Memo to GOP: Straight talk needed on abortion
The two Republicans vying for the 23rd district House seat have made a lot of hay over the idea of being pro-life.
Doug Hoffman insists that he’s the “only” pro-life candidate in the race, while Matt Doheny argues that he would receive a “100% pro-life rating” while serving in Congress.
In simple layman’s terms, that means both politicians believe that abortion should be illegal and unavailable as a safe, private option for most women most of the time.
(Doheny believes that adult women should be allowed to choose an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.)
The wrinkle here is that neither is willing to discuss how that change would affect the lives of women or how it should be enforced.
“I have never said that I was going to become a congressman to make abortion illegal,” Hoffman said, during their debate this week.
He argued that the courts, not Congress, should settle the matter of abortion rights.
“I never said in public that I thought it should be made illegal,” he repeated. “I’ve said that I am pro-life. The courts have made that decision. If it gets overruled it’s going to be a court decision for how they do it.”
Doheny sounded a similar note: “In terms of your specifics there, I certainly haven’t addressed any of those issues.”
So before we go on, a couple of facts.
Abortion is an incredibly common medical procedure in the U.S. According to the widely respected Guttmacher Institute, nearly a quarter of all pregnancies in our country are ended by a voluntary abortion.
Each year, doctors perform more than a million abortions. One in every three American women will choose to have an abortion at some point in their lifetime.
Despite all that, the desire to ban and criminalize abortion is a perfectly legitimate position.
Millions of Americans view abortion as something akin to murder, because the unborn fetus or baby dies. Even many people who count themselves as “pro-choice” are troubled by this fact.
So it’s not only reasonable but necessary to have an ongoing debate over the morality and medical ethics of abortion.
What’s not reasonable is to duck the tough and thorny facts that surround the issue.
If the position held by Doheny and Hoffman wins the day, a medical procedure chosen by tens of millions of American women — good, decent and law-abiding people — will become a criminal act.
The doctors performing this medical procedure will also become criminals. So what does that mean? How would the ban be enforced? What should the penalties be?
What would we do about women in our communities who want to go across the border into Canada to have abortions? Would we deny them the right to travel? Would be prosecute them when they return?
For the candidates to claim the “pro-life” label, while also insisting that they want no involvement in the real-world repercussions of their stance, is an unacceptable dodge.
It’s also a dodge to suggest that the courts should sort this mess out.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court — an event which appears more likely than ever before — it’s a near certainty that Congress will consider new Federal laws that dictate the availability of abortion, and set criminal penalties for those who violate the law.
So let’s have it straight. In the pro-life America envisioned by Doug Hoffman and Matt Doheny, what happens to a woman who has an abortion? What happens to her doctor?
Until we have the answers to those questions, we don’t have an honest debate or an honest campaign.
Tags: election10
When I heard the forth and back between you and the two Republican hopefuls I was struck by the insistence that each projected that their “pro life/anti abortion” position was a personal belief only and that the “courts” were the entities empowered to determine the law. Is it possible that two people running for the U.S. House of Representatives do not understand that the courts interpret the laws that the Congress creates?
It was very obvious that neither man had any desire to answer your questions concerning the penalties they considered appropriate for doctors and women who participated in abortions.
It further amazes me that the majority of pro life enthusiasts have no apparent concern for the welfare of the mother and child once the pregnancy is successfully completed. They are predominantly conservative anti welfare, anti union, anti living wage…. preferring to leave it to god to provide for the unfortunate; but insisting that the “Government” provide them with laws that give them the leg up they rightfully deserve.
On the off hand chance that it has escaped the notice of any pro life proponent; spaceship Earth has nearly 7 billion humans rapidly consuming/destroying her natural resources at an exponentially increasing rate.
Hoffman is going to let activist judges settle this arguement. Where is the will of the people?
It’s easy to say you are against abortion, especially if you are a male and don’t expect to ever get pregnant.
Saying you are against abortion makes you sound moral, or so those saying it think.
But trying to get those who would like to see abortion become a crime come out and say what the punishment should be is kind of like trying to get all the fish in the water jump out and start living on land.
They don’t want to say, “Kill the woman who has an abortion and kill those who help her have an abortion.” They don’t want to say, “Give them 5, 10, 20 years or life in prison.” They know they would sound really stupid if they were to say,”Make it a misdemeanor with a $5 fine.”
