Abortion panders to the base, who contributes or runs money through tax shelters the GOP way.

If they wanted abortion banned the 109th GOP Congress would have done it. That didn't happen though.
Thus it should be a non-item.

Who the hell is Melinda Henneberger? Some DLC concern troll? Some self- serving "consultant"? (Hire me, or you'll loooose!)Or some "pro-life" wingnut?

Indeed, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress for a good four years there. Didn't see them bring up any attempt to take on Roe directly. The only thing the GOP has the political courage to do is take on so-called "partial-birth" abortion. The long-term strategy is to use the courts to overturn Roe (they are one appointment away) and then hammer away at the issue at the state level.

While there is definitely a pro-choice majority now, I would not be complacent about this if I were a pro-choice advocate. Republicans have done wonders in recent years turning political loser positions (like cutting the estate tax) into law.

I have never seen any intrinsic connection between the stances taken by the two parties regarding abortion and their wider political practices. It almost seems like the two parties intentionally espouse views that are the opposite of what one might expect, in both cases in order to get voters they might not otherwise get. Although I cannot cite a study off the top of my head, it has been clearly shown that support for the Democratic views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. is actually more common among the economic and cultural elites in America. Poorer people with less education are more likely to be pro-life and oppose gay marriage. And yet the Republicans are the ones who in economic reality are the party of the elite, while the Dems represent the broader population. It is not at all clear why the lines have fallen as they have. There are many who vote Democratic in spite of these issues, and some who go Republican in spite of the fact that they know that it is against their own self-interest economically. I think Henneberger got a lot right in her article.

I was infuriated with this piece of junk on the NYT editorial page this morning, in place of the vacationing Prof. Krugman.

Does anyone think that anti-choice voters are going to ever vote for a Democrat? The Republicans could nominate Kim Jong Il and they would still not vote Democratic. Throwing away our principles in a futile attempt to get these ignorant suckers to see the light is a phenomenally bad bet, as past elections have shown.

The Democratic party is going to live on the truth, or it's going to die by pandering.

Ms. Henneberger is the political editor (maybe former political editor?) for Huffingtonpost.com - a site which, I have to say, I am losing respect for by the day. Between their completely rabid obsession with spinning everything as bad for Hillary (everyone may not love her, but HuffPo's fixation is Gerth-like), and now the love for Bloomberg ... it's just losing me.

Dems will always lose on moral values.

you can have

a. choice
b. forced pregnancy

which do you want?

it's really that simple

Good point, Mr. Murder. I left one particular church because the pastor felt that Bill Clinton was PERSONALLY responsible for however many babies had been aborted since he took office. "Bill Clinton never put a gun to any woman's head and ordered her to have the procedure," I said, but he was unmoved. I wish I'd asked him why the Son of Poppy hadn't singlehandedly outlawed abortion--esp. as Chimpy has arrogated the powers of Congress to His holy self.

you can have

a. choice
b. forced pregnancy

which do you want?

it's really that simple

It's worse than that. Now they're working to prevent access to contraception.

"Indeed, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress for a good four years there. Didn't see them bring up any attempt to take on Roe directly."

Posted by: RickD | June 22, 2007 11:04 AM

Until the Supreme Court reverses itself on Roe, there is no point in either proposing or passing legislation that would ban abortion in any meaningful way. Since any such legislation would be struck down because it creates an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to exercise her "right to abort."

As someone who believes that Roe was wrongly decided, I still can't figure out your sides' fanatical defense of it. If there is a "pro-choice" majority as you guys consistently claim, then so what if Roe gets overturned. The issue of the abortion would be left to the states and presumably would enact laws that have majority support. My guess is that you guys know that there is nowhere near a majority for the nearly unlimited right to abortion that now exists. And if the states were to get a hold of the issue, a lot of restrictions that you guys do not like, like parental notification or precluding abortion on fully viable fetuses, would command majority support and be easily passed.

And if the states were to get a hold of the issue, a lot of restrictions that you guys do not like, like parental notification or precluding abortion on fully viable fetuses, would command majority support and be easily passed.

Hmmm, maybe we don't feel like gambling a fundamental right away on the basis of who can get 51% of the vote in any particular state? And what kind of "strong moral principle" is it that says "Ok, you women in CA or NY can have an abortion, but not those in North Dakota or Georgia."?

