Pro-Life Hijacked by Republicans
August 21st, 2006 by Stephen
I have asked American friends why they support the Republican party in that country, when that party is so often seen to be anti-environment, implicated in support for despotic regimes, and prone to invade countries and the like.
The answer I am given is that one must vote for a party based on a whole raft of political and ethical issues. The one example they invariably give: is the candidate pro-life or pro-choice?
It seems to me that this raft of political and ethical issues is somewhat precarious.
Why?
Well in the UK and elsewhere we note that the abortion issue is not the big party political issue that it is in the US. The reason we suppose is that change in the law can only come with a cross party consensus, and indeed that is always the way that the UK abortion law has evolved.
But what of the US? We see this tremendous polarisation, whereby pro-life is largely associated with republicans, and pro-choice with democrats. Not universally of course, and there is a large pro-choice republican middle, and many pro-life democrats. But that is largely the way the issue has been divided for whatever reason.
So why after a score or more years of pro-life republican presidents, hasn’t the US reversed Roe vs Wade? Why hasn’t the legislature, with republican majorities, changed the law?
The answer is surely that it is very much against the political interests of the republican party to reverse Roe vs Wade. To do so will split the republican party, and strip away the prime reason Christians say they are voting for them. What is more, the party would have to choose whether to alienate the middle or the Christians when framing new abortion laws. So the republican party will have its cake and eat it. Republican presidents will say they are pro-life, but beyond tinkering at the edges, they will not act on their alleged principles. Just like the UK, the only way to reform the law will be to achieve a cross party consensus.
So why should a Christian vote for the Republican party?
Hey, how should I know? We don’t even have a republic here.
It’s interesting that you came at this post from the other side. I’ve read a lot of articles/posts about people wondering how the democrats have been the party of pro-abortion to the exclusion of everything else. In fact, a lot of people believe that there would be no democratic party if it weren’t for the pro-choice issue, and many pro-life candidates do not get full DNC funding or support.
I would beg to differ on the whole Republicans do nothing on the pro-life front. For one thing, there’s abstinence education funding and the decision that any sex education that the U.S. supports in foreign countries must be abstinence, not birth control.
Just because the current tactic in the battle is not to take it head on but to chip away at it does not mean that we are doing nothing. If you look at Louisiana you see a state that used regulation and a steady chipping away to remove all abortion from the state. They also passed a law which would overturn aboriton if ever Row v. Wade is overturned.
South Dakota just banned abortion to try to send a lawsuit to the Supreme Court. The President nominated to the Supreme Court two pro-life judges (pro-lifers mostly believe that the only way to true victory is this path). The biggest problem is that Row v. Wade ruling that has opened a huge can of worms and must go. But in the meantime, chipping away is all that we’ve been allowed to do without getting overrulled by the courts.
Hi Min,
I did not say that Republicans do nothing, but that they are tinkering at the edges. Maybe that was not quite right - maybe the Republicans will make some real changes here and there. But it is not in their interests to actually change the law in the legislature (which is what that body is for). I am also not at all convinced that we will ever see judges reversing Roe Vs Wade. Nominations to the supreme court do not seem to translate into votes on this judgement.
It is interesting that you think that a reversal on this judgement would hit the democrats hard. Of course, thyey do not fight for the reversal. My point is that the party that claims to wish that this judgement be reversed actually has a vested political interest in it not being reversed.
I’m not sure if that makes my view any clearer. Hopefully it helps clarify somewhat.
Regards,
Stephen