« Lavigne defrocked | Main | Roe v. Wade »
January 21, 2004
So...
Did you like what President Bush said about the protection of unborn life in the State of the Union address, given the week of the March for Life? Did you like it?
Oh, that's right. He He didn't mention it, not even the partial-birth abortion ban
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83455ce9769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So...:
» Is there anyone to vote for? from DeoOmnisGloria.com
I’ve made a decent attempt to keep up with the current presidential race and I must say I am very, very disappointed. Is there anyone who actually deserves our vote? I’m not sure there is. First we have a legion... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 21, 2004 10:54:53 AM
» Getting something off my chest... from LilacRose
I've been noticing lately that some pro-lifers are complaining that President Bush isn't doing and saying enough on the abortion... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 23, 2004 11:28:50 AM
Comments
I think it's a tactical move, facilitated by the fact the Democrats are now so rabidly pro-abortion that the Republicans feel they need not stress their opposition. It's our job to make sure they know that's a mistake. But in the meantime, I prefer a Prez who actually does something on this front every now and then, as opposed to one like Reagan who spoke grandiloquently to it every January and then forgot all about it. Even so, it will be interesting to see what he does about the March.
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Jan 21, 2004 9:14:55 AM
I did like that last week he declared last Sunday to be National Sanctity of Human Life Day. You can find the announcement on the White House web site. I've noticed zero media coverage of it.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jan 21, 2004 9:43:21 AM
Amy,
Guess Karl Rove's focus groups are still stressing the need to be pro-life by stealth. This Machiavellian approach leaves the public wondering why Bush lacks the courage to annunciate the the principles behind his laudable policies and judicial nominees.
Come November, Bush may wonder why John Edwards is the President- Elect.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin at Jan 21, 2004 9:44:34 AM
The truth of the matter is that there is no American majority in favor of outlawing abortion. I wish it weren't so, but as long as that is the case we are dreaming to think any president is going spend political capital on it. They know we are not going to vote for Democrats so they can take us for granted.
Now, if the US had a parliamentary-style government a small dedicated bloc of pro-lifers in congress could get something done by providing their votes to someone who was willing to get something done in exchange. But the "big-tent" system of American politics excludes all the "narrow" interests in favor of the broad lets-all-get-along middle.
Posted by: WRY at Jan 21, 2004 10:26:45 AM
Still, though, the president could decide to be a leader on the issue. I doubt that it would hurt, and I suspect it would help.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jan 21, 2004 11:16:36 AM
Peace, all.
I wouldn't mind seeing the president more vocal on the issue. It would split the Republican Party and reveal true colors. I think WRY is correct to note the overall sensibility of Americans today: most would reject criminalization and most would favor more late term restrictions.
At least with a seamless garment approach, there was hope of lassoing more progressives into sympathy if not direct support. Lacking that and any other productive ideas from the prolife crowd, I think the Republicans are happy for the current cowboy approach to anti-abortionism. It nets them support for a system that does little to discourage the cash cow of abortion for the medical industry. And sadly, Bishops Burke and Hughes play right into Conservative Big Money interests who have no interest in changing the status quo. Can anybody spell "sucker?"
Posted by: Todd at Jan 21, 2004 11:56:30 AM
The republican party is a pro-life party with a very large and wealthy pro-abortion wing. The democrat party is a pro-abortion party with an almost non-existent pro-life wing. Unfortunatly, this represents the sentiment of the voters. I wish the democrats could mount a serious pro-life wing that would allow this "most essential of all issues" to become more viable politically but there seems to be no visible support for such a wing.
Posted by: SteveM at Jan 21, 2004 12:22:06 PM
The republican party is a pro-life party with a very large and wealthy pro-abortion wing. The democrat party is a pro-abortion party with an almost non-existent pro-life wing. Unfortunatly, this represents the sentiment of the voters. I wish the democrats could mount a serious pro-life wing that would allow this "most essential of all issues" to become more viable politically but there seems to be no visible support for such a wing.
Posted by: SteveM at Jan 21, 2004 12:22:19 PM
Please, God, send us more "suckers" like Bishops Hughes and Burke!
