« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Put Personhood Amendments Aside to Defeat Obama, Stop Abortion

By: Steven Ertelt (Diary)  |  December 21st, 2010 at 03:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From the diaries by Erick

With today’s release of new census figures putting the focus back on the must-win states necessary to defeat Obama in 2012, it’s important for social conservatives to understand something necessary to achieve that goal.
 
In order to defeat Obama and ultimately stop abortions, personhood amendments must be put aside in 2012 so the pro-life community can focus on the number one goal:  installing a pro-life president who will put the nation in a position to legally protect unborn children.
 
Whether your position on abortion is to have a personhood amendment, an abortion ban, allowing the states to make their own laws on abortions or to at least overturn what even some “pro-choice” and liberal scholars agree is one of the worst cases of jurisprudence in Supreme Court history, the courts must be changed. To do that, we must defeat Barack Obama in 2012 and elect to the Senate candidates who will vote to confirm justices who abide by the rule of law rather than making it up from the bench.
 
Here in Colorado, voters defeated a personhood amendment for a second time on a lopsided margin.

 
The 2010 election was a landslide for the pro-life movement and conservatives in general, but the Colorado personhood amendment lost by a 71-29 percent margin. That’s just a 2.7 percent improvement from the very low figure of 27 percent who supported it in 2008. The 2010 elections saw a 7 percent national Republican shift from 2008, but the amendment only gained 2.7 percent. While the political environment for passing the amendment will likely never be better, it came nowhere close to passing.
 
The second defeat of the amendment came also came at a price for the pro-life movement and for conservatives and Republicans in general.
 
The time, money and effort spent on an the amendment could have been put towards pro-life candidates Tom Tancredo and Ken Buck, who lost by narrow margins. Instead, we have a governor and senator who will continue to force us to fund Planned Parenthood and abortion with taxpayer dollars. Democrats continue to control the statehouse and retained their control of the U.S. Senate in part due to Michael Bennet’s victory.
 
Although some backers of the amendment claim it enhanced pro-life turnout and assisted Republican candidates, the opposite is true. Buck and Tancredo lost and, in 2008, Bob Schaffer lost his race for the Senate despite the amendment having ballot status both times.
 
In fact, apart from his own comments that become television commercial fodder, Ken Buck lost his Senate race primarily because Democrats used he endorsement of the amendment against him and relentlessly attacked him for supposedly opposing birth control and contraception. When Buck rescinded his endorsement to stop the onslaught of television attacks, some amendment backers misled voters into thinking Buck wasn’t pro-life.
 
The pro-life movement needs to learn from these defeats and refocus its efforts on the only solution to ending abortion — replacing Obama with a pro-life president and changing control of the Senate so jurists who respect the rule of law will receive fair hearings and a majority vote and can move the Supreme Court in the direction of toppling the case that has resulted in 53 million abortions.
 
Without putting amendments aside and putting the focus on the 2012 elections, abortion on demand could remain in place for another 37 years.
 
If Colorado and other battleground states where amendment may be run (Nevada, Montana, Missouri, etc.) back Obama in 2012 and he becomes president for another four years, he could appoint the Supreme Court judges who will keep unlimited abortions in place for decades.
 
Therefore, we can’t afford to spend considerable time and money on an amendment that is losing at the polls and won’t be upheld in the current pro-abortion Supreme Court anyway. A third campaign for a personhood amendment in 2012 in Colorado will dilute the resources of the pro-life movement and conservatives that need to be focused on defeating Obama. With Obama on the ballot to turn out pro-abortion voters, the Colorado amendment — and amendments in majority Democratic or other presidential election battleground states — won’t win a majority anyway.
 
We need a united pro-life movement in Colorado and nationwide focusing all of its energy and attention on the 2012 elections — only then can we truly protect unborn children.
Steven Ertelt is the editor of LifeNews.com, the pro-life news service.
Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • Galactic_Overlord

    On what grounds can the Supreme Court throw out a personhood amendment? Are they going to argue that a state has no right to determine when life begins?

    • sertelt

      On the grounds that it would (supposedly) prohibit abortions and be at odds with Roe.

      The Surpeme Court has already determined that states can decide when life begins. In the Webster case (Webster v. Missouri 1989) the
      Court upheld the constitutionality of Missouri Revised Statutes section 1.205.1, which provided that the “life of each human being begins at conception” and that all “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.”

      Yet, the court held that abortion was still legal.

      Thus, changing the current 5-4 (at best) pro-abortion majority is necessary to overturn Roe and allow for the prohibit of abortion.

      • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

        They upheld the Missouri statute–but kept abortion legal. Wacko!
        Reminds me of a women’s conference I was at back in my leftie days, and a big argument broke out on the floor about abortion, with I and one other person being the lone voices speaking out for the babies. The debate went back and forth for a while about whether or not the baby is a baby.

        Finally, one lady stood up and said, “Look, already, we ALL KNOW that abortion kills a baby. BUT THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is women’s lives.”

        My jaw dropped. It was the first time I’d heard someone so baldly state that yes, it’s killing, but we’re going to do it anyway and nobody’s going to stop us.

        Only one thing explains it: PURE EVIL. Satan HATES babies and women. Here is an article that backs up what I’ve long had a gut feeling about–yet it still kind of devastated me to find out that it’s all true… the connection of many in the abortion industry with the occult:
        http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-and-the-occult-a-glimpse-into-a-planned-parenthood-death-mill
        If you have time, click on the link in that article to read the complete interview; it will blow your mind. But be warned: it may give you nightmares.

  • runner12

    While I am sure the good people of Colorado had nothing but good intentions with this amendment, it may have not been well thought out. We can fight the war the Libs/Progressives are launching on our values, but we must do so with vision and strategy. This is the only way we will win.

    • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

      We need to stop banging our heads against the wall in Colorado. Personhood is dead and will never, ever, ever pass here. It is the wrong approach and has done more harm than good. Incrementalism is the way to go here. First defund Planned Parenthood. Ban partial birth abortions, then abortions of convenience, etc. Couple that with an educational campaign on the harm abortion does to women, and you’ve got a winning strategy to drastically reduce abortions. Once it is very rare, it will be much easier to overturn Roe v. Wade. Never, ever talk about banning abortion in cases of rape and incest because the issue will then be demagogued by Dems and used to turn women against the GOP.

      • http://www.letmelive.org weswilson

        I don’t object to an incremental legislative approach, but history proves that you have to push an unpopular issue for a while in order to educate people. If you wait until the majority agrees with you before you talk about your next goal, they will never agree with you. You have to passionately explain and defend your agenda in order to move people.

        I’ll agree that now isn’t the time to focus on murders of babies who were conceived in rape/incest. But if you NEVER talk about, you just accept it, and it will never end. Murder is murder, no matter how a person was conceived.

    • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

      Colorado Right to Life wanted Buck to lose. They pulled their support when he made a distinction between pro-abortion and pro-choice judges, in an effort to make his position palatable to independent voters. Other pro-life groups were good, but CRTL (or CTRL, as I call them) decided not to be a team player, DESPITE the fact that Ken was absolutely against abortion even in the cases of rape and incest.

      • runner12

        they eat their own? That makes no sense at all.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          If you don’t agree with their agenda exactly, you’re toast. Just ask Bob Schaffer.

          • runner12

            Good grief people! Stop the backbiting, we have a country to take back. Ridiculous.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            but I still have my doubts.

          • sertelt

            Runner, it’s not backbiting to point out that Colorado Right to Life (which is not affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee and its affiliates in all 50 states) has defeated good pro-life candidates by publicly saying they are not pro-life.

          • runner12

            I was actually referring to CTRL in my statement. It is very disappointing that they would actually campaign against a candidate like Buck who is clearly pro-life. That is backbiting or rather shooting your own. Please read my earlier comment when I stated what a good piece your diary was.

          • sertelt

            Gotcha.

  • Sean (SIConservative)

    Ken Buck’s defeat can be attributed to a poor candidacy, and the pro-lifers pushing the personhood amendment are not to blame for his defeat. His handling of that issue in particular was a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Mr. Buck handled the issue terribly. He should’ve considered the measure before taking a public position on it, and then been comfortable explaining his decision. His decision to flip-flop hurt him far more than either a pro or con position.

    It’s entirely reasonable to discuss whether it is prudent to push personhood amendments at the ballot box, but those choosing to do so should not be made the scape goats to avoid putting the blame where it belongs: on the candidate himself, the RNC, and the NRSC. As for Tancredo, well, there’s plenty of blame to go around there.

    I’d also submit that politicians have a responsibility to demonstrate that they are serious about the life issue. The Harriet Miers debacle was a perfect example of why many pro-lifers feel the need to push the issue outside of the legislative process. Pro-lifers have often been told, “not now, not now, not now” for decades. Well, I can’t help but ask, “When?” Unless and until elected pro-lifers demonstrate that they are serious about the issue, some in the movement will continue to pursue the means they see available to them.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      Not only did it affect women voters, but it singularly motivated liberals to head to the polls to vote against the amendment. While they were there, they voted for Hickenlooper & Bennet.

      The personhood amendment is an ineffective solution to gaining ground in the pro-life fight.

