My initial plans for today were to write about Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The President’s brother is reportedly going to propose legislation that would provide for the appointment of guardians for unborn babies whose mothers are legally incompetent.
The question was brought to the fore last spring when a developmentally disabled woman was raped. Given the mother’s inability to make decisions for her unborn baby, Gov. Bush wanted a separate guardian appointed for the child in addition to the guardian appointed for the mom. The usual suspects–Planned Parenthood and the ACLU–were adamantly opposed.
Unfortunately, Bush was rebuffed by various courts. Fortunately, the guardian appointed for the mother decided not to recommend an abortion.
The child was born healthy. I just found out last night that the case had made its way to the Fifth District Court of Appeals and that a decision had been rendered. We’ll talk about this tomorrow.
But a word is in order on another topic today, following pro-abortion Sen. John Kerry’s convincing victory last night in the New Hampshire presidential primary. In case you missed it, trolling for votes last week, Kerry “called himself the only Democrat in the race who hasn't ‘played games’ on the abortion issue,” according to the Associated Press.
"I'm the only candidate running for president who hasn't played games, fudged around," said Kerry. "If you believe that choice is a constitutional right, and I do, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is the embodiment of that right ... I will not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo that right.”
Which, when you think about it, is a remarkable statement. None of the Democrats running for their party's presidential nomination could even imagine nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who did not pledge his or her undying loyalty to abortion on demand. You can look it up.
Moreover, Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards are so far out in left field that they even voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions. (Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Edwards, boasted to Fox News that the North Carolina senator has a " ‘100 percent record supporting a woman's right to choose,’ including late-term abortions.”)
Retired General Wesley Clark inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when he declared that life begins “with the mother’s decision”–which is the practical effect of the position taken by all the candidates on abortion. After being coached, Clark rhetorically retreated, mumbling that he also supported the 1992 Casey decision which allows for certain minimal limitations such as informed consent legislation.
Told of Kerry’s remarks, former Gov. Howard Dean, offered a very revealing rebuttal. “In response, Dean noted that he once sat on the board of Planned Parenthood in northern New England,” according to Fox News.
Got that? What possible better qualifications could an abortion supporter offer than serving on the board of Planned Parenthood? After all, Planned Parenthood operates the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States.
Its international arm uses its financial muscle to try to strong-arm those who try to defend protective abortion laws. If you’re going to compare pro-abortion credentials, Dean is saying, this is as good as it gets.
One final thought. Several Dean apologists, including one gentleman in particular, emailed me to say that I had misrepresented/mischaract erized Dean’s position on abortion in a previous edition of Today’s News & Views. I hadn’t, and pointed out as well that a physician and a Planned Parenthood board member ought to be able to say what he means about the flashpoint social issue of our time in a manner that is not open to dispute as to its meaning.
But for our purposes, it is something else that matters. People get caught up in candidacies all the time. It is one of the blessings of living in a democracy and is to be encouraged and congratulated.
I, for example, fell in love with politics years and years ago. My latest swoons were for pro-life President George W. Bush, and his brother, Jeb, both of whom I admire enormously.
The gentleman who emailed me with the most passionate objections described himself as against abortion. I take him at his word. He is able to oppose abortion yet defend a rabid supporter of abortion such as Gov. Dean.
But countless millions of Americans can find a given candidate attractive for any of a hundred reasons, yet still vote against him or her IF they support the slaughter of unborn children. Properly, they have made the moral calculus that a candidate may be good on a host of issues but still fail the test if they fail the unborn.
And it is this resolute determination to put first things first that put a pro-lifer in the White House and is changing the climate on abortion.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 01.29.04 (1:02 pm)
What about doing a blog on Anti-Life Shrub who has massacred 519 US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians including innocent pregnant women.
Or don't you care about Shrub's slaughter of tens of thousands of human beings so long as they are out of the womb?
My initial plans for today were to write about Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. The President’s brother is reportedly going to propose legislation that would provide for the appointment of guardians for unborn babies whose mothers are legally incompetent.