There are two ways to look at solutions to the abortion issue: one can "split the difference" or one can settle for the same answer Solomon did, i.e. "You can't split the baby."
Splitting the difference works fine for real estate transactions. I've seen many, many people trying to find a win-win solution on abortion that will make both sides happy. None of those attempts have ever gotten beyond the wishful-thinking stage.
I think King Solomon had it right. You either have the baby, bring the kid to term and care for him or her until they're independent, or you don't and short-circuit the whole process by having an abortion.
Going for the "compromise" solution is a certain sign of someone who hasn't really thought it through.

Don't like abortions? Don't have one. It's as simple as that.

What is the point here? Abortion is not going to be much of an issue in 2008 and this woman is suggesting that its the central issue. In fact, abortion was never an issue. I doubt anyone (other than a few fundie nutbags) ever considered it important as you can control its effect on YOUR life. Why not consider this the flack that it is and just drop it?

Ms. Henneberger is the political editor (maybe former political editor?) for Huffingtonpost.com - a site which, I have to say, I am losing respect for by the day. Between their completely rabid obsession with spinning everything as bad for Hillary (everyone may not love her, but HuffPo's fixation is Gerth-like), and now the love for Bloomberg ... it's just losing me.

Posted by: dws
----------
Huffpost lost my respect long ago.One of their own site techs was a troll who demeaned a contributing blogger.When the truth came out,Arianna lied about the circumstances.
There are other instances of unethical behavior.
Arianna displays the kind of behavior that she likes to criticize.

"As someone who believes that Roe was wrongly decided, I still can't figure out your sides' fanatical defense of it."

Mostly because of your sides' fanatical opposition to that decision and to abortion itself, not to mention opposition to family planning, contraception, sex education, and the like (all of which would actually reduce the demand for abortion, ironically enough).

"If there is a 'pro-choice' majority as you guys consistently claim, then so what if Roe gets overturned."

Dear heart, of course there is. That's why opinion polls consistently show support for Roe v. Wade and opposition to complete bans on abortion and why the overreaching in South Dakota did not stand.

There are three points to make in response to your blatherings:

1. This support is not uniform, which means that women in some states will be denied access to these procedures should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

2. You are assuming that the issues will only be considered by the states. Recent history in Congress shows that you are wrong.

3. Basic rights should not be subject to majority vote.

"The issue of the abortion would be left to the states"

No. Republican Congresscritters would seek to ban various items on a national level.

"My guess is that you guys know that there is nowhere near a majority for the nearly unlimited right to abortion that now exists."

"nearly unlimited?" Nice weasel wording, on this, and on the rest, dear. When did you stop beating your wife?

Colonel:

Until the 7-member majority in Roe said there was, no one would have claimed that abortion was a "fundamental right" that warranted constitutional protections. Indeed, such a claim would have been dismissed out of hand since laws against abortion existed side by side with the Constitution for more than a century until Roe found a "penumbra" in the Bill of Rights that protected this newly discovered "fundamental right."

As to what moral principle would allow one state to have abortion but not another, if that's what the people in those states wanted, there is none. The principle at stake is called federalism. You might remember that it is this principle that allows for the state to be in charge of all issues that are not specifically delegated to the federal government or placed outside the scope of legislative authority by the Constitution. While it is regrettable that the people of CA or NY may chose to enact laws that allow abortion, because I do not live there, it's not any of my business to tell they cannot have such laws.

Very nice dissection. I always fear some Dem politician is going to be scared and stupid enough to run with this sort of horrible advice.

The shrill, strident army of abortion proponents keeps marching in step: The Infanticide Party is already demonizing Henneberger for her heresy.

The shrill, strident army of abortion proponents keeps marching in step:"

LOL... Talk about proving our point for us! Thanks so much for this bit of mindless drivel.

"The Infanticide Party is already demonizing Henneberger for her heresy."

No, dear heart, we're "demonizing" her for her stupidity and inaccuracy, not to mention her demonization of us.

"Until the 7-member majority in Roe said there was, no one would have claimed that abortion was a 'fundamental right' that warranted constitutional protections."

So? The same could be said of literally hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, e.g., Loving v. Virginia. That's not an argument, dear.

"As to what moral principle would allow one state to have abortion but not another, if that's what the people in those states wanted, there is none."

You completely missed the point, dear heart. In addition to the Constitutional principles, we adamantly support Roe v. Wade precisely because it prevents the "people in those states" from denying fundamental rights to women. You asked the question; we answered.

"The principle at stake is called federalism."

So you would like to frame the discussion. Alas, we do not buy your frame. There are other principles in play.

"You might remember that it is this principle that allows for the state to be in charge of all issues that are not specifically delegated to the federal government or placed outside the scope of legislative authority by the Constitution."