      • boozerpitts

        We’ve already had pro-life presidents and a majorities in congress. They changed nothing.

        • sertelt

          Actually they gave us judges who are ready (or may be ready) to overturn Roe. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito…We’re one vote away potentially from overturning Roe thanks to the pro-life presidentials and majorities in Congress.

          Democrats have given us pro-abortion judges (everyone else on the court) — making so elections DO matter.

          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            …all stated in the opening paragraph. This must be our purpose these next two years, to rein in single-issue voters into a much broader vision of a constitutional republic. Good show

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            nt

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            …that hormonal contraception (the Pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera) IS abortifacient at least some of the time, and the IUD in all cases.
            http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000162.php

          • runner12

            The pill, Depo-provera, and Norplant only prevent ovulation, they are not used to harm a fetus (you can look up how the drugs interact in the body on www.drugs.com). They do have some nasty side-effects and long-term use can be harmful. You are pretty spot-on when it comes to the IUD’s. If a woman becomes pregnant while on one of these things it places the baby and mother at risk. These look like bad news and have you read the side-effects? No thank you.

          • Uma Richie

            I went to your link and looked up birth control pills.

            Here’s what I saw:
            “Birth control pills keep women from making an egg cell each month. They may also keep a fertilized egg from sticking to the lining of the uterus (womb) and growing into a baby.”

            See for yourself:
            http://www.drugs.com/cg/birth-control-pills.html

          • runner12

            and not specfic drugs (see bullet points down the list on website of the different types of BCP’s).There are a ton of different drugs on the market. My comment was referring to the pills listed on CTRL’s website. If you look up the brand name of these drugs, you will find that they only prevent ovulation and have nothing to do with preventing a fertilized egg from sticking to the uterus. In fact, many women have become pregnant on those pills and have gone on to have healthy babies. BCP’s are also used to treat cystic acne and to regulate irregular cycles in women. The website may also be grouping the abortion pill and IUD’s in this category.The IUD’s are very bad news and as I said could harm both baby and mother. I can’t believe that there are women willing to use those.

            I understand and respect people who do not believe in using birth control pills. I have many friends who feel this way. However, it is not accurate to equate your run of the mill BCP to abortion and what’s more to try and legislate that women not use birth control pills. The fight against abortion is not about fighting birth control, but about stopping murder.

          • runner12

            are used to thicken the cervical mucus to prevent the fertilized egg from sticking to the lining of the uterus. But their primary method of action is to stop ovulation.

            Since many women get pregnant on the pill, I would venture to say that the secondary mechanism of action is not very effective. Some people may equate that wiith abortion, but I personally do not. BCP’s do not come without risks though. I would definitely be an informed patient when discussing the different options with my doctos if I chose to go that route.

          • Menlo

            Too bad today’s medical science cannot (or will not) come up with a “contraceptive” that works just as effectively to safely kill libido.

          • Uma Richie

            Pointing out that BCPs can cause a brand new human to die by making the uterus hostile to implantation is not a declaration of war against BCPs. Instead, it should be a wake up call for women, doctors, and drug companies.

            Clinical trials of birth control pills use ovarian ultrasounds to assess how well the pill prevents ovulation in the whole study population. That technology is ubiquitous, and can be applied to individual patients during annual gynecological examinations. Women who appear to have ovarian activity should be advised to choose another method.

            Relying on the pill for contraception in the face of medical evidence that it is not working for you would be akin to using a condom for contraception with a partner who wears a permanent diamond stud in his member.

            I put the pill in the same category as cigarettes: Very, very bad for you, but if it is used in a manner that does no harm to someone else, it shouldn’t be outlawed.

          • runner12

            I think that the use of BCP’s is up to a woman and her doctor. There is no doubt that BCP’s come with significant risk factors. If I had a strong family history of breast cancer, I would avoid them like the plague. However, if I had a strong family history of ovarian cancer, I would choose to use them. They have been show to significantly reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in women.

            That being said, I do not equate BCP’s and their mechanism of action to be causing a brand new human to die. A fertilized egg cannot begin to grow into a human being without implantation. It requires it for nourishment and growth. I guess it depends on where you feel life begins and it makes for some great discussions on medical bioethics. But I think it has the potential to divide the pro-life movement. So in the spirit of unity and the common purpose we both share in ending abortion in this country, we can just agree to disagree on that one :)

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            is the video “28 Days on the Pill,” which you can see online, for free, at http://28daysonthepill.com/

          • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

            …extensive treatment of the subject, signed by a large group of OB-GYNs, at: http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/2/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/

          • runner12

            I read the article that you linked. It was interesting, but it did not change my views. Even they had to admit that no scientific evidence is currently available to suggest that BCP’s are abortfacient. Again, it all depends on when you believe life begins.
            The article also admitted that the primary mechanism of action is to stop ovulation and the change in endometrial lining is a secondary effect of that mechanism.
            As I stated earlier, there is room for this disagreement within the pro-life movement. I respect both points of view. But legislatively, we need to be focused on ending abortion in this country, not legislating BCP’s.

