patrick.net

If the goal of the Christian Coalition (and company) is to ensure that their endorsees have a perfect “scorecard” and that their influence continues to broaden, then they have succeeded indeed. If their goal is to curb abortion, they have failed miserably. When one of our leaders promises something real (not a token nod to some social issue), for instance new business to the community of his constituents, then that leader must bring in that new factory, military base, etc., by horse trading with other legislators, making phone calls, and working hard to get the tangible result his voters want. Yet, nowadays, a “Pro-Life” candidate need only clock in his vote and call it a day. There is no motivation to “horse trade” (strike deals with other legislators for votes his way), because the outcome of the vote is politically irrelevant to him, so long as his “scorecard” is marked correctly. Thus there is no real relationship to the pro-life/choice stance of the candidate and the ultimate legality of abortion. The fate of our unborn brethren is further distanced from the voters by considering whether successful pro-life legislation would even make a difference. For instance, the abortion rate actually declined significantly during Clinton’s administration, despite his pro-choice activism. I could be wrong, but my theory for this is that the extra media attention and ensuing discussion got women thinking more about the life of the fetus, leading them to realize that abortion is in fact wrong after all. Information, it would seem, not legislation, is the best weapon against abortion. In this way Bill Clinton was actually an unwitting ally for the unborn. Other international stats have shown a negative correlation with abortion rights and number abortions.

My point is that the GOP has indeed been hijacked by the Pro-life camp, but it is not for anyone’s good, least of all our unborn.

pianist says

My point is that the GOP has indeed been hijacked by the Pro-life camp, but it is not for anyone’s good, least of all our unborn.

Imagine : Zero abortions, a concept unwilling by the left. To speak of it is to be called a radical right winger.

"There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

"the important role that parents can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. … Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this—and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do."

--- Hilary Clinton (2005)

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/01/safe_legal_and_never.html

I think you confuse "pro-choice" with "abortion loving". Nobody likes abortion, not even the women who have them. They would prefer to not be needing one.

The 90s Democrats ran on a platform of, "safe, legal and rare", a tacit acknowledgement that it is too often used as a form of contraception.

A woman has the freedom to bring a baby to term, even if it harms her (and may kill the mother). What she also needs is the freedom to decide that, given all the information, that terminating the pregnancy is in her best interest. That's pro-CHOICE.

Regardless, the point is to underscore what I've said elsewhere. The Democratic party is the GOP of yesteryear in many ways, and verse-vice-a. Lincoln, TR, et al would be Democrats today. Based on this, the pre-Nixon Republicans are Democrats, and the Southern Conservatives have taken over the GOP.