Criminalization of abortion and South Dakota law

[Sojourner]

[url="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/03/unraveling-begins.html"]Interesting post by Jack Balkin[/url]

[quote]Many are now wringing their hands over South Dakota's new abortion law, fearing that it means the end for abortion rights in this country. But the people who should really be cowering in fear are Republican political candidates. For South Dakota has begun the process of undermining the Republican Party nationally.

In response to the controversy over South Dakota's new law, three potential GOP candidates for President in 2008 have recently suggested they would sign a bill that banned almost all abortions:


[quote]Virginia Sen. George Allen's ® chief of staff, Johnsonville brat Wadhams, a national GOP strategist, said Allen "has consistently supported the rights of the people in their states to pass laws which reflect their views and values." A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ® said that if Romney were the governor of South Dakota, "he would sign it. [Romney] believes that states should have the right to be pro-life if that is the will of the people."

A spokesperson said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would have signed the South Dakota legislation, "but [he] would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." (Exactly how such "steps" would be received by this bill's sponsors remains unclear).


Not far from their minds is the early-primary state of South Carolina, one of the most anti-abortion states in the country, where voters in 1994 elected a governor (Republican David Beasley) who wanted to outlaw all abortions -- even those endangering a woman's life.


"And there are lots of people here who agree with [Beasley]," said Henry McMaster, the state's attorney general and former GOP chairman. "This is a heavily pro-life state. Any presidential candidate who isn't, who doesn't prove himself on this issue, will suffer." [/quote]

They might indeed suffer in the primaries. But what about the general election? Most Americans may want abortions more difficult to obtain (as they imagine current circumstances) but they don't want almost all abortions criminalized. If Republican presidential candidates announce their support for criminalizing abortions in the primaries in order to win the votes of the pro-life faithful, their Democratic opponents will be more than happy to remind the public of that position when the general election comes round. That, I predict, will help split the Republican coalition that has governed the country for years.

For this we can thank the wonderful folks in the South Dakota legislature, who have put the criminalization of abortion squarely on the table for public discussion. By making it important for Republican politicians to take a stand-- not on the relatively popular issues of partial birth abortion bans and parental notification requirements, but on the far less popular question of criminalizing abortion-- South Dakota has managed to do what years of Democratic politics could not-- create a wedge issue that will destroy the Republican party's winning coalition nationally.[/quote]

[thessalonian]

If a wedge is driven then so be it. Somebody has to take a stand. Abortion is a criminal offense most certainly for the doctors who perform them. If republicans loose because they are not willing to take a couragous stand for life, then they don't deserve to be in their and God will give us the liberals that will destroy the foundation of our society. That will be his judgement on us.

Zech 7
11: But they refused to hearken, and turned a stubborn shoulder, and stopped their ears that they might not hear.
12: They made their hearts like adamant lest they should hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
13: "As I called, and they would not hear, so they called, and I would not hear," says the LORD of hosts,
14: "and I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they had not known. Thus the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and the pleasant land was made desolate."

[Theoketos]

You know, I think that most people, at least a plurality want abortion to be criminalized.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Mar 9 2006, 02:22 PM']You know, I think that most people, at least a plurality want abortion to be criminalized.
[right][snapback]907323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm guessing we'll find out.

I personally think most people haven't considered the specifics of what it would mean to outlaw abortion.

[kateri05]

i agree, theo, and if not all abortions, at least most and in most cases.

liberals have a hard time understanding that people exist who don't agree with them

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 9 2006, 12:26 PM']I'm guessing we'll find out.

I personally think most people haven't considered the specifics of what it would mean to outlaw abortion.
[right][snapback]907328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I can see that we have not. But what it means is that those who murder the unborn Fetus will have to do time. I think this is a just thing. It just scares the carp out of people who are friendly, whether vincibly or not, to abortion.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Mar 9 2006, 03:09 PM']I can see that we have not. But what it means is that those who murder the unborn Fetus will have to do time. I think this is a just thing. It just scares the carp out of people who are friendly, whether vincibly or not, to abortion.
[right][snapback]907355[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
And rightly so.

The problem, of course, will be if it makes people who are UNfriendly to abortion nervous.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 9 2006, 01:31 PM']And rightly so.

The problem, of course, will be if it makes people who are UNfriendly to abortion nervous.
[right][snapback]907368[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm having trouble following what your point is here.