          • writeblock

            We too often take the short view of things and lose in the long run. It’s not just Colorado.

            Look at what happened in PA. Santorum was thinking strategically when he and Bush got behind Specter in 2002. The Senate majority was hanging by a thread. Specter was due to rise to the chairmanship of the Judicial Committee. Bush and Santorum knew it was crucial to keep the majority if we were to retain our conservative majority in the Supreme Ct. Toomey was polling poorly and was almost sure to lose. So they made a deal to back Specter–a deal that greatly upset a lot of conservatives.

            Specter won but conservatives were pissed with Santorum–and stayed pissed even after Specter played nice and Bush nominated Roberts and then Alito. What happened next? Santorum lost big time, abandoned by his pro-life supporters. The upshot? Casey voted for the Health bill–and more abortions.

            Ditto on the health bill. Stupak was backed by the pro-life Catholic bishops and other pro-lifers when he rescued the health bill with a pro-life amendment. Social conservatives made Stupak a hero. But he actually served to keep the bill alive. The amendment was easily overturned in the Senate and the health bill became law and expanded the option for abortions. So much for Stupak the hero.

            In 2007 we gave Giuliani a hard time over abortion. But despite his pro-choice stance, he was a strict constructionist who had promised, if elected, to nominate fellow strict constructionists–judges like Scalia. He was polling ahead of both Obama and Hillary and was ahead in some blue states–NJ and CT–and in purple states–PA and OH. So what did we do? We took the short view, ditched our best shot at the presidency and went with McCain who lost big-time in the NE and even in some formerly red states. We pleased Dr. Dobson and ended up electing the most pro-abortion president in our history.

            In every case social conservatives had a short-sighted perspective and failed to understand that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. We need to emphasize what unites us with independents, not what divides us. Sen. DeMint is absolutely wrong when he says there is no division between social and fiscal conservatives. But in fact there most certainly is. A lot of fiscal conservatives–mostly independents–care nothing about social conservatism and a lot of social conservatives take a casual view of economics. Given this division, it makes no sense at all to emphasize factors that lose us elections. We need to emphasize fiscal issues and play down what divides us. The object should be to gain power, not to win a debate in the short term. Power makes for the kind of changes we want.

          • Old_Dominion

            I vote my wallet, pure and simple. Social conservatism holds absolutely zero appeal for me. Incentivizing work, innovation, and investment through responsible fiscal stewardship (i.e. not tax and spend) is what does appeal to me. I respect Mr. DeMint for his strong convictions, but I share your disagreement with his supposition that there is no chasm between social and economic conservatives.

          • Old_Dominion

            there is one thing I find in common with social conservatives: RKBA.

          • neomom

            The Democrats and Progressives take the long view – always. Sometimes we need to think the same way.

      • Sean (SIConservative)

        I’ll ignore the second as I didn’t take a position on whether it’s effective.

        As to your first point, the Democrats had a turnout operation, and we didn’t. That’s not the fault of those pushing the amendment. Ken Buck either a) took a position on the amendment without fully understanding it, or b) made a policy decision based on which way the wind was blowing. That’s not the fault of those pushing the amendment. In the governor’s race, the GOP didn’t have a viable nominee, thus motivating Democrats and depressing Republican turnout. Again, not the fault of those pushing the amendment.

        As for it affecting women voters, do you have any exit polling data on that? If you do, I’d like to see it so that I can address it. If not, that’s purely conjecture, and ignores the facts that those who vote based on the life issue are more likely to vote pro-life than those on the other side, and that women are more likely to be pro-life than men.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          The fact is, the votes were there for AG, SoS & Treas. Some of those same voters didn’t vote for Buck. So using the GOTV argument is a non-starter.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Many of the conservative women I know here (yes, I actually live in CO) had a lot of heartburn about Buck because of his position on the personhood amendment. I also know some liberal voters who said they were motivated to go to the polls to vote against the amendment.

          • Sean (SIConservative)

            I don’t know enough about those races to address them in turn, but I will say that many such races hinge on things like name recognition, or, by extension, fundraising. That’s why we can win a Governorship in a landslide while a Democrat wins a Senate race in a landslide, as has happened frequently, especially in the Dakotas.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I can’t imagine anyone with a television or radio that had not heard Ken Buck’s name.

