Kirsten Powers On Abortion, Wendy Davis & Crazy Nancy

Kirsten Powers is that rare left of center journalist with intellectual honesty. Her latest topic, the ignorance of Democratic women generally in their defense of abortion laws. And in particular, Ms. Powers focuses on two of the most ignorant, Wendy Davis and Crazy Nancy. This from Ms. Powers in the Daily Beast:

The Democratic star du jour was asked this week to explain the difference between the late-term abortions she fought to keep legal in Texas and the illegal killings by Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. “I don’t know what happened in the Gosnell case,” she told the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack, who cornered her after her National Press Club speech on Monday.

This is incredible. After all, Davis is the state senator who held an 11-hour filibuster to fight legislation drafted in response to the abuses at Gosnell’s clinic. A passing knowledge of the case seems like basic due diligence.

She went on: “But I do know that [Gosnell] happened in an ambulatory surgical center. And in Texas changing our clinics to that standard obviously isn’t going to make a difference.” It takes real skill to pack so many falsehoods into so few words. . . .

At one point in his interview, McCormack asked Davis what she made of the fact a majority of women support late-term abortion bans. Davis told him, “I…think that a lot of people don’t really understand the landscape of what’s happening in that arena today and what an incredibly small percentage of procedures take place there.”

Actually, the people who “don’t really understand” the issue are the Democratic ladies crusading against laws the majority of the country supports.

Despite frequently mocking anti-abortion activists as anti-science know-nothings, abortion rights absolutists are the ones who play fast and loose with the facts of abortion. Because they are so rarely asked to defend their positions, Davis and her ilk apparently don’t feel the need to be informed. Follow-up questions to their strange and often empirically false statements are almost nonexistent, while offensive or misinformed comments from GOP back benchers are greeted with full-scale media hysteria.

John McCormack has been the dogged fly in the ointment here. On a noble quest to get a response to an eminently reasonable question, he has yet to get a straight answer. In June, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi convened a press conference to condemn a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. McCormack asked her essentially the same question he asked Davis: “What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth? Pelosi answered, “You’re probably enjoying that question a lot, I can see you savoring it.” This insulting nonsense inexplicably elicited laughter from some of the assembled reporters.

Pelosi then told an outright lie: “[The 20-week ban] would make it a federal law that there would be no abortion in our country.” No reporter questioned this absurdity, even though they’ve heard pro-abortion rights leaders assert a thousand times that “only” 1.5 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks. (For those who care, that’s “only” 18,000 late-term abortions each year.)

Pelosi then expressed outrage at the line of questioning, raised the fact she had five children in six years, and snapped, “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this.” When you are pulling the Catholic card to defend your support of unrestricted late-term abortion, you’ve officially gone off the rails. . . .

Well, in all fairness, Pelosi has been certifiably insane for years. She is, I am convinced, incapable of intellectual honesty. There are many on the far left who seem likewise, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the most odious.

At any rate, my hats off to Ms. Powers for her intellectual honesty and holding both Democrats and the media to account on the abortion issue.

For the record, here are my positions on abortion.

Abortion is immoral at any point. However, if asked to vote on the issue, I would vote to allow that women still have safe access to abortions during the time frame when there is no question that a fetus is not viable outside the womb.

Making abortion a Constitutional right was one of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court has ever made. It has utterly poisoned our national politics for decades. There was no basis whatsoever in the Constitution for the decision. I fully agree with the conservatives on the Supreme Court and its most liberal justice, Justice Ginsburg, that abortion is a question outside the Constitution and, thus, should have been left to states and localities.

Lastly, there is no question that once a fetus has any chance at being viable outside the womb, killing that fetus inside the womb or out is murder. It is murder both by the mother and physician involved, and should be treated as such at law.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Morality, the Murder of Dr. Tiller (Update - Gov. Palin's Remarks)

Art: John Brown at Harper's Ferry

Yesterday, Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country to perform late term abortions, was murdered by Scott Roeder as Mr. Tiller attended church. Late term abortions are highly controversial as they occur at a point when the foetus is or may be viable outside of the mother's womb. Most states ban them. Dr. Tiller was long controversial for performing such abortions and indeed, drew protests from numerous anti-abortion groups and public criticism from many quarters including, most notably, Bill O'Reilly.