No. They just want to be seen as people of high moral values – which they are not.
Is “akin to murder” the same as murder?
If these guys support our perennial wars of aggression, the ultimate anti-life position, then they will NOT get a 100% PRO-LIFE rating.
Pete,
Your point about being a man vs woman implies that men have less of a say in moral questions about life or death. To be kind, this is a dopey position. After all, what does one’s plumbing have to do with it? The answer is, nothing.
Ken, it’s obvious you’ve never researched the support services offered by pro-life groups, churches, etc. for needy parents and children. If you had then you wouldn’t trott out this hackneyed comment. Also, you’re political analysis linking the pro-life position to anti-union, etc. demonstrates and equal ignorance of cross-pressures faced by many voters (i.e. Catholics in particular, African Americans, & Hispanics too).
To Brian’s point – both candidates should answer the questions fully and honestly and let the electoral chips fall where they may.
Jack I think you are being naive. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she will have it. Regardless of what the man thinks or says.
Brian says,
“what happens to a woman who has an abortion? What happens to her doctor?”
Well, we do know what happens to the baby.
Jack,
Don’t play cute. I am not talking about life and death. I am talking about an abortion and no, men have no rights when it comes to an abortion. They shouldn’t prevent a woman from having one and they shouldn’t force a woman to have one.
Simply put, I don’t believe a human being exists until it is outside the womb, has a heart beat and is breathing.
Turd – your missing the point as is Pete. Abortion is about life and death otherwise it wouldn’t be so controversial. Is what’s being aborted a tomato? No.
I’ve mentioned nothing about a man having influence over a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy. My point is simple. It’s preposterous to ignore the arguments of men on this issue simply because they cannot conceive/ give birth. Pete, I’m also not talking about “rights”. And while it’s true that men don’t have legal rights in abortion decisions (in the US) this shouldn’t preclude them from expressing their arguments about abortion (con or pro).
Jack,
Nor am I saying you or any man doesn’t have a right to an opinion. And that is the problem here. We are dealing with opinions and opinions have a way of becoming laws.
Just look at the Muslim world where religious opinion becomes legal law. A woman over in Iran is in danger of being stoned to death over a charge of adultery.
I am no more saying women should have abortions or anyone should perform an abortion than I am saying people should commit adultery. I just don’t want to see the law getting involved.
The premise is false.
If RvW is overturned which it should be, the issue will go back to the states as it did prior to the forced legalization of abortion. What happened to doctors who lived in states that outlawed abortion prior to RvW? If you break the law you should face consequences but that will be sorted out by the individual states and what laws they wish to enforce. I don’t think people in NY should worry NY has always embraced abortion and will continue to do so after RvW is overturned as will be its right, just like it did prior to RvW.
The fact is we are going to see a procedure which will no longer be performed in some states and hopefully will reduce the availability of this morally repugnant practice.
Pete it is not an opinion that a human life form is killed, we can objectify it by calling it a fetus or an embryo or we can call it a baby but it does not really matter; it is human life and it is being killed, that is not opinion it is what happens when we do this. At different stages of development the unborn can feel pain, they can move, they have a heart that is beating, they are human.
As a pro-life person, I am against any punishment for women who get abortions–they already got their punishment–knowing that they killed their own babies. I am for the medical license being removed permanently from any doctor, nurse, or other medical professional who performs even 1 abortion.
I am for massive and I mean massive fines against any man or woman who engages in coercion to manipulate a woman into seeking an abortion. Men routinely tell women, if you don’t get that abortion, I will leave you, you will never get a dime from me, I will get you kicked out of your house/job/school/group of friends/family. Parents often do the same thing to their daughters. This is anti-woman, sexist, hateful, and despicable. And if any woman is discriminated against for the sole reason that she got pregnant, then that is sexist discrimination, and all feminists should rise up and get that changed.
Really, it does not screw up your life to be pregnant. You feel uncomfortable, you have to go through this painful process called birth that your own mother had to deal with but there is anesthesia for that. If having a child puts a crimp in your style, there is this little thing called giving the baby up for adoption. You never have to change a diaper, never have to get a babysitter, none of those difficulties, if you find some nice adoptive parents. And being pregnant is so chic now. Cute clothes!
Down with women haters!