            Fundraising was a problem, partly due to some missteps by Buck’s campaign, partly due to a viscous fight between Buck & Jane Norton.

          • Sean (SIConservative)

            I was referring to the possibility that there was a great divide in the name recognition of the candidates in the other races, not suggesting that Buck’s name rec wasn’t high enough.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Ken Buck’s name was much more well known than Gessler & Stapleton. Suthers was the incumbent AG, but even still, I had to look it up to post this to be sure I was right.

          • Sean (SIConservative)

            Sorry for not being clearer. What I was saying is that there could have been name recognition imbalances within the races themselves, i.e. higher name rec for Suthers than Garnett, Gessler than Buescher, and Stapleton than Kennedy. Down ballot races are much more likely to turn on name recognition than top-ticket affairs, though, to be sure, top-ticket battles often due the same when the imbalance is so great that a challenger can’t be competitive.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            But not for Buescher or Kennedy as they were the incumbents. This vote falloff was pretty consistent across all precincts as well.

    • sertelt

      Sean, there’s no doubt that other factors contributing to the Buck defeat, including the ones you named. But to have television commercials every hour on the hour talking about how Buck’s position for the amendment resulted in him opposing contraception and birth control — when 90-95 percent of the population not only supports it but uses it — completely turned him off to women voters, independents, and moderate/conservative Democrats. He was leading consistently in the polls until the barrage of attack ads started.

      And, as you pointed out, he handled them poorly. Had he not faced pressure to endorse the amendment or else be declared not pro-life by some of the amendment supporters, he could have avoided that attack (provided too that he had been coached better on how to frame the issue).

      We pro-lifers are certainly serious about ending abortion and it’s not a matter of waiting. We’re working on it now and the point of the article is to urge people to get on the bandwagon for the main and only method of getting to the place where abortions can be stopped.

      No one wants to wait, but we’re forced to do so because of the Supreme Court and the current makeup. It’s not a question of waiting and no one is saying “not now.”

      Quite the opposite, we’re saying now is the time to get on board with the move to replace Obama and begin the end of abortion.

      • Sean (SIConservative)

        For starters, I wasn’t saying that you’re not serious about the issue. Lot’s of members of Congress aren’t, though.

        That said, I don’t think taking issue with those pushing personhood amendments is the most effective use of energy. There are plenty of lessons to be learned from Colorado, especially from the gubernatorial race, but I think the approach that you’re taking is the wrong one. What we need, both as candidates and elected officials, is people whose understanding of first principles is such that they are able to apply those principles to issues and effectively explain their views in such a way that, even if people disagree, they respect the opinion. That’s one of the primary things that President Reagan did so well. Having candidates say things like, “I’ll tell you my positions after the election,” and flip-flopping on hot-button issues is devastating. If candidates don’t understand and have the ability to explain their own positions, it is only a matter of time until they trip up on something like this.

        • sertelt

          Scott, thanks for clearing that up. Yes, some pro-life members of Congress aren’t keen on making it a priority but a lot are.

          When the amendment devours time, money, people, resources, etc, and has churches and people spending energy that should be going to something that will actually stop abortions and not a feel good effort that will do absolutely nothing to save one baby, then yes there is good reason to tell people about why the amendments are a waste.

  • http://twitter.com/kevinjjones kevinjjones

    This is a good case for any pro-life Coloradan on the fence about whether to sign another personhood amendment petition next time its backers try.

    I don’t believe CORTL has ever been a reliably Republican organization. They have their merits, but an understanding of party politics is not one of them.

    I would like to see a similar self-evaluation from fiscal conservatives and free-trade advocates. Buck was hit hard for backing free trade and de-industrialization in a poor job environment.

    Several of the fiscal amendments on the ballot were defeated by an even wider margin than the Personhood Amendment. They triggered an “all hands on deck” reaction from the Democrats and also hurt Buck.

  • SirGladiator

    I don’t know the wording of this amendment, but according to an earlier commenter they said ads were running against Buck saying that he opposed contraception because he supported this amendment. I have no idea whether the amendment is worded in such a way that would somehow outlaw contraception, but if it is, or if there’s simply this kind of confusion about it, doesn’t it just make sense to put explicit wording in the Amendment that ‘This law does not apply to contraception, only abortion’? You’d have a great chance of getting a majority vote then, I would think, particularly since Colorado has a large and growing Hispanic population, which is Pro-Life and Catholic. So I’d say don’t stop doing the Personhood Amendment, do a smarter one, one that is written correctly and can’t be attacked by the left on grounds that are completely separate from abortion. Do that, and it can win.

  • K.

    Let’s take a page from Japan’s book and pass a law stating that all abortions by married women require the consent of the husband.

