Why do Repubs want to make the abortion the main issue?

[LZ1234]

My friends give GWB an automatic pass on everything because of his stand with pro-life. That's all that matters to them. They seem to want to forget about valuing the life of those who are already here. Today I even heard Dr. Laura Schlesinger on her radio show put down Democrats based on that issue urging those listening to vote Repub. What happened to separation of church and state? You can still have a great president who believes in pro-choice and personally hold on to those pro-life values. I personally am not for abortion but I don't think we need the government to decide that for us. Does anyone know if there have been less abortions because of Bush being in office (I know there's no more funding) or if it's illegal? But it seems to me if a women is determined enough, she will find a way.

[JasonDeter]

1. Its become distasteful. I don't think it'll be an issue this election.

I remind people that this country has a republican congress, senate, pResident and Supreme Ct. If they wanted to outlaw abortion they could. California is an example of the hypocricy of the republican party.

[forgethell]

8. I think that it will be

a big issue. But it may be underground. I've noticed that whenever people tend to have one conservative idea (or liberal) they tend to have a lot of them. There are many exceptions, of course, but I would bet that 80% of those that support the anti-choice side also support lower taxes, death penalty, Iraq war, anti-welfare, and Bush*. Which is not to say that you can't support one or more of those positions and still be against *.

[Oilwellian]

9. You make a very good point

I say the same thing when a wing nut claims conservatives are anti-abortion. I ask them why they haven't outlawed it yet, given they now have the complete and total power to do so.

I also tell them Poppy Bush can be considered the "father of abortion" in this country and suggest they research his zeal for "population control" during his days as a congressman. He was almost obsessed with creating population control programs that lead to the USSC's decision to legalize abortion.

[JasonDeter]

18. Thanks for the info on the 'father of stupid'

I'll have to check into it, I'd love to use that against some silly local republicans.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. abortion = WMDistration ....weapon of mass distraction!!! from the real

issue ...LIES for war...economy...deficit...immagration...no child left behind....and lack of HEALTH INSURANCE coverage for 48 MILLION Americans!

[MsUnderstood]

3. Abortion and Gay Rights issues of emotions

Unfortunately, these issues of emotions seem to work against democrats. These issues are put in the frame of religion (which is why Bush tries to frame the war for oil as a holy crusade) and for many religion is the guiding light in these secular times.

Abortion needs to be framed as pro CHOICE--we are giving the woman a right to choose how to live her life.

Gay rights need to be framed as a civil rights issue--allowing all humans to experience the same rights as each other.

At the same time, many republicans are hard assed about wanting gun rights. Okay, you can't kill a human before it is born but go ahead and shoot one after the birth? So bizzarre. . .but I digress.

Unfortunately, many religions do not take the approach of less judgement more understanding.


Does Dr. Laura still have a show? That is sad!!

[LeahMira]

30. What's wrong with emotions?

These issues are put in the frame of religion (which is why Bush tries to frame the war for oil as a holy crusade) and for many religion is the guiding light in these secular times.

Yes, and while we legally separate church and state, there is no reason why (IMO) people of faith should not argue for social programs from a religious framework. There is certainly a strong religious tradition there for taking care of the least among us. I've said before that I think Democrats are missing the boat by not including the religious point of view as one among their many arguments for social and economic justice.

At the same time, many republicans are hard assed about wanting gun rights. Okay, you can't kill a human before it is born but go ahead and shoot one after the birth? So bizzarre. . .but I digress.

I don't know that you digress at all. I wonder why, if they know that murder is wrong, they aren't willing to outlaw guns and so make it impossible to commit murder with a gun in the same way that they want to jail abortion doctors and make it impossible to get an abortion from a doctor. Their claim that murder will continue even without guns around is pretty silly when you consider that abortions will continue even when there are no doctors around to perform them.

[arcane1]

4. because abortion is divisive and emotional

your single-issue friends are the one-and-only reason that issues like abortion become the basis of an election

we can expect "gay marriage" to also be on the list this year. Whatever they can come up with to divide us...

[mhr]

5. Distraction From War, No WMDS, Jobless Recovery, Record Deficits!

Need one say more!

[Imalittleteapot]

6. Their main issue will be "Gay Marriage"

They're already setting it up...as mentioned in the SOTU.

[bleedingheart]

7. They try to keep people arguing about nonsense that no one

will ever agree about to keep the masses from asking why their overtime pay isn't there anymore..

[baldguy]

10. Bush is not "pro-life".

How many people did he execute in Texas? 50? 60?

How many innocent Iraqis have been killed by his illegal invasion 20,000? 30,000?

Pro-lifers don't commit genocide.