According to reports, Mr. Roeder suffered mental illness and had previous criminal convictions, though not for abortion violence. He had become involved in abortion protests. The NYT reports that someone named Scott Roeder "posted a message on the Operation Rescue blog about Dr. Tiller that read, in part: 'Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele’ of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.'"

Many on the left are using this murder as an excuse to claim that, because people expressed dismay and condemnation of Dr. Tiller, that fanned the violence that led Scott Roeder to murder him. Their goal is to cut off all speech with which they disagree. But no rational person could confuse condemnation with a call to violence. Bill O'Reilly, for example, never crossed the clear line between condemnation and the solicitation of violence. He never mused on the air "who will rid me of this turbulent late term abortion doctor." Indeed, this seems little more than projection on the part of the left - today's repositories of hate speech and vitriolic calls for death to whom they disagree with.

Our nation has the ballot box so that it need not turn to the gun to effect political change. Indeed, the reverse of that was the basis for the American Revoulution. So long as we can vote and change laws in free and fair elections, then there can rarely if ever be justification for resorting to the gun.

That said, abortion is unique. Many people consider it to be murder and thus, an abomination. Others see it differently, and no one wants a return to back alley abortions that endanger the life of women. It is clearly a moral and a social issue.

There is no language within the four corners of the Constitution that would suggest abortion is a federal Constitutional issue, nor is there any evidence that any of the drafters of our Constitution considered abortion when they were in fact drafting the Constituion. Thus, whether to allow abortion and under what restrictions are issues be decided by voters at the state level without interference from the federal government. Nonetheless, an activist Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade pulled abortion out of the states' ballot boxes. In the most devisive and destructive decision of the last century, the Supreme Court announced their policy preference that abortion be treated as a Constitutional Right.

I think that wholly wrong, and I think it clearly contributed to the violence involved in the death of Dr. Tilley. The perception that abortion is a penultimate wrong and that it is beyond the power of the individual to effect that through the ballot box will inevitably produce the frustration that, like the issue of slavery prior to 1861, is more likely to lead to violence. It is one of the reasons that Courts should stay out of the business of deciding social policy as a matter of Constitutional law for the nation.

There is an interesting exchange in the book Shogun where the protagonist, Blackthore, speaking with the daimyo Toranaga, comes out in favor of an attack on a government by its people. Toranaga responds that such an act is treason and never to be tolerated, to which the Blackthrone says, not always - its not treason if you win.

Probably no one exemplifies that truism more than Civil War era abolitionist John Brown. As James Marsden wrote in a comment on a post at Q&O:

In 1859, John Brown was castigated in the South as a murderer who tried to free the slaves at Harper’s Ferry and start an insurrection. He paid with his life. Union troops went into battle 2 years later singing “John Brown Lies a’Mouldering in His Grave.” Today, John Brown is considered a righteous hero for giving his life to end a moral horror called slavery.

So is Roetner a modern day John Brown? Slavery was ensconced in our Constitution in 1859 to the same degree that abortion is today. I would argue that even if you take the view that Roetner is the same as Brown, you have to regard what Roetner did as an evil for which he must be punished to the full extent of the law. To do otherwise, you must both excuse a moral evil - murder - and accept the consequence of a breakdown in the rule of law. You should only do that if you feel the evils so great and the ability to end them so out of reach of the ballot box that you are willing to fight an actual war over the issue. It goes without saying that the majority of us do not feel that way.

Which leads me into a segue to a fascinating post at Q&O that I mentioned briefly above. The author asks, "[h]ow big would a moral outrage have to be before you turned to violence?" The question and the comments garnered to this point are fascinating, and I highly recommend you read the post and give it some thought.

Update: From Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: "I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?' Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message."

Update: I rarely am in full agreement with Megan McCardle, but in this case, our essays on this issue are pretty much interchangable.

Read More...

Summary only...