On a Democrat mailing list I'm on, an activist in Pennsylvania is concerned because fellow Democrats don't like Senatorial candidate Bob Casey's pro-life views. Even though he's running against Rick Santorum, is "better" on every other issue (according to the e-mailer; I don't know enough to have an opinion), and even has a more moderate anti-abortion position than Santorum. PA Democratic voters are anti-abortion and turn away from pro-abortion candidates, but the activists turn away from anti-abortion Democratic candidates, even if anti-abortion Republicans benefit.
I'm not replying to that list because my advice wouldn't be helpful; it would just be for the activists to grow up and support Casey. I'd give that same advice to any activists of any party just as stubborn on this or any other issue.
But how do you balance the issues and develop a "compromise" position? Same as always, embrace federalism, allowing states to make their own laws.
Here would be my position, regardless of party, if I ran for the U.S. Senate:
1. Affirm that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided;
2. Support legislation that would limit federal court jurisdiction in matters the Constitution defers to the states, of which abortion is one;
3. Support or deny judicial candidates on "merit" first, but lean toward those with some sort of "originalist" judicial philosophy.
4. Oppose any Constitutional amendment that would ban abortion.
5. Oppose any Constitutional amendment to correct any Supreme Court decision or restrain its power, when regular legislation would do.
6. Oppose all federal funding of abortion or any birth control, whether at home or abroad.
7. Oppose all federal funding of stem cell research.
These are positions that pro-lifers and consistent, thoughtful pro-choicers can embrace. It doesn't answer the basic question of whether there should be laws against abortion, only that there shouldn't be federal laws that either encourage or prohibit it.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
President Carter (against abortion with exceptions) was on Larry King the other night bemoaning the "pro-abortion" position of Dem party activists. He said it was one of two reasons that Kerry lost.
ReplyDelete[cut]
Howard Dean was on Hardball and seemed to be moderating his position somewhat. Refused to say pro-choice or pro-abortion; made it an issue of the government in the bedroom. (The Dems, it seems, are against intrusive government...)
Anyone who watched the last election closely knew the Dems had to modify the party line. They turned abortion into a civil sacrament that was "celebrated". They'd do well to go back to the Clinton line of "safe, legal, and rare"
Relative to the above, Clinton controlled the activists; Kerry allowed the activists to control him. (With the obvious exception of Iraq and his performance in that regard came agross as disingenuous)
Ok, I'll shut up now