The endlessly tiresome debate about abortion.
Guess what; everyone is pro-life, nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody is getting abortions for the joy of it. The question is, how do we arrange a society where abortion is as rare as possible and still maintain the rights of women to control their own lives?
People have to make very complex moral decisions. It is rarely as simple as some in the anti-abortion camp would try to make it sound. And, it is repugnant that many on that side of the debate would have us believe that the people who make the choice to have an abortion don’t understand the issue as well as they do.
I just don’t see the horror of what was happening in 1970 or 1950 in the US as far as abortion goes.
That’s exactly right, Mervel, you didn’t see the horror. It was kept very quiet.
Beyond the abortion issue alone, I find it amazing that in this day and age when birth control is available in numerous forms from a multitude of vendors that people still “have accidents”. This is another area where the simple concept of personal responsibility is lacking. Same for the people “bare backing” and getting HIV. Comon’, I’m an idiot and even I can figure out what happens when you aren’t “careful”.
This is a debate that will never end because one side believes one thing, the other side believes something else and never the twain shall meet, while some people draw the line at conception, others at three months, others at six months and others at hours before an natural birth.
But there is one argument that makes no sense at all to me.
This is the idea that states should be allowed to decide when and if, including if ever, an abortion should be judged a crime. If you really believe abortion is murder, then suggesting states should set their own laws on what is murder borders on the absurd. Would you really want to go down that road? Either this is one country or it is nothing more than a bunch of states that go down their own path on everything, leaving the United States open to be attacked by every country on earth. United we stand. Divided we fall. This was what the Civil War was all about.
Abortion is about Eugenics plain and simple ! Watch Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Trailer here http://www.maafa21.com)
But that is the middle ground.
Most who are pro-life including myself don’t believe a women who has an abortion is committing murder. We largely feel that abortion is an immoral, unjust practice that ends a human life and has been sold to americans. But keeping to Brians points, I think speaking about restrictions on abortion is a step in the right direction. Finding ways to reduce abortion is another common ground area. But answering Brians question
“So let’s have it straight. In the pro-life America envisioned by Doug Hoffman and Matt Doheny, what happens to a woman who has an abortion? What happens to her doctor?”
I can’t speak for those two, but in the pro-life America I would envision nothing would happen to them. The procedure would not be performed in most hospitals or clinics in states that outlawed the procedure, medical schools that are accredited would not teach the procedure, the procedure would be very hard to find. Which is the case in many states today which is a victory for the pro-life movement.
But the true vision goes farther it goes to providing family supports, and help so women don’t feel the need to have an abortion, it would also make adoption more available and acceptable, and of course pro-life means all life, the elderly, the sick, the poor, it means ending the death penalty. So it goes beyond just abortion and there is much common ground on those fronts.
Pete, the concept that a State may determine it’s own laws within the bounds of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a core value in Americas development. We are the United States, not the Untied STATE. It’s simple concept sadly not grasped by modern Americans.
I would agree with you Bret on issues truly local such as traffic laws and zoning laws. But on hot button, personal freedom issues it does get a bit complicated.
There was a time when states decided whether or not blacks and whites could marry. Some states allowed it and some states didn’t. Then, in 1968 I believe, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled against the states that didn’t allow it. Now we have a mess with some states allowing gays and lesbians to marry while others do not. For all practical purposes, the same holds true with abortion. For issues such as these, I believe uniformity makes more sense than having each state chart its own course.
Every once in awhile, the Supreme Court gets really wishywashy when it rules. I’m thinking here of the community standard for what is or isn’t pornography. If you know it when you see it and the next person disagrees, then how do you come up with any laws making any sense? The same problem exists with abortion. Some draw the line at conception. Others at 3 months, 6 months and so on. Because we can’t reach any agreement on where to draw the line, I predict the argument will go on and on without anyone being satisfied. If one person is satisfied there will be a whole lot of people who will not be satisfied.
To me it makes perfect sense that something legal in one state may not be legal in another. The concept of States Rights wasn’t negated by the Civil War.
True enough but the concept that people could be slaves in one state while not be slaves in another state was finally put to an end.
I do think Brian had a good point though, if you are going to say that you are a pro-life and anti-abortion politician, what does that mean to you and what would that mean legislatively?
Marvel, our illustrious politicians and would bes just want to have their cake and eat it to.