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Jan 21, 2004 1:25:06 PM
Todd,
the problem with the seamless garment approach is that it encourages Catholics to fudge on what is the most important issue. I am all for feeding the hungry, etc, but ya don't need food if you're dead, so that's where it has to start. Too long have Catholics been able to convince themselves that abortion is only one issue of many and that since they support saving the rain forest, they can somehow ignore saving the babies. That needs to stop.
Posted by: Stacey at Jan 21, 2004 2:32:17 PM
At least on the abortion issue the Democrats are honest about their intentions. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have given elegant lip service to an issue for which they were willing to do very little. They know that conservatives have nowhere else to go on this issue.
Posted by: Jim at Jan 21, 2004 6:38:36 PM
Jim,
isn't that the truth. How sad.
Posted by: Stacey at Jan 21, 2004 7:24:27 PM
The partial birth abortion ban was much more than elegant lip service. With a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President this is just the beginning of the pro-life legislation than can be passed. Elements of the Republican party are not pro-life just as elements of in the 1850s were not abolitionist. However the abolitionists used the Republican party as a vehicle to implement a moral revolution. The same thing can and will happen today if pro-lifers continue to have the stomach for this protracted struggle.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jan 21, 2004 10:08:19 PM
People should go to the Free Republic web site and they will see a growing split in the GOP, and among conservatives themselves. People who are first and foremost social conservatives are growing quite unhappy with Bush and the GOP on this and a host of other issues, and I forget who made this comment, but social conservatives have become the blacks of the GOP, in that like blacks voting for Democrats and having no where else to go so to speak, social conservatives have no where else to go, but stay home. I myself am probably going to stay home in Nov because I am disgusted at the lack of options.
Posted by: John B at Jan 22, 2004 4:34:10 PM
Staying home is not an option. Writng in a candidate is (Keyes looks good to me, although I think I would prefer him as Supreme Court Justice Keyes).
On the other hand, Bush tends to speak quietly, but actually do things (PBA ban, Pickering). Being an election year, I don't blame him for flying under the radar on abortion until after November. In his last term with nothing to lose, he could leave a real legacy (or at least attempt to). If not, GOP in 2008 is over.
What we really need for true Pro-Life change is for Daschle, et al to lose their senate seats, and get some pro-lifers on the judiciary committee, and O'Connor to retire.
Posted by: c matt at Jan 22, 2004 5:30:45 PM
Perhaps Bush/Rove felt that the call for a constititional amendment against gay marriage was enough social conservatism for the Dem Party to hear. I'm a little undecided about the PBA bill's efficacy though. I was of the understanding that suits went into Federal court the day after it was passed against its constitutionality, effectively shelving the law. Am I wrong here?
I really wouldn't mind seeing a pro-life Democratic Party. Maybe JohnB is right, pro-life republicans are in the same boat as black Dems.
Posted by: Donald at Jan 22, 2004 7:22:49 PM
Don't blame Bush. He's a politician. Blame those damn awful bishops, and priests who have warmed their cans over infanticide. Where the h--l have they been for 31 years? If abortion is murder of the unborn, then the Church bears full responsibility from the Pope on down to that goofy priest who hears "confessions" ten minutes a week. I am really tired of speeches and statements when action is required. God only knows, the Church that preaches doesn't act. Why are Kennedy and Kerry, et al, still Catholic?
Let Bush off the hook! Put up quite a few Catholic bishops instead!
Posted by: John Hetman at Jan 22, 2004 10:14:37 PM
Don't blame Bush. He's a politician. Blame those damn awful bishops, and priests who have warmed their cans over infanticide. Where the h--l have they been for 31 years? If abortion is murder of the unborn, then the Church bears full responsibility from the Pope on down to that goofy priest who hears "confessions" ten minutes a week. I am really tired of speeches and statements when action is required. God only knows, the Church that preaches doesn't act. Why are Kennedy and Kerry, et al, still Catholic?
Let Bush off the hook! Put up quite a few Catholic bishops instead!
Posted by: John Hetman at Jan 22, 2004 10:15:18 PM
Um, where did Bush propose a constitutional ban on gay marriage? What he actually said was much closer to, "Gee, it's too bad that activist judges have taken it upon themselves to circumvent the will of the people. maybe, at some future date, we might want to visit the constitutional process. mind you, I won't propose anything."
Posted by: Tom Harmon at Jan 22, 2004 10:39:41 PM