    I also agree that Roe v. Wade was an absolutely putrid piece of judicial usurpation. The Constitution clearly says nothing and nada about this subject. We have a rogue judicial branch in this country.

    • aesthete

      Either abortion is the termination of the life of a human being, or it is not.

      If it is, it needs to be criminalized and prevented in the same way that murder and manslaughter are. You cannot consistently be “personally pro-life” while being against the criminalization of abortion, unless you hold the same position in the case of murder.

      If it is not, the fetus is part of the woman’s body and, as the sole owner of her body, the woman has the ultimate say over what happens to it — no one gets veto power over what a grown woman can do with any part of her body.

      If you’re thinking it will work from a political point of view, all it will do is give leftists even more material to argue that the anti-abortion position is really an anti-woman position. I think I get where you’re coming from — but unfortunately, it isn’t helpful.

      • K.

        …seems to be one that neither the left nor the right in America wants to hear about very much. We do know however that 70% or more of the public supports spousal notification — in other words, that if a married woman wants to have an abortion she should have to at least notify her spouse. Unfortunately the public was overruled by the rogue Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

        I think that for people who want to just outlaw all abortion, requiring the consent of the spouse would be a step forward since it will decrease abortion rates. My own opinion is that the fetus is the product of both the man and the woman — it does after all share both of their DNA — and that they ought to decide together on most fetal procedures. The woman has the difference that she has to undergo physical labor but in my view this is not a reason to say that the father is less of a parent.

      • JSobieski

        I believe that with the exception of New Jersey, all of the states made abortions a felony. However, the penalties were far closer to involuntary manslaughter than to murder.

        At the end of the day, I don’t think abortion (at least from the perspective of the mother) is really analogous to other types of crimes resulting in death. Since spousal notification is an obligation on the spouse (ie from the perspective of the mother) I don’t think the consistency you are seeking is possible.

        Despite all of the logic above, I basically agree with you. The failure to disclose information about the termination of life is a lesser evil than the termination of life. I just don’t think making abortion law fit other death-resulting crimes is truly applicable, practical, or in any way helpful to the pro-life cause (except to reassure some that abortion criminal sanctions were not equivalent to murder charges).

        • powertothepeople

          just as laws were adjusted to grant prosecutors the ability to go after a drunk driver for murder when a person is killed due to their drinking.

          I agree with Aesthate, it is either murder of a human or it is not. If it is killing a human, then it is premeditated and worthy of justice. Or it is simply the property of the woman and can be disposed of in any way she sees fit.

          It will never happen in this country, but that is not to say it should not happen. The biggest criminals in this whole mess are the so called doctors who make a living killing the unborn. They should all be arrested, prosecuted for murder, and if convicted, thrown into a huge blender so in their final moments, they know what it felt like.

          All the women should spend their lives in jail and have their tubes permanently closed so that no longer have the ability to produce a human that could be murdered.

          If abortion is outlawed, and that is a big if, we need to adjust our laws to reflect that abortion is a premeditated murder so that the backstreet cases can be prosecuted so severely that it acts as a deterrent for the next one thinking about it.

          • JSobieski

            will make it that much more difficult to overturn Roe and establish ANY criminalization of abortion.

            At least with respect to the mother, abortion is a unique circumstances (I am all for cutting lose on the doctor). The law of murder has always allowed for mitigating factors to result in crimes such as manslaughter. Such mitigating factors are likely to be present in many abortion scenarios, and as such, should in my view not be subject to a murder charge.

            Does it make sense to penalize abortion (with respect to the mother–the doctor is a different story) with greater severity than drunk driving? Both result in death. A person with an unwanted pregnancy is a bit more of a sympathetic figure who after the point of becoming pregnant, has no ability to alter her condition. In contrast, the drunk driver can (at least in theory) pull over the side of the road at any time before any instance of killing someone. It takes mere hours to sleep off drunkeness, while pregancy is a 9 month condition.

            I have been involved in pro-life organizations since college. I want badly want Roe overturned. However, I prefer the pre-Roe legal framework to what you seem to be suggesting.

          • powertothepeople

            as to what I would want if abortion was eliminated. But I do know I have to disagree with the premise you are making concerning the way it would be prosecuted in an abortion free era and here is why.

            Lets say abortion was ended today, we would have to write new laws to punish those who defy the law and have one anyways. So how do we set the punishment. Here would be some questions that would have to be considered:

            Who is more culpable, the women who plans for a period of time to kill the baby or the doctor who makes himself/herself rich of the killing. Or are they both equally guilty? If it is equally, then both must face the same punishment.