[truizm]

11. Abortions have actually increased under "The Prince" too

In a world of suffering -- where lives are prematurely ended every day -- it is VERY EASY to speak for the oxymoron of the "unborn child." They don't have to do anything to advocate for this being, who is really a creature of their imagination. This is why Republican's are "pro-life."

Imagine if they really committed themselves to ending suffering of a class of human beings breathing on their own.

[Az]

12. Natural campaign echo chambers

Churches function as natural indoctrination centers. Pick and issue they strongly support and you will have multiplied your efforts. When Ralph Reed determined that the Christian Coalition was garnering too much anymosity from the left he went underground. This did not mean he shut down. The CC went stealth. He took a contract with Enron as a consultant and basically sold them the voting power of the CC to support Bush/Cheney's energy policy.

In order to keep this kind of power on tap you need to keep the initiation point active. This is the church. Lose the support of the fundimentalist churches and they lose all those echo chambers.

[loudsue]

13. "Churches function as natural indoctrination centers"....great quote.

And so true, Az. Churches, at least the ones I know of in the South, are now pushing the completely UNbiblical idea that Christians are only supposed to hang out with other Christians. Too bad their brand of 'Jesus' didn't have that option. "You're either with us, or you're against us" had its birth in this culture.

Abortion is NOTHING MORE than an emotion ISSUE, used to pit people against one another. Back in the early Reagan era, the wingnuts put out this video showing fetuses responding to different types of stimuli, (which, of course, ANY plant or animal..amoebas... will respond to) with a background of music designed to tear your heart out. Then they showed these lovely little helpless fetuses being sucked out by abortion with incredibly gorey drama (and music, and narrative). The video had all these "experts" reporting horrible fates for these fetuses who were portrayed as having all their faculties and consciousness...."love"... "loveableness".

That, along with this video being shown in Sunday Schools and churches across the country....the war began in ernest to take control of women's bodies away from them....to even control people's BODIES.

It's been a war the "righteous right" calls pro-life. It's not. It's ANTI-CHOICE. It's a choice between a woman, her doctor, and her Maker....if she CHOOSES to believe in one. Of course, that's their sub-agenda....to make sure nobody can CHOOSE NOT to believe.

Repukes have divided the country with this one issue, and it's worked beautifully. Control the masses....that's all that matters.

:kick:

[Silverhair]

14. The don't. National Security is the main issue.

Abortion is merely a wedge issue.

[SoCalDem]

15. Because they CAN... and DO every couple of years (election cycles)

They also drag out Gay issues, vouchers,school prayer,gun control..

These are their Pavlovian issues for their base.. It's red meat to fire up the junkyard dogs..

They would never "solve" these issues, even if they could..they need them to win elections in the "ignorance belt"..

[roguevalley]

16. Politics. There are people who will vote for whomever is anti abortion.

it doesn't matter if the candidate is worse than the other.
That is their only issue.

[EV1Ltimm]

17. there's only 3 platforms for them to run on...

Abortions, Gay Marriage and Prayer in school.

We've pretty much determined that they're horrible with money, have no regard for civil rights, their foreign policy is non-existent and they are just as perverted as the rest of us (thurmond, hyde)... but SWEET JESUS they can work that religion angle.

You put the abortion issue at the forefront of your campaign and people will focus on that instead of the shit that matters. If people think that you put jesus first, that's 90% of any given population that'll potentially vote for you.

[durutti]

19. Because it's divisive.

Most people would never support right-wingers if they were voting only in their best economic interest. So to get elected, conservatives have to divide people with racism, sexism and heterosexism, religion, abortion, drugs, euthanasia, and gun control.

[Jane Roe]

20. Part of the problem, I think --

is all or nothing thinking about abortion law on the part of Democratic politicians. More particularly, I think that many Democrats give the impression that they think all abortions should be legal, at all stages of pregnancy, for any reason. Also, there seems to be a feeling that abortion should have less informed consent types of regulations than other surgeries. To me, and perhaps to some swing voters, this seems an extreme position that does not give *any* weight whatsoever to rights and interests of late term, viable fetuses.

Roe versus Wade specifies that states are supposed to balance the rights of viable fetuses against the rights of pregnant women, and decide under what circumstances abortion should be allowed or prohibited. Supposedly, Candidate Kerry has expressed support for Roe v Wade, so perhaps he will take this balancing more seriously than will the others.

Suggestion for Kerry (or any of the other candidates): draft a wise and just "health and life exception" to fix the unconstitutional late term abortion act and then reintroduce that as a bill into Congress. Then, sit back and watch those swing votes pile in!

