The Republican plank on abortion is unequivocal on their support for life:
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.
–quoted from LifeNews.com
I definitely give the RNC kudos for their affirmation of the dignity and sanctity of life.
The thing that I would like to know is why did they pull out a similar clause in their plank about working to reduce the number of abortions? The same group of evangelicals and Catholics who worked on the pro-life language at the DNC worked for similar language at the RNC. The draft of the plank contained the following statement:
We invite all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion;
However, before the plank was approved, the Republican platform committee removed that statement. The groups committed to working to reduce the number of abortions in America sent this letter exhorting them to put it back in.
Here is where I have become very cynical about the Republican party and their true commitment to being pro-life.
Since I was 8 years old, the majority of the time spent in office has been with Republican presidents who “rallied the base” on culture war issues, primarily abortion. Yet what has actually happened? The majority of the Supreme Court has judges appointed by these presidents and many cases have come before them on this issue and Roe v Wade is still standing.
Let’s remember back to Planned Parenthood v Casey. This account is from Wikipedia (not a primary source), yet it is how I remember it happening.
The case was a seminal one in the history of abortion rights in the United States. It was the first case which provided an opportunity to overturn Roe since the two most liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, were replaced with the Bush-appointed Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Both were viewed as ostensible conservatives compared to their predecessors. This left the Court with eight Republican-appointed justices - five of whom had been appointed by Presidents Reagan or Bush, both of which were well known for their opposition to Roe. Finally, the only remaining Democratic appointee - Justice Byron White - had been one of the two dissenters from the original Roe decision.
At this point, only two of the Justices were obvious supporters of Roe v. Wade: Blackmun, the author of Roe, and Stevens, who had joined opinions specifically reaffirming Roe in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given these circumstances, even most pro-choice advocates expected Roe to be overruled and were gearing up for a subsequent state-by-state campaign against the passage of particular anti-abortion laws.
I remember pro-life groups gearing up for it as well. However, the Supreme Court upheld the core right to legal abortion in Roe v. Wade.
The Republicans are dug in on seeking the elusive 5th vote to overturn Roe, but even with all the past Republican appointments to the Court, that is unlikely. And in any event, overturning Roe does nothing directly to save a life; it merely tosses the issue to the states which may or may not affirm life.
Catholic teaching tells us when we reach an impasse for life, we need to seek out another way - to make at least some progress in building up the culture of life.
So, the cynical side of me wonders why the Republican leaders are waiting on the “elusive 5th vote” and happily rallying the base every election cycle on this issue without setting out a plan to reduce abortions. Why all or nothing? Could it be that they don’t really want abortions to be restricted and that very conservative judges suit their corporate-minded values just fine?
And then we have John McCain. The John McCain running to be the Republican presidential candidate in 1999/2000 is a very different John McCain of late.
“I’d love to see a point where [Roe vs. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
– Interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 1999.“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.”
– McCain for President (2008) website
Hmm. Then there is the matter of a VP and the Supreme Court appointees that you get to pick out.
McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion “litmus” test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees.
–On CNN’s “Late Edition,” August 22, 1999
This time around, he kept trying to pick a VP who was pro-choice. He wanted Senator Joe Lieberman. He wanted former Pennsylvania governor and homeland security secretary Tom Ridge. CNN reported that “one Republican insider said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis has called several state party chairs and indicated that Ridge will be the Republican vice presidential pick this cycle.”
After Pat Buchanan threatened to lead a walkout at the convention and McCain felt the intense pressure of social conservatives like Rush Limbaugh to not pick a pro-choice VP, he eventually capitulated.
I strongly feel that John McCain is trying to play both sides of the field on this topic. A Pew poll in July found that 56% of people did not know where he stands on abortion. The proud Hillary supporter who did a commercial for her support for John McCain was asked about his pro-life stand and she said she supported John McCain because of his pro-choice viewpoint. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Regardless of his position this year, it seems like the abortion issue is not a top priority to him. How much work would he do to reduce the number of abortions? How much would he do to make abortion illegal in the US? Will this be the top issue when he nominates Supreme Court justices?
If this is not a top priority and he gets elected, then the American people went with the all or nothing choice that most likely will never happen.
