Reactions
I was interested in seeing how the major presidential candidates were reacting to the decision in Gonzales v. Cahart. Below I have collected the statements from the major candidates from each party, listed in alphabetical order. Enjoy:
Clinton
This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Edwards
I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.
Giuliani
The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.
McCain
Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.
Obama
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
Romney
Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.
A fascinating collection of quotes…the three Dems take a position that could not be accepted as reflecting Catholic teaching, but all three Repubs are known to have held “other” positions in their political lives than the one they now embrace (if that is the word). After reading the six statements, I concluded that three are probably honestly-held positions and three are pandering-positions…ultimately, all six have some explaining to do!
“Sanctity of life” – McCain. An interesting comment from someone who has “No Plan B” for Iraq – just more and more war. Romney is more cautious – “value of life IN AMERICA’ (my capitals). Double standards?
Michael,
You need to check your facts. None of the three GOP candidates has ever been identified as supporting partial birth abortions – ever. Giuliani was, even though he supports legalized abortion, originally opposed R v. W. Indeed based on his legal philosophy, I suspect he still thinks it is a bad decision, but only supports keeping it because it is now established. So that he would think some regulation of abortion is good is not a matter of convenience. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with him, I just think it is unfair to call him inconsistent on the issue.
Romney may have flip flopped generally on abortion, but to my understanding he has always opposed partial birth abortion. Even a majority of those Americans who think abortion should be legal in some cases don’t think partial birth abortion should be. Otherwise, the law would never have passed.
McCain, to my knowledge (although he has said a few inconsistent things over the years) has always been pro-life.
They may be Republicans, and I know this does not comport with the reality of many Commonweal readers, but they are also right on this.
I haven’t seen Senator Lieberman’s reaction. In the past he’s opposed bills banning partial birth abortion unless they have a health of the mother exception, a position that many felt was at odds with his Orthodox Judaism. Now that he’s becoming isolated within the Democratic Party because of his foreign policy views, a softening of his opposition to PBA, if there is one, may also signal a future move to the Republican side of the Senate aisle.
it just has to be said again and it applies all over the globe. Where is the sanctity of life for the Iraqi people, the starving third world children, the children that parents are selling into slavery etc, etc etc.?
There is hardly the drumbeat that accompanies this fraudulent issue of abortion.
The comments by the Democratic candidates suggest once more the unhappy comparison between the pro-choice lobby and the pro-gun lobby, and the power both wield. In both cases, the slightest hint of restriction — imagine banning the sale of assault weapons to children, for instance — brings cries of panic that Liberty is in danger. And just as the appalling outbreak at Virginia Tech has saw no calls for gun control among our candidates (if it did, I missed it) so the response to the Court’s recent decision has been equally predictable.
The most distressing thing about the Democrats’ responses is that there is no sign they find this a difficult issue.
I’m a student at the Graduate Theological Union, and many of my friends love Obama. Some of them practically worship him: they see him as the key to the revival of a Religious Left.
And yet, in 2001 Obama voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. In other words, if the mom wants the fetus dead, but the doctor botches the abortion and the fetus is born alive, Obama feels it still has no “right to life” even after this birth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701343.html
I just don’t understand this. If the Democrats find this such a morally clear issue, why do they still refer to “a woman’s right to choose” without mentioning what is being chosen?