What a Candidate Thinks About Abortion Rights Is Not Especially Important.

George Will is accurate - overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion nationwide. Overturning Roe v. Wade sends the question back to the states where it was prior to Roe v. Wade.

 

Legal Status of Abortion Throughout American History

Legal abortion has been part of American life for much of the nation's history. Under English common law, the cornerstone of American jurisprudence, abortions performed prior to "quickening" (the first perceptible fetal movement, which usually occurs after the fourth month of pregnancy) were not criminal offenses. With no state enacting specific legislation during nearly the first third of the nation's history, this traditional principle prevailed. The medical literature of the day, both popular and professional, included frequent references to methods of abortion.

In the mid-1800s, Massachusetts enacted the first state law making abortion or attempted abortion at any point in pregnancy a criminal offense. By the turn of the century, almost all states had followed suit. In the early 1960s, only Pennsylvania prohibited all abortions, but 44 other states only allowed abortion when the woman's life would be endangered if she carried the pregnancy to term. Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia permitted abortion if the life or physical health of the woman was in jeopardy; Mississippi allowed abortions in case of life endangerment or rape.

Violating these laws could have serious legal consequences, not only for the provider but potentially for others as well. In nine states, the laws considered it a criminal offense to aid, assist, abet or counsel a woman in obtaining an illegal abortion. Fourteen states explicitly made obtaining an abortion, as well as performing one, a crime. Women were rarely convicted for having an abortion; instead, the threat of prosecution often was used to encourage them to testify against the provider.

One of the first national calls for a change in abortion law came in 1962 from the American Law Institute (ALI)—a prestigious panel of lawyers, scholars and jurists that develops model statutes on a range of topics—with the publication of its "Model Penal Code on Abortion," which called for abortion to be legal when the pregnant woman's life or health would be at risk if the pregnancy were carried to term, when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the fetus had a severe defect.

In 1967, Colorado became the first state to reform its abortion law based on the ALI recommendation. The new Colorado statute permitted abortions if the pregnant woman's life or physical or mental health were endangered, if the fetus would be born with a severe physical or mental defect, or if the pregnancy had resulted from rape or incest. Other states began to follow suit, and by 1972, 13 states had so-called ALI statutes. Meanwhile, four states repealed their antiabortion laws completely, substituting statutes permitting abortions that were judged to be necessary by a woman and her physician. By 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe, abortion reform legislation had been introduced in all but five states.

- www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html#box

 

Of course, when high profile politicians operate at the local level, such as Giuliani and Romney, it probably does matter what they think about abortion rights.

 

The basic political desire among many Americans today is that if they support something then they want the federal government to subsidize it and if they oppose something then they want the federal government to ban it.

Many(most?) Americans are now centralists instead of federalists.

 

Agreed, KenH. With the one (necessary?) exception being that a pro-life president does set a pro-life 'tone' which has the potential for helping shift things, most of what the federal govt. does is overrated.

 

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have stated that the abortion issue does not drive my vote.

 

No problem.

 

I am probably responsible for the statements. No doubt states rights would limit the number of abortions now.

It is my hope we do not have to choose between two pro choice candidates. It may not make a lot of difference in actually getting rid of the laws, but it does suggest a moral tone.

This in no way supports the Democratic side. I will not vote for one of them regardless of who gets the Republican nod. If one cannot stand the stench from either party, there are two choices, do not vote or vote third party.

 

It most certainly can be a single issue for me. This genocide needs to end. And quite frankly those who do not make it a primary deal braking issue most likely have become so dissensitized to it that they no loger see it for the horrific act it really is. 911 was nothing compared to this.

 

I think that it is wrong to allow the states to decide this issue because it is a life and death issue.

Personally, I support the idea of abortion in the case of the life of the mother, rape, or incest. Some Catholics have told me that they themselves only support rape or incest.

However, I support the Reagan plank calling for a constitutional amendment to deal with this issue by protecting human life from both the courts and the states. I set aside by personal views in order to get reform even though I disagree with the Fundamentalists, as is often the case.

If the GOP abandons their platform, I think that they become irrelevant and revert to the old "me too" Republicanism of 50 years ago.

 

It looks like that's where I'm headed. Where are the conservative Republicans that used to be the moral backbone?

 

Where any politician stands on abortion rights is THE primary issue for me. As I have stated before, I will never vote for any candidate for any political office (federal, state or local) who supports abortion on demand. If the next choice for president is two pro-death candidates, then I cannot vote for either one of them. On this issue, I cannot and will not compromise.

The democrats will (probably) never offer a pro-life candidate, therefore they will (probably) never have my vote. The republicans have the opportunity to offer a pro-life candidate, so there is at least some hope of a pro-life candidate.

 

If the GOP goes into the second-tier and choses a politico that wants the states to decide, then what George Will says is right in that liberal states like California will go right on with abortion on demand.

I think that Romney is unreliable because I think that Mormonism is a dysfunctional cult.

For Rudy to win, he will have to deal with Phyllis Schafly and the Republican National Coalition For Life and promise to support efforts for a constitutional amendment, the only long-term reform that will end abortion.

I agree that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have not been very successful at explaining the issue and at undermining the abortion industry.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that pro-life people are divided into two groups: those who insist that every child must be born no matter what and those who insist that abortions should be allowed in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. It is this internal division with a refusal to compromise that has weakened the pro-life movement. I myself go with the GOP platform but I wonder why a compromise could not be allowed since rape, incest, and the life of the mother are only considered ½ of 1 percent of the total abortions?

http://www.rnclife.org/

 

I tend to agree with the OP. Abortion is not very high on my list of priorities that need my attention because, at the present time, it is legal and not in any real danger of being outlawed. Therefore, when I get around to taking a serious look at the presidential candidates (next spring or summer at the earliest), I probably won't be too concerned with their positions on abortion.

It seems to me that a candidate's position on abortion can be a smoke screen. It is an easy thing to take a position on an issue when you know that, realistically, there is nothing you can do about it.

Tim Reynolds

 

In 2007 there is no reason for an abortion at any time:

www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html