Meanwhile, a reader writes:
I thought you’d find the following interesting. As you may know, there is a primary on Dec. 9th for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. Boston being what it is, 3 out of 4 candidates are self identified Catholics. And Providence being less than 2 hours away, +Tobin’s response to Rep. Kennedy is of great interest on the local news channels. So naturally when the topic of abortion came up (at 2:45 in the linked video) this candidate explained how he is Catholic *and* pro-choice and that’s not a problem. His error is so blatant that even my Episcopalian husband yelled at the television.
The one heartening thing about watching Dems whore for Moloch is the combox entry I was reading from my invaluable reader Lawrence King:
Joel, in 1973, SCOTUS (in the twin decisions Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton) ruled that first and second trimester abortions cannot be made illegal, and third trimester abortions must remain legal if the mother’s health (including mental health) is in jeopardy. In the 1990s a few modifications were made to that, but it has still been an uphill battle to limit partial-birth abortion and the like.
So if RvW and DvB were repealed, a large majority of the 50 states would put much more severe limits on legal abortion than are currently permitted under Federal law.
Moreover, you’re also wrong that abortion is irrelevant in federal elections. The abortion issue in 2004 was so important that it gave Bush his majority among Catholics. From 2004 onward, the “liberal pro-life” faction has been growing, not shrinking, in electoral strength. These pro-life liberals voted Republican in 2004. So Nancy Pelosi made the deliberate decision to recruit pro-life Democrats, in order to capture the pro-life liberal vote for her party. This allowed the Democrats to win Congress in 2006 and 2008, but has now (to her chagrin) resulted in the Stupak Amendment and a newfound role for the USCCB, and by most predictions, a Democratic majority in the House that will not be able to pass any health reform bill that doesn’t include Stupak-level prohibitions on abortion funding.
I’m not trying to convince you that you should be politically pro-life; I’m merely pointing out that the pro-life cause is now, for the first time in a while, a winner politically. While the left continues to bring up back-alley abortions, the actual issues that are in political play (partial-birth abortions, federal funding for abortions, parental notification) are all issues on which the public at large strongly supports the pro-life side. And even in the bluest states such as California, issues such as parental notification remain closely contested.
Hopefully, the approach of the Kennedy is dying. We’ll see.