            What would be the criminal charge? Make it misdemeanor and you have little fear concerning the law. If it is made a felony, where do you draw the line concerning the severity of the charge. Get into a fistfight and kill someone even with no intent, you get involuntary murder charges, but this same charge would not apply as abortion is premeditated. It would have to be murder and there are laws on the books already concerning premeditated murder and non premeditated murder. I can not see where anyone could classify abortion as anything but premeditated.

            But to answer your question, “Does it make sense to penalize abortion (with respect to the mother?the doctor is a different story) with greater severity than drunk driving?” and my answer would be yes. Or at least the same. Just as a drunk can pull over or not get in a car to start with, so could a woman and the doctor chose to stop at anytime up to once the actual procedure has begun. Most abortions are done with the woman fully awake, so stopping it is up to her. A fatal drunk driving wreck kills lives and was stoppable/preventable and so are abortions. In fact, I would say a woman who chooses to have an abortion does so with a much clearer mind than the drunk who decides to drive.

            But I am also a realist, ending abortion is a battle we can never quit but we will also most likely never win. And that is even more true as time goes on and more and more people are brainwashed into believing the fetus is not human. Ending abortion is my sole focus, any laws written after are simply conjecture and day dreaming.

            But I can see your point and it makes sense even though I tend to lean towards much stiffer punishments for the murdering doctors/women involved in taking millions of lives.

          • JSobieski

            Frankly, the crimes of murder and manslaughter do differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

            There is not much consensus in the pro-life movement once you get beyond repealing Roe v. Wade. I think criminal laws like abortion should be decided at the state level. Does that mean I agree with the NJ laws in 1967 in which abortion wasn’t even a felony? No, I don’t—but criminal laws should be determined by the legislatures of the respective states.

            The argument that mothers would be prosecuted for murder if Roe is overturned is precisely what the pro-abort movement uses to scare people on the fence. The anti-abortion laws in 1967 were stronger than the earlier generations of anti-abortion laws since unborn babies in the first trimester were allowed in the initial laws on the subject. The “quickening” was deemed to have occurred in the 4th month.

            One important aspect you should consider is the inability of a pregnant woman to get away from the baby. The law provides for mitigating factors in criminal matters. For example, if I was stalking you day and night such that you simply couldn’t get away from me and you shot me in a state of trauma due to your inability to get away from me, that is different than simply shooting someone on your doorstep.

            An unwanted pregnancy is a traumatic experience (at least for most mothers). Most instances of abortion are not analogous to taking a gun and shooting the first person who appears on the sidewalk in front of the house. The criminal laws should reflect that distinction.

            I am not saying abortion should be a misdemeanor. Manslaughter is a felony. Heck, even involuntary manslaughter is a felony.

            I am saying that the instances in which a mother should be prosecuted for murder are few and far in between. It would simply be radically inconsistent with our existing laws.

          • JSobieski

            http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT

            http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp

          • powertothepeople

            and the biggest thing is this:

            “”An unwanted pregnancy is a traumatic experience (at least for most mothers). ”

            This is the same argument made by pro abortion folks on why abortions are legal and should be legal. Yes I get it, sucks for a woman to lay down and wake up pregnant. I see where it sucks that a teen has to go to mom and dad and let them know she is knocked up. But that has nothing to do with granting a justifiable reason to kill. For sake of argument, lets set aside the three heart string reasons, rape, incest, life of mother, and only focus on abortion on demand. If this was made illegal, the “pain” or “trauma” a woman “suffers” from an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy may be there, but it still is not a mitigating factor when considering punishment. She made the choice to lay down with a man unprotected, she does not get to come back later and claim trauma.

            You also said there is a difference between shooting the first person on the street and killing a baby. Where is the difference? Both take a life, both victims did no wrong and were given no choice, yet they are both dead due to the actions of the criminal. Why would you then come back and give a different punishment?

            You also keep making distinctions between the guilt of a doctor killing the babies and the woman bringing the baby to be killed. I would state that the most culpable in the matter is the woman providing the baby that will be put up to be killed.

            But I 100% agree with you the states should define their own laws. They should also be able to define the legality of abortion which is the way the founding fathers wanted it. The only thing I would want to see should abortion and its punishment actually get left to the states, is residency verification. Would not want someone from lets say SC skirting the law by going to NY to get an abortion or setting up a PO box in the state for 30 days and getting past a lax rule.

            The reality is, we will not see the day in this country where anyone is prosecuted for killing babies even if abortion is overturned. We have just become a country without a heart.

          • JSobieski

            Why you would treat a “traumatic” incident involving a gun and a shooting less severely than a “traumatic” abortion is beyond me.

            The reason why the doctor should be treated more severely is that the doctor can more easily excuse him or herself from the situation.

            A pregnant woman cannot escape being pregnent.