How would laws against abortion make anti-abortion people nervous?

Are you suggesting that anti-abortion laws are somehow a bad idea?

It would be helpful if you'd explain your reason for posting articles on the debate table, or explain your own opinion on the issues involved.
What is your take on this?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 9 2006, 07:26 PM']I'm having trouble following what your point is here.

How would laws against abortion make anti-abortion people nervous?

Are you suggesting that anti-abortion laws are somehow a bad idea?

It would be helpful if you'd explain your reason for posting articles on the debate table, or explain your own opinion on the issues involved.
What is your take on this?
[right][snapback]907580[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Ummm .... well, as I said in my initial post, I thought Mr. Balkin had some interesting thoughts. So I did state my reason for posting. You apparently [i]don't[/i] find it interesting, so it seems I was right to post it in the debate table, as it has generated disagreement, and therefore "debate."

His point, as I read it at least, is that the new South Dakota law now opens the door for a discussion about the criminalization of abortion. ("Criminalization" means "to make an action punishable as a crime under the law.") Not everyone who is against abortion believes there should be criminal penalties attached to the act itself. Therefore, some people in the pro-life camp might not be as excited about the new law as others.

I characterized that potential lack of excitement as a potential for nervousness.

I wasn't aware I was being so obtuse, so thanks for taking the time to point that out. Very kind and generous of you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 9 2006, 07:23 PM']Ummm .... well, as I said in my initial post, I thought Mr. Balkin had some interesting thoughts. So I did state my reason for posting. You apparently [i]don't[/i] find it interesting, so it seems I was right to post it in the debate table, as it has generated disagreement, and therefore "debate."

His point, as I read it at least, is that the new South Dakota law now opens the door for a discussion about the criminalization of abortion. ("Criminalization" means "to make an action punishable as a crime under the law.") Not everyone who is against abortion believes there should be criminal penalties attached to the act itself. Therefore, some people in the pro-life camp might not be as excited about the new law as others.

I characterized that potential lack of excitement as a potential for nervousness.

I wasn't aware I was being so obtuse, so thanks for taking the time to point that out. Very kind and generous of you.
[right][snapback]907639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't know whether that last was intended as sarcastic, but it is genuinely difficult to tell where someone stands if they post an article by someone else, then say merely that it has "interesting" points. "Interesting" is an extremely vague word. (And I hardly think the debate generated by such an article would center around whether the article is "interesting" or not; that would be quite a silly debate!)

Other people may see it differently, but I've always basically equated being "pro-life" with being for the "criminalization" (as you put it) of abortion. That is to say, a pro-lifer is for legal restrictions and penalties of some kind for abortionists. That is what being pro-life means in the political/legal sphere. Every serious pro-lifer I know is for criminal penalties for abortion of some kind, whether at the state or federal level.

I've personally never bought the whole "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think abortion itself should have criminal penalties attached to it" line. That is nothing but a weak, two-faced politician cop-out.

If we are at all serious that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, of course we would support laws against it!
If the murder of an innocent human life should not be a criminal act, then indeed nothing should. If law does not defend the most helpless and innocent of human lives, then it is indeed worthless!

Take as an example any other serious crime to see the absurdity of the so-called "pro-life" stance you described:

"I'm personally opposed to murder, but I don't think murder itself should have criminal penalties attached to it."

"I'm personally opposed to rape, but I don't think rape itself should have criminal penalties attached to it."

"I'm personally opposed to robbery, but I don't think robbery itself should have criminal penalties attached to it"


Honestly, why would anyone in the "pro-life camp" be against the "criminalization" of murder???


I am not familiar with this Mr. Balkin and his political views, but this particular article seems to have two possible interpretations:

A) "Opposing abortion is bad for the GOP, and the political survival of the GOP is more important than principled opposition to abortion."
or
B) "Opposing abortion is bad for the GOP! I hope this issue sinks the GOP and the pro-life movement both!"

Neither is a good position to take. They both support politics over principle.

[ironmonk]

Republicans who say something in the primaries stick to their guns in the general elections. Someone might genuinely change their mind on a few minor things... which I haven't seen yet....

but I've seen every democrat be crooked.

