” judges to be activist for you. It’s the same discussion with the Free Exercise clause: you want prayer in public schools, but only if it is Christian prayer. If government was telling your kids to pray to Allah in school, you sure as heck wouldn’t be ok with that. It is all hypocrisy, it is picking and choosing what you want to argue about and ignoring everything else that falls within the definition of what you hate. This is what I meant about “studying the Constitution.” I mean, figure out what you are even saying makes sense or not. Because it doesn’t, not unless you agree that the state should be able to tell you how to raise your kids, what medical treatment you should have, what type of movies you should watch, if you can buy condoms or not, and exactly what types of people you can marry.
Excellent article, Daria. Unbelievable that Sanger referred to these babies as “things.” And, further to your point, I actually like to hear a candidate talk about his/her faith. It’s part of that person’s character, part of what makes them WHO they are. I agree with you that the faith part of a candidate should not be subdued.
I still don’t understand the overwhelming Jewish vote which you reference. The Jews were the first to receive the Ten Commandments, which includes the one about not murdering. I don’t understand how they reconcile that with their support with pro-abortion candidates.