[snippy]

23. They already tried the "health and life exception" when the ban on

late term abortions was passed. If a new bill is introduced, republicans will never allow it to come to the floor. Not only did the republicans defeat the "health and life exception", they also insisted on including language and provisions already declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The provisions which are unconstitutional have been enough for the Supreme Court to strike down entire laws nearly identical to the one passed by Congress. This seems conclusive to me that republicans would much rather have abortion remain legal so that they can use it as a wedge issue. This is also how the republican party keeps the pro choice republicans in the party. If the republican party was serious about outlawing abortion they would do something about it.

[Jane Roe]

25. You're right --

now it is time for all the candidates to make swing voters understand this problem. I think one way to do this is by strongly advocating a constitutional late term abortion ban *by Democrats.*

[snippy]

28. I don't agree with that idea.

I would prefer a constitutional amendment prohibiting legislative bodies from practicing medicine.

[Jane Roe]

31. There might unintended consequences with your proposal

(Correct me if I am wrong on the facts, but:) I think that during the 1990s, Democrats advocated and managed to pass a mortatorium on silicone breast implant.

Question: Would this law have been constitutional under your proposed amendment?

[snippy]

34. There was no law passed. It was the FDA, not a legislative body, that

adopted the ban. This is a good example of why legislative bodies have no business practicing medicine. The FDA bases its decisions on sound science and the judgment of professionals with expertise on the subject under consideration, not on political lies and exploitation.

[Jane Roe]

36. The FDA after your amendent passes

The proposal I have suggested on this thread could be implemented by the FDA.

You just seem to think that the FDA would never, ever do something like that. I disagree strongly because: (1) I think under your amendment the FDA would become politicized to fill the power vacuum; and (2) Congress is more accountable to the people than the FDA is.

[put out]

24. So, the state can balance rights of fetuses against my life?

I respectfully disagree. I decide what is essential to my life and to my health. A candidate for political office is not allowed to decide it for me. You are not allowed to decide it for me, and I would never presume to make the decisions for you.

[Jane Roe]

26. Are you disagreeing with me or with Roe v Wade? nt

[put out]

27. I disagree with Roe v Wade on this point.

I suppose, then, if you are advocating the rights of fetuses over the rights of women carrying them, I disagree with you also. I'm sure your sentiments are heartfelt. Someone else's sentiments are just fine, as long as they are applied to someone else. I shall decide for myself.

[Jane Roe]

29. Just as long as you are clear that you want R v W expanded

I am not sure that this potential plank in the platform would be a big vote-getter, though.

[Jane Roe]

32. Further thoughts

Since this thread is mostly about how to take back the White House and Congress from the Republicans, it might be helpful to think about what your disagreement with my proposal means from a strategic point of view.

If the Democratic candidates did adopt my proposal on this thread, then chances are you personally will still vote straight ticket Democratic. I say this because you are on a progressive message board. Democrats don't need to worry about votes of people who feel like you do -- they earn your vote on other grounds (eg, war, deficits, health care, economy, workplace fairness, military spending, criminal justice, etc, etc, etc).

What my proposal is intended to do is to make people vote Democratic who otherwise would go for the Republican. I think my proposal would do this, and do this without changing the law of Roe v Wade. That is why I think my proposal is good strategy.

[LeahMira]

33. Not so!

If the Democratic candidates did adopt my proposal on this thread, then chances are you personally will still vote straight ticket Democratic.

Any Democrat who comes out in favor of limiting a woman's rights or denying equal rights to gays and lesbians (and transgendered and bisexuals and etc.) has lost my vote. Some candidates are willing to accept small gains over time, which I think is counter-productive in the long run, but I would consider that view acceptable, if not perfect. But any candidate who is interested in negating the human and civil rights of any part of the population is not of interest to me. I would stay home rather than vote for such a person... but while at home I wouldn't be sitting quietly in a rocking chair.

[Jane Roe]

37. Single issue voting

Although single issue voting is a policy I don't personally follow at the present time, I respect this philosophy and I won't try to talk you out of it.

Interesting post!

[LeahMira]

38. Funny thing...

Part of the problem, I think --
is all or nothing thinking about abortion law on the part of Democratic politicians.

Funny thing about rights... you either have them or you don't have them.

More particularly, I think that many Democrats give the impression that they think all abortions should be legal, at all stages of pregnancy, for any reason.

That is what a woman's right to choose is all about.

Also, there seems to be a feeling that abortion should have less informed consent types of regulations than other surgeries.

Every procedure that a doctor performs requires a patient to sign a consent form. The consent form includes a list of potential risks. Most, if not all states require that the consent form be in the first language of the patient, and that if the patient cannot read someone will read the form to the patient. A health care professional gives the patient the form to sign. That's usually a nurse. If a patient has questions, they need to ask at that time if they haven't asked already.