            I think you have some fundamental misundertandings about “mitigating” factors and how criminal charges are selected and prosecuted.

            Mitigating factors don’t justify murder—they aren’t affirmative defenses that let you go free. They are however factors that result in charges like voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

            The law defines crimes based on mental states (mens rea–criminal intent) and the ability of a reasonable person to avoid the momentary situation.

            Thus, the law is more sympathetic to the ILLEGAL killing of a stalker, than to a killing of a random stranger in your front yard.

            Much of your argument is simply contrary to our entire criminal justice system. If you are arguing for an entirely new framework for criminal laws, I am willing to listen. However, if you are talking about fitting in abortion to the existng framework of laws that we have, the number of murder charges (much less convictions) for abortion would be rare.

          • aesthete

            Murder, manslaughter, and other crimes whose end result is the active termination of the life of a human being perpetrated by another human being doesn’t become OK when a third party that is peripherally involved assents to the deed. IOW, manslaughter of one’s son doesn’t become acceptable simply because one’s spouse consents to it; why should the case be any different with abortion? Again, there is either termination of human life, or the fetus has as much moral significance as a recycling bin. If it’s the former, it’s ghastly to think that it becomes OK when both parents are complicit in the deed. If it’s the latter, there’s no excuse for forcing women to give veto power over their life decisions to their significant other (or insignificant, as the case may be). There’s also no political value in the proposal, as it simply allows the left to paint us as anti-women.

        • K.

          …is more of a pivot to force a judicial retreat than anything else. 70% of the public supports it and so it seems a case where the judiciary has wantonly imposed itself on the legislative branch.

          In real-world political strategy you have to align yourself with some source of power in order to succeed. The public is strongly on our side on this issue, so let’s use that our advantage.

          Of course, I have no intention of stopping at spousal notification but want full spousal consent as struck down in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth in 1976. Whether the public supports that right now I don’t know for sure although some polls do say yes.

  • timelyrenewed

    May I suggest that in the end legislative solutions are limited until we address the deeper problem of the Supreme Court’s illegitimate expansion of its power by reading the “privacy” doctrine into the hopelessly vague first section of the 14th amendment. By amending the 14th amendment to restore its original meaning as a ban on governmental race discrimination, we can solve this and a host of other constitutional abuses by the modern Supreme Court. By promoting amendments to the Constitution to restore its original meaning and structure we can lock in this moment of constitutionalist resurgence regardless of the future vagaries of political parties.

    The first step is to put through an amendment to the amendment process itself which will eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and empower grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. Then state-level personhood amendments can proceed without threat from federal courts. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

  • http://deathby1000papercuts.com mondoreb

    This post is the worst kind of evil: it urges us to set aside our conscience for short-term political expediency.

    That this would come from a so-called “pro-life” leader is evidence of how bad things have gotten. It’s bad logic, bad politics, bad all the way around. Only the weak would be persuaded by the mush that masquerades as argument.

    By the same logic, perhaps one stop supporting LifeNews.com until it’s politically expedient to do so–say, until they’ve accomplished the reversal of Roe v Wade?

    This post is more than disappointing: it’s disturbing, the more so because it appears the week of Christmas and its author is supposed to be a champion of life–not politically expedient life.

  • http://www.letmelive.org weswilson

    Ertelt alleges that “the only solution to ending abortion” is “replacing Obama with a pro-life president and changing control of the Senate.” That position is as flawed as saying Personhood amendments are the only solution.

    We’ve had a pro-life president for 20 of the 38 years since Roe. In that time we’ve moved the Supreme Court from opposing life 7-2 to opposing life 5-4. I suppose that’s progress, but most of the lives saved have been through pregnancy centers, sidewalk counselors, prayer vigils, education efforts, and state-level restrictions on abortion.

    If we get a pro-life president, Senate, and Supreme Court in 2013, we need abortion bans for that court to uphold in order to invalidate Roe. The appeals process takes time to reach the Supreme Court, and the public is educated about the need for an abortion ban of some kind only as we agitate for it. That’s why we need to be pushing it now, and why the pro-life people pursuing different strategies need to stop torpedoing each others’ efforts.

    We must fight for life on every front. Some battles are winnable now. Others aren’t yet, but will become winnable as we continue to fight for them. Personhood’s time will come, but now is a great time to start pushing it. It’s not the silver bullet some supporters claim, and Ertelt is right that we need to be getting behind good presidential and Senate candidates for 2012 already.

  • gumpy

    Roe v. Wade has been a great boon for our party. If Roe v. Wade is ever repealed, conservatives will lose in great landslides. Opposition to Roe v. Wade has been the only truely grand issue for our party in the last three decades.