Strategy of this iteration of the GOP relies, in large measure, on buzz words. If voters are conditioned to shut their minds when they hear one or two words, then the GOP does not have to argue claims that lack merit. One such issue is ...
People who would limit our rights to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, in 1787, do not know how abortion was treated at the time the Constitution was written. Justice Blackmun noted that restrictions on abortion are relatively recent.
“... the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today ... are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes ... in the latter half of the 19th Century.” Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. at 129-30.
Abortion was chosen, cynically, as the ultimate “wedge issue.” The SCOTUS case that protects, at least in part, women’s rights is Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Most people who criticize that case, written by a Nixon appointee, have not bothered to read it.
Worse, once people are conditioned to respond viscerally to the word “abortion,” those people no longer have to think. They do not have to consider that, if they really are pro-life, they should want contraceptives freely available, health care for all, and sex education in schools.
The same people usually say they are for “law & order.” Yet they do not realize that rates for violent crime, nation-wide, dropped in 1991, according to research by Stanford University economist John Donohue and University of Chicago economist Steve Levitt.
In 2019 they revisited, and validated, their 2001 conclusions. Males around age 18 commit a big percentage of crimes. In 1991 a lot of unwanted children were not born. Women should have choices - including ready availability of contraceptives.
If an issue is boiled down to a word or two that causes the GOP audience to foam at the mouth and not bother to reason, simplicity reigns. After all, where in The Constitution does it say women have rights? Our problems are far more complex and require more than simple minds.
Not sure why you think that abortion restrictions are of more recent vintage as noted in the 1973 Roe opinion is an argument for the "pro-choice" side. The fact is back then, people didn't know the scientific facts about pre-natal development. With sonograms and other medical development, we know a lot more now about pre-natal life than even in 1973 and certainly before. That Roe allows the termination of well-developed human life during an abortion is now an undeniable scientific fact. It wasn't back then. You do support science, don't you?
Not sure why you would think people reading the extremely poorly written, reasoned and rambling Roe v. Wade decision would help convince people to the pro-choice side. In fact, it's just the opposite. A strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions while a strong majority say they support Roe v. Wade. That's contradictory because Roe v. Wade requires establishes a constitutional right to abortion on demand for first and SECOND trimester abortions. So the fact people don't read Roe and understand its holding has been a huge benefit to the pro-choice side.
Birth control has never been easier to get in human history. The notion that people can't get birth control and that's the reason why they have "unwanted" pregnancies is not supported by any sort of logic. (The fact is quite often birth control is deliberately not used and the pregnancy is wanted at the time.) People on the left think people have no problem getting their hands on drugs and gungs, but a 50 cent condom you can get out of a machine, my gosh they can't get those!! We must hand them out in schools, unsolicited! What do you think the effect of handing out condoms in home room at a high school, in front of classmates, would be? You don't think that would be telling those kids they are expected to be sexually active? Of course it would.
Your argument of abortion as a crime deterrent logically could be extended to allow post-birth abortion, particularly of males, from the lower economic classes, who show criminal proclivity. In fact, the pre-natal abortion argument is worse than the post-natal abortion argument because on the former you're guessing what types of people would likely be criminals if born. The abortion as a crime deterrent has a certain eugenics feel to it.
You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!
Join Civil Discourse Now