Some people would like to see women frightened of getting abortions, and for that reason they bring up all sorts of alleged connections between, for instance, breast cancer and abortion. However, health care professionals know that no such connection exists and they aren't going to bring up a lot of rumors and wives tales and deflate them all one by one. They are going to present the proven facts for the patient's consideration because they are professionals.

To me, and perhaps to some swing voters, this seems an extreme position that does not give *any* weight whatsoever to rights and interests of late term, viable fetuses.

Well, to me and perhaps to some other voters the late term, viable fetus has no rights whatsoever.

What you seem to be asking is that Democrats compromise on principle for the sake of winning an election. I imagine that a Democrat could get elected if s/he were willing to stand strong against employment discrimination against homosexuals but didn't take the absolutist position that homosexuals have the same rights as all other citizens, including the right to marry. I imagine that a Democrat could win over the South if s/he were willing to stand strong against depriving African Americans of the right to vote but didn't take the absolutist position that African-Americans have the same rights as all other citizens, including the right to attend the same schools that all other citizens can attend.

My feeling is that no election is so important that principle can be compromised or tossed aside for the sake of "expediency."

[Jane Roe]

39. Another DUer who wants R v W expanded

Maybe "Expand Roe v Wade" should be a slogan.

I didn't realize how many loyal Democrats disagreed with this case!

On edit:

The original post in this thread asked why Repubs want to make abortion into a big issue?

Maybe we have our answer now -- because Democrats secretly want Roe v Wade expanded and the Repubs think that: (1) this would not be a popular policy; and (2) therefore they better flush out the true Democratic opinion on Roe v Wade for all to see.

[noonwitch]

21. They are misreading polls and thinking that most americans are anti choice

there have been some recent polls that show a slight majority of americans are "pro life". This is all in the wording of the poll question. If you then ask if abortion should be illegal, you will get a number that indicates more americans are pro choice.
I think most people think that abortion is wrong in some circumstances and not in others. The right thinks that they can read this as total support for their agenda.
The problem is with laws. It would be virtually impossible to write a law that only allows abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother's life is threatened. Who decides what is rape? Or what is a life-threatening pregnancy? How can you word a law like that without it being a complete mess? It's an all or nothing thing, unfortunately.

[K-W]

22. Abortion, racism, gay marriage, patriotism, etc

Are all issues that people have strong emotional reactions to. Republicans use these to get people to support them, even though the Republicans are not working in the best interests of a wide majority of the population.

[Hubert Flottz]

35. Here's how the Bushcos really think on "right to life"!

Print the whole story out and show it to the Repubs who claim the Bush KKKlan really supports "RIGHT TO LIFE"! As you read the story of the family Bush you will see how deep seated and black hearted racism is a long standing Bush family tradition, that continues until today! Remember also how W always tells us one thing, but generally means the exact opposite! Like his photo op promises of 15 billion dollars to fight aids in Africa!

Bush and Draper

Twenty years before he was U.S. President, George Bush brought two `` race-science '' professors in front of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population. As chairman of the Task Force, then-Congressman Bush invited Professors William Shockley and Arthur Jensen to explain to the committee how allegedly runaway birth-rates for African-Americans were `` down-breeding '' the American population.

Afterwards Bush personally summed up for the Congress the testimony his black-inferiority advocates had given to the Task Force.@s2@s2 George Bush held his hearings on the threat posed by black babies on August 5, 1969, while much of the world was in a better frame of mind--celebrating mankind's progress from the first moon landing 16 days earlier. Bush's obsessive thinking on this subject was guided by his family's friend, Gen. William H. Draper, Jr., the founder and chairman of the Population Crisis Committee, and vice chairman of the Planned Parenthood Federation. Draper had long been steering U.S. public discussion about the so-called `` population bomb '' in the non-white areas of the world.

If Congressman Bush had explained to his colleagues how his family had come to know General Draper, they would perhaps have felt some alarm, or even panic, and paid more healthy attention to Bush's presentation. Unfortunately, the Draper-Bush population doctrine is now official U.S. foreign policy. <snip>

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/03-bush/2003/05C3-08-01-02-war-bush-bio.html

The way it looks to me GHW Bush and friends just believe in the right to life for Anglo babies! Why else would W refuse to REALLY do anything about the rapid depopulation in Africa today, via the Aids disaster going on there? Bush also appointed Mr Farish to a high government position which indicates to me there is a connection like the story above claims!

[earthman dave]

40. Because to anti-abortionists it is more important than ANYTHING else

Doesn't matter how much suffering the govt causes, doesn't even matter if we make the planet uninhabitable for humans, as long as these filthy pregnant harlots pay for their sins.