When Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he promised to enact legislation to prohibit states from limiting the right to abortion. Now that Obama is in the White House and solid Democratic majorities are ensconced in Congress, opponents of abortion rights have been bracing for that and other major changes to abortion laws.
But there are indications that what those groups dread most and what some liberal voters eagerly anticipate as the rewards of victory may not come to pass””at least not yet. Democrats on Capitol Hill say that while they are committed to reversing several Bush administration policies with regard to abortion rights and family planning, they may hold off on pursuing the kind of expansive agenda feared by social conservatives.
Despite gains in the House and Senate in last year’s elections, there are still significant numbers of moderate Democrats””particularly in the House””who either oppose abortion altogether or are not in favor of sweeping changes and favor a more incremental approach. And any large-scale effort involving something as polarizing as abortion necessitates spending political capital, something the Obama White House needs in abundance to ensure the survival of its economic policies.
“We deal in reality,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “You have to be pragmatic, realistic and, in the end, strategic.”
It defies logic to me that the Democrats who consider themselves the party of human rights would dismiss the human rights of the most vulnerable of all, the unborn. It also burns me that they are so confident of the safety of their proposals because they have the majority. As usual the phrase “abortion reform” is used as a cover for advancing an agenda. When the Democrats use the word reform, it means increased oppression.
Obama should find a liberal judge who opposes Roe vs Wade because its a poorly constructed law.
Then, let it be overturned. And then, let people organize, state by state, if they want abortion laws or not.
This just goes to show that anything is possible. I agree with John Wilkins, #2!
And I also; will wonders never cease?
#2 John Wilkens,
I agree with your statement but I don’t think the confidence is there for the pro abortion folks to let go of what they have for “better law” as you would put it.
Why in your mind is there such an advocacy for the elimination of capital punishment at the same time as abortion rights by many of the same people?
I agree as well, just doubt such a judge exists.
I agree completely with John’s advice to Obama. Abortion never should have become a national issue and certainly not a law invented, revised and administered by judges.
#2: But the Constitution clearly states that abortion is er, um, I’m sure it’s in there somewhere …
John, what did you have for your Valentine’s Dinner? You have just made Justice Scalia’s case.
It’s emanating from a penumbra, azusa. Didn’t ya know?
Roe is a decision every bit as wrong as Dred Scott, both of which nationalized vile practices in direct violation of the Constitution.