Jophiel wrote:
Mike Huckabee
No states rights for moral issues like abortion. (Nov 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Outlaw all abortions; err on the side of life. (Jan 2007)
Er? Sounds like semantic twisting to me. I have no clue what you mean by "no states rights for moral issues", since I can find no quote or position statement by Huckabee that fits that sentence at all.
I'm sorry, but not funding something with federal money is *not* the same as banning it. How many times have I made this same point?
Outlaw all abortions? Yes. I'm sure that's his personal position. Um... That does not mean that he'd actively do that as president, nor does that magically make this the overarching objective of the Republican party on this issue.
We're just trying to stop the manipulation of the law that ACLU lawyers keep using to insist that a state can't deny an 8 month pregnant woman an abortion because she thinks having a child might cause her stress. Seriously. I don't think that's a ridiculous position, and it should indicate to you just how far the pendulum on this issue is swung. Calling a fight against the "right" of a woman to do that the same as "outlawing all abortion" is incredibly false.
Quote:
Mitt Romney
Would be delighted to sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007)
Lol. Semantics is everything. The site you're visiting is labeling his position that. But what he actually said was that he'd sign a "Human Life Amendment" if it appeared before him. And let's be frank about this. The only version of such an amendment that's even gotten out of committee was one that simply stated the following:
A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution. Um... Is that a federal ban on all abortion? I don't think so. This is actually one of the most strawmanned amendments I've heard of. All that's being attempted is to reverse the assumption that an abortion is a "right". Because as long as that's the current ruling, no state can restrict abortions. Again. The pendulum on this issue has swung in the wrong direction to a ridiculous degree.
I'm pro-choice. However, I don't believe that means that a woman has a right to get an abortion right up until the moment she gives birth. Yet, that's increasingly how Equal Rights Acts are being interpreted nationwide. States are finding that it's impossible to pass any real restrictions on abortions, and in fact very difficult to even avoid being forced to fund abortions. IMO, that's waaaaay too far. That's not "pro-choice". That's "pro-abortion", which I am definitely not.
Are most Republican candidates farther to the "life" side then me? Sure. But right now, that's what's needed in order to correct for the ridiculous position we've found ourselves in on this issue.
And this is a quote from an ABC interview with Mitt Romney on the issue:
Quote:
"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."
Wow! Sounds exactly like the position I've said is the position of Conservatives on this issue.
Quote:
McCain said on Meet the Press that he would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Again. He was talking about a Human Life Amendment. Which is *not* automatically a ban against abortion. Just because your source calls it that does not mean that's what he was talking about.
Isn't it funny that the whole "OMG! They want to ban abortion at the federal level" argument only works if you get to decide what the language of a Human Rights Amendment would say? Hmmmm...
Meanwhile you ignore the quotes from the candidates where they repeatedly talk about allowing the states to set their own laws. Double Hmmmm...
Quote:
He admitted that it wasn't likely but he would be in favor of it which doesn't sound like "Let the states decide" to me.
Sure. A Human Rights Amendment. See the whole "but that doesn't mean a ban on abortion" bit again.
Quote:
He has also said that he wanted Roe v Wade over-turned so that the government could turn its efforts to making abortion illegal state-by-state.
Certainly. But that's the decision of the states. I'd love to see an actual quote here Joph, sine subtle use of semantics can dramatically change the implied meaning there. Did he actually say that "the government" could turn it's efforts to making abortion illegal state-by-state? Or did he say that this would allow states to each do this on their own? The former implies some sort of national effort taking advantage of federal power, while the latter is removing federal level restrictions on the states (which matches the conservative position as I've stated it many times).
Quote:
Repealing Roe v Wade isn't some "States rights" issues, it's the half-way point to their final stated goal.
The stated goal being to allow the states to make their own laws on abortion. Um... That *is* states rights. The point is that right now, states can't do that and are increasingly being forced via the courts into accepting more and more ridiculous situations in which abortion must be allowed. I'm sorry. This *is* a states rights issue.
Yes, it's also an issue that will allow anti-abortionists to pass laws supporting their position, but as I keep saying over and over, conservatives do not define themselves by issues alone, but by the methods of power. How do we decide the rules we live under is important to us. And "judicial fiat from the federal level" does not sit well with conservatives. My personal position on abortion is less important then my position on how we should determine which side "wins".
Quote:
So there's your three front-runners and their stated views on abortion. Doesn't sound like a strong advocating of "States' Rights" to me but I guess you hear what you want to hear.
Yes. None of which hold a direct "federal ban on abortion" position. That's why that's a strawman argument. Your "side" transforms any position that attempts to remove protections for abortion "rights" into a position to "ban abortion". Heck. You even argued that giving states the right to set their own laws on abortion was just "half way" to the "real goal". Isn't that you putting your own assumptions into the issue?
Yes. I think it is...