Most Americans do not want abortion. It has been forced on us.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 9 2006, 10:06 PM']I don't know whether that last was intended as sarcastic, but it is genuinely difficult to tell where someone stands if they post an article by someone else, then say merely that it has "interesting" points.  "Interesting" is an extremely vague word.  (And I hardly think the debate generated by such an article would center around whether the article is "interesting" or not; that would be quite a silly debate!)

Other people may see it differently, but I've always basically equated being "pro-life" with being for the "criminalization" (as you put it) of abortion.  That is to say, a pro-lifer is for legal restrictions and penalties of some kind for abortionists.  That is what being pro-life means in the political/legal sphere.  Every serious pro-lifer I know is for criminal penalties for abortion of some kind, whether at the state or federal level.

I've personally never bought the whole "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think abortion itself should have criminal penalties attached to it" line.  That is nothing but a weak, two-faced politician cop-out.

If we are at all serious that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, of course we would support laws against it! 
If the murder of an innocent human life should not be a criminal act, then indeed nothing should.  If law does not defend the most helpless and innocent of human lives, then it is indeed worthless!

Take as an example any other serious crime to see the absurdity of the so-called "pro-life" stance you described:

"I'm personally opposed to murder, but I don't think murder itself should have criminal penalties attached to it."

"I'm personally opposed to rape, but I don't think rape itself should have criminal penalties attached to it."

"I'm personally opposed to robbery, but I don't think robbery itself should have criminal penalties attached to it"
Honestly, why would anyone in the "pro-life camp" be against the "criminalization" of murder???
I am not familiar with this Mr. Balkin and his political views, but this particular article seems to have two possible interpretations:

A) "Opposing abortion is bad for the GOP, and the political survival of the GOP is more important than principled opposition to abortion."
or
B) "Opposing abortion is bad for the GOP!  I hope this issue sinks the GOP and the pro-life movement both!"

Neither is a good position to take.  They both support politics over principle.
[right][snapback]907674[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
OK ...

No one has said (or at least I haven't) that we should not pursue pro-life laws. On the contrary, I believe we should. But that wasn't the point of the article at all.

You do realize, don't you, that the article isn't taking a side on the criminalization of abortion ... merely pointing out that a divergence of opinion exists on this topic within the pro-life camp, and that with this law that divergence of opinion could come to play a larger role within the debate overall, and could affect the pro-life movement overall. I think the author is most definitely pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that his observations about those who are pro-life are not valid.

On the contrary -- I think knowing that this could be an issue and beginning to talk about how it could affect pro-life efforts across the nation is important. I think as a movement, pro-lifers know "the enemy" much better than we know ourselves.

But if you don't think it's important, no one is forcing you to comment on it.

[Sojourner]

Socrates,
It's possible that I read more into your intial post than you intended. I interpreted it as an attack, and responded as such. I apologize for my rudeness.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:40 AM']Socrates,
It's possible that I read more into your intial post than you intended. I interpreted it as an attack, and responded as such. I apologize for my rudeness.
[right][snapback]908091[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Apology accepted.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 10 2006, 06:40 AM']OK ...

No one has said (or at least I haven't) that we should not pursue pro-life laws. On the contrary, I believe we should. But that wasn't the point of the article at all.

You do realize, don't you, that the article isn't taking a side on the criminalization of abortion ... merely pointing out that a divergence of opinion exists on this topic within the pro-life camp, and that with this law that divergence of opinion could come to play a larger role within the debate overall, and could affect the pro-life movement overall. I think the author is most definitely pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that his observations about those who are pro-life are not valid.

On the contrary -- I think knowing that this could be an issue and beginning to talk about how it could affect pro-life efforts across the nation is important. I think as a movement, pro-lifers know "the enemy" much better than we know ourselves.

But if you don't think it's important, no one is forcing you to comment on it.
[right][snapback]907926[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The author was actually talking about how he predicted it would split the Republican Party, not the Pro-life Movement. (Obviously, the two are not identical). Whether he's right or not, I can't say, but I'd take him with a grain of salt.

However, I sincerely doubt state laws against abortion will cause a split in [b]the pro-life movement[/b]. All serious pro-lifers, I think, would support laws against abortion. I cannot imagine any movement pro-lifers breaking away or refusing to vote for someone because he is[b] for [/b]anti-abortion laws.
However, such laws could indeed separate the sheep from the goats. (Those who are indeed pro-life vs. politicians who just talk-the-talk to win votes.)