Duane wrote:
> Now, I'm not about to say that someone should be castigated simply for
> being pro-life. But government funds distributed to a pro-life
> Christian organization seems to be indicative not only of Bush's position
> on abortion, but also the position of the cronies he wants to appoint to
> his cabinet and (potentially) to the Supreme Court. It also seems to
> violate separation of church and state, but then Republicans have shown
> little concern for the constitutional import of this part of the Bill of
> Rights.
The longer I live, the less I am likely to second-guess someone's
statements. I have to evaluate subsequent statements and actions before I'm
likely to make a final judgment. From what you've related, how do you know
just what he meant by "support?" Maybe he meant a type of "moral support"
and not actual government funding. Also, I would not necessarily call this
a violation of church and state unless that clinic is owned or run by a
church. At any rate, it is unclear what exactly Bush has in mind here.
> Also, remember that Plessy v. Ferguson, the court case sanctioning
> separate but equal school systems, had been around since 1896 and was only
> overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Thank goodness that sometimes
> the courts act with bold, deliberative strokes! But if you are
> pro-choice, you should be aware that Reverend Vince's warning about the
> Supreme Court becoming more conservative is real. The Brown v. Board
> justices were also subject to popular resistance, violence, and threats.
> But it is precisely because the Supreme Court is ultimately above and
> beyond popular review and accountability that makes it such a powerful
> part of the government. YOU need to prove to ME that policy can't change
> overnight, because history shows that in fact it can.
But you have only cited one case in over a 100 years. It is also a case
that is not on point as far as the law regarding abortion. Maybe some need
to prove to me, by showing me a collection of actual statements, where a
majority of Republicans currently in positions of power have vowed to
overturn Roe v. Wade. Then I would consider this "threat" something to
seriously think about.
> And indeed, the Republican party in general wants to change certain
policies, including
> the legality of abortion, so what makes you think that between Bush,
> Ashcroft, and a potential sea change in the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade
> won't be overturned?
There is a thought I have not wanted to share on this because it's kind of
creepy and controversial to state it, at least to me. I have heard a number
of Republicans and also a few Democrats smirk at the thought that
Republicans would ever want to outlaw abortion. The reason? Abortion helps
reduce the amount of welfare and other social services money spent by the
government. Like I said, kind of creepy, but also thought-provoking.
I suppose I am "Pro-Choice" because I think it's a woman's personal
business. However, I wish the government did not have to be involved in
this issue at all. I hate that something that is so individual and personal
has been such a loud and sometimes exploited political issue for so long. I
hate that it has all kinds of other things attached to it like personal
choice in religion and so on. It seems like some people have to be ashamed
of their personal religion if that religion is anti-abortion or they are
attacked if their religious beliefs are "politically incorrect." It drags
peoples' personal religious beliefs into the political dialogue. Just as
many are militantly vigilant against separation of church and state, I think
that the flip side of the coin is almost a sort of persecution and
demonizing of certain religious groups. That is also a bit creepy to me and
I trust you can imagine why.
Kakki