You might also remember what the Constitution ays about the rights of the individual. Funny how that never comes up in your conversations here.

"While it is regrettable that the people of CA or NY may chose to enact laws that allow abortion, because I do not live there, it's not any of my business to tell they cannot have such laws."

ROFL... Do you really not see the self-evident stupidity of this statement? This is hilarious!

On the fundamental question, two-thirds of the public agrees with the Democrats.

Not only is this false, but it's the sort of embarrassingly sloppy analysis that one would expect to find on a cable news channel or talk radio show.

You can't get at the public's views on abortion by asking indirect questions like "What do you think about Roe vs. Wade?" That makes about as much sense as trying to discern people's views on the Iraq war by asking them whether they think Congress should repeal the AUMF.

What's doubly embarrassing about the statement is that you actually link to the Polling Report website, which demonstrates that asking the question in different ways gives different results -- few to none of which support the notion that 2/3 of the public agree with the Democratic position.

For instance, there's a CNN/USA Today poll from January 2003 on the site, in which 61% of people think that abortion should be illegal "When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child." Does that sound like it conforms to the Democratic position?

If you want to know what the public's views on abortion are, you have to ask direct questions, such as the one above, about what they think the law should be with respect to abortion.

What detailed polls on the subject -- polls that actually break down possible reasons for having an abortion and asking people whether abortion should be legal in each of those situations -- is that far more than 2/3 of the public believes that abortion should be legal under some circumstances -- but that's not the Democratic position. The Democratic position is that abortion should be legal under virtually all circumstances, at the discretion of the mother based on her own assessment of her own situation, with no waiting periods, notification of parents, spouses, etc.

"The Democratic position is that abortion should be legal under virtually all circumstances, at the discretion of the mother based on her own assessment of her own situation, with no waiting periods, notification of parents, spouses, etc."

Um, no, actually that isn't the Democratic Party position. Feel free to come back when you've done a little homework.

The Democratic position is that abortion should be legal under virtually all circumstances, at the discretion of the mother based on her own assessment of her own situation, with no waiting periods, notification of parents, spouses, etc.

Yes, because the woman who's actually in the situation of potentially having to raise an unwanted child is completely unqualified to make that decision -- she needs to have other people pat her on the head and say, "Why, no, dear, it's irrational for you to say that you can't raise a baby on $10,000 a year, so we're going to keep you pregnant."

Tell you what, David -- when I get to decide whether or not you get to have knee surgery, you'll get to decide whether or not I get to have an abortion. After all, that knee surgery isn't really necessary, is it? It's only for your comfort and convenience. So we need to have laws regulating whether or not you're rational enough to decide to have it.

"Not only is this false, but it's the sort of embarrassingly sloppy analysis that one would expect to find on a cable news channel or talk radio show."

Oh, nonsense. Not only are you misstating the Democratic Party's position on abortion, you're misstating the polling data. Let's review, shall we?

Roe v. Wade -- The Republican Party wants this overturned; the Democratic Party wants it sustained. The public agrees with the Democratic Party.

Limitations on abortion, particularly late-term abortion -- The Republican Party wants all abortions banned; the Democratic Party is willing to accept some limitations on abortions, so long as exceptions are made for such things as rape, incest, and the health of the mother. The public overwhelmingly sides with the Democratic Party.

Abortions should be legal and "generally available" -- The Democratic Party says yes; the Republican Party says no. The American public overwhelmingly sides with the Democratic Party

Choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor -- The Democratic Party says yes; the Republican Party says no. The American public overwhelmingly sides with the Democratic Party.

In question after question on the site you mention, the public comes down on the side of the DEmocratic Party. You had to go out of your way to find a question in which the public did not, and even then, you had to misstate the position of the Democratic Party!

Now what was that you were saying about "an embarrassingly sloppy analysis?"

If you want to know what the public's views on abortion are, you have to ask direct questions, such as the one above, about what they think the law should be with respect to abortion.

Except, of course, that questions about Roe are far more relevant to what the "law should be" than questions about the circumstances under which abortion is moral, since there's no way of writing the "abortion should be legal under the circumstances in which I think it's appropriate" into legislative enactments. The various regulations you're proposing do absolutely nothing to ensure that women won't "use abortions as birth control" or whatever; they just make it harder for poor rural women (or young women in abusive or conservative families) to get abortions whatever the circumstances, without seriously obstructing the ability of affluent urban women to obtain abortions whatever the circumstances.

"With ten of years’experience in manufacturing of packaging machinery, the company mainly provide overwrapping machine,