November 28, 2007


How to Fight for Life (Lisa Fabrizio, 11/28/2007, American Spectator)

Can one be pro-life and not in favor of a Constitutional Amendment which seeks a federal ban on abortion? The easy answer is that one can and probably should be both. But at this time in our history, the amendment process is, sadly, a pipe dream. Imagine trying to get two-thirds of both houses of our Democratic Congress to even propose such an amendment. Then further fantasize that three-fourths of the states would ratify it in the present political climate. This is an all-or-nothing approach that in all probability would save no lives.

Thompson correctly points out that working for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, then making the fight a state-by-state process, is a much more realistic and feasible goal. A states-rights argument should not only appeal to federalists, but ought to be seen as the best current solution by all who cherish life. I'm with the folks who say that abortion is murder, and in this country, murder and its consequences have always been defined by each individual state. And this is where the battle lines must be drawn.

One reason is that dealing with state legislators would be easier than battling their federal counterparts who are in the grips of lobbyists and other special interest groups; the locals are closer to the people they represent and therefore more accountable to them. Another, and probably more important, reason is that the pro-death faction fears this route the most.

They know that, should the question of abortion descend from the dark tower of judicial tyranny and land where it belongs, in the hands of the people, their "cause" is in trouble.

It's about winning, not ideological purity.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 28, 2007 12:01 AM

Sooner or later, my fellow pro-lifers will realize the real lesson from Roe v Wade: Changing LAWS, by any means necessary, can NEVER change hearts. This is the lesson the pro-aborts steadfastly refuse to learn as well.

The pro-life movement has, sometimes, been ill-served by media "allies" like National Review and Rush Limbaugh, what with their push for pro-life amendments and a magical 5th Justice on SCOTUS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with social pressure tactics, no matter how "unseemly" they may be to the tea-and-crumpets conservatives.

Posted by: Brad S at November 28, 2007 12:25 PM

Furthermore, Roe v. Wade needs to be taken down one piece at a time. Just keep raising the temperature of the water, and the frog is cooked before if jumps out.

What is the real issue? Everyone knows if has never been "the life of the mother," or "rape and incest." It has always been social, economic and cosmetic convenience. The great evil of abortion for trivial reasons can be blasted from the earth without a Constitutional amendment. If we read the cases we can see how fragile the death machine really is.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 28, 2007 6:28 PM

Obviously another critic who's never heard his program. Rush doesn't permit calls about abortion, nor does he dwell on it and rarely mentions it. Hasn't called for a repeal of Roe and he's not exactly on the same page as the NRO geniuses.

Posted by: erp at November 28, 2007 6:40 PM

to go off topic, but using your logic, your comment taken to it's extreme kind of speaks against Bush spending a kajillion dollars that could have been more efficiently spent on our home base, especially no matter what we all say we went to Iraq for a few obvious reasons: the father's neo's talking bush into it, getting a home base and some control in the middle east, to include some control of the oil, and, to the least degree, but what is stated now, to rid them of a dictator and to start the process of democratizing the middle east. these last two points are idealogically pure, but we spent alot of money and are still a long way away from "winning" no matter what's spinned.

Posted by: neil at November 28, 2007 10:23 PM

What does oil or efficiency have to do with anything?

We liberate other peoples for the same reason we oppose abortion.

Posted by: oj at November 29, 2007 7:06 AM

liberating them was an extremely positive side effect, but in it of itself it was not the reason we started the war. We started the war to protect oil resources, since middle east was out of control and attacking us. we figured iraq was best possible scenario. That was not idealogical purity, except as a side effect.

Killing abortion rights state-by-state is indeed the right formula.

The real point is whether you believe we are winning in Iraq. I believe we are not, therefore we could've spent those monies more efficiently at home.

Posted by: neil at November 29, 2007 6:44 PM

Saddam wanted to sell us oil. We wouldn't let him.

No, the real point is whether you believe government spends money efficiently. If you do, then a statist regime in Iraq and more govt. here do make sense.

Posted by: oj at November 29, 2007 10:34 PM