The above title is that of an editorial which appears in today’s Washington Post. The article mentions that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell’s website is short on any information on his stances on abortion. “a subject that preoccupied him so much during his career as a lawmaker that he introduced some 35 bills to restrict access to the procedure.”
Mr. McDonnell is not trying to hide his absolutist opposition to abortion, which extends even to cases of rape or incest; let’s just say he’s not advertising it too loudly.
And the reason?
To win in November, Mr. McDonnell needs to appeal to centrist Democrats and independents in the state’s most populous region, Northern Virginia. And a fair number of his positions — for instance, allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives or banning college health centers from distributing morning-after pills while opposing abortion in all instances — may not sit well with middle-of-the-road voters in Northern Virginia and elsewhere.
That McDonnell has downplayed his stances on abortion is no surprise. He still is willing to roll out these stances in front of friendly audiences, just not the public at large. And to many, it appears that the Deeds campaign is “pro-abortion.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. No one – I repeat – no one is pro-abortion.
Yesterday, a young lady called in to the radio show on which Creigh Deeds appeared. I was there as co-host of the broadcast. “Our community,” the young lady said, “is conservative.” She went on to say that our community – meaning the black community – doesn’t support issues like abortion. Host Carlos Howard took offense and told her that we need to be worrying about the kids already here (among other things – seriously, if you didn’t hear the broadcast, you missed a good rant 🙂 ).
I took a different approach.
There are those out there who believe that the opposite of pro-life is pro-abortion. That’s simply false. The opposite is pro-choice, meaning that the woman has the right to choose. The decision on whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy is between a woman, her doctor and her God. Many women – myself included – would never personally choose to have an abortion, but it is simply not my place to make that choice for others.
That McDonnell would restrict a woman’s right to make that choice – even in the case of rape or incest – is incompatible with his trying to appear to be a moderate. There is nothing moderate about such a stance. And let me remind you what McDonnell said at the National Right to Life Committee meeting in 2008:
These elections matter because elections determine who’s got the power and who’s going to make the decisions and whether or not, as Wanda said, they are Pro‐Life or not will make an eternal difference in the statutes and in the legislatures all over this country. Not only in a federal election because it determines who’s going to be appointed but in all these state elections because ultimately most of the decisions that are made on the issue of abortion are made by your state legislatures and so you need to be active I know you need a rest from time to time but you know you can rest in eternity, but for now, while you’re on this earth, we need your help at every election. It says Virginia is for Lovers, it should say Virginia is for Lovers of Elections because we’ve got at least one or two a year in Virginia. So, you Virginians, you get no rest because we’ve always got something we need you to do. Those policy makers with the votes determine whether or not you’re going to have a pro‐life state where protections are given to the unborn consistent with federal court decisions or whether you’re going to have a different kind of policy.
Yes, elections matter. And so does telling the truth, Bob. Your extreme pro-life position is an imposition of your moral values on me. A pro-choice environment imposes nothing.
And before anyone goes off about Planned Parenthood being “pro-abortion” let me point you to this letter to the editor.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
If this campaign is about abortion and Pat Robertson, McDonnell will win. That line of attack didn’t work in 2005 and it won’t work this year. What the Deeds campaign desperately lacks is a reason for people to vote FOR Creigh Deeds. I don’t think those reasons are hard to find, but they need to start getting out that positive message right now. It may already be too late.
Bob McDonnell is Pro Life. Life begins at conception. Life is sacred.
Given those truths about Bob McDonnell’s beliefs, don’t you think it would be hypocritical if he made exceptions based on the circumstances of conception?
Is life less sacred if conceived by rape? Or incest?
There are laws that punish the criminal, but you would have them punish an innocent, unborn child because of your notion of who should be born and who should not.
Let God play God, Vivian.
Bob McDonnell also encourages adoption. People must go to Russia and Africa to get babies. While all children deserve a good home no matter where they come from, there are choices for the mother short of killing her child.
I submit that your views are extreme. I consider anyone that is a proponent of infanticide an extremist.
Your beliefs and opinions are being stated as facts by you. Maybe in the spirit of playing well with others, you might consider having a conversation instead of issuing a manifesto.
Just a thought.
My beliefs and opinions are being stated as my beliefs and opinions. I understand that people may have differing opinions on subjects, but my deeply held opinion that the life of a child trumps the convenience of the mother (and, yes, most abortions are about the convenience of the mother) is one which the majority of Americans believes in. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
Sorry. I totally understand the issues and will always come down on the side of human life. To do otherwise is deplorable, no matter the circumstances.
And please understand that this post was Vivian’s obligation to her candidate, Deeds, at the request of Joe Abbey. I get his emails too. The latest “Why so silent, Bob?” is the current attempt to find an issue for a failed candidate.
And it’s morally wrong and radical.
You seem to have taken exception to something I didn’t say. I was commenting on your presentation, not on abortion. I don’t like abortions.
Failure is the end result of a task, not the casually tossed canard to dismiss someone.
I am curious as to how you know anything about Vivian’s obligations to anyone. If you are saying that all Democrats fall in line and spew the candidate’s talking points, then you really don’t know Vivian at all, and are making another assumption.
On one hand you brag about getting someone’s emails, but then forget that the rest of us got them too.
Go ahead and have your opinions, but that doesn’t make you morally superior to anyone, and that behavior is off-putting.
Have a great day, Tom.
And you seem to have taken exception to something I didn’t say. I never said I was morally superior to anyone.
And I am in no way “bragging” about receiving emails. Anyone can sign up as I did.
Perhaps you are correct and it is just a total coincidence that a matter of hours before or after an email all of the left leaning blogs just out of the “blue” publish a post on the party line.
FYI, same thing happens on the right, too.
I read Vivian’s blog fairly often. I don’t know her personally, and I often disagree with her, but she is one of the best left leaning bloggers in the State. I find most of her posts thoughtful, well written and lacking most of the partisan hyperbole of many of the other lefty blogs out there.
I totally respect Vivian and her work. While I often disagree with what she says, she is able to state her opinion and give her reasons and comments in a civil manner.
So, do you think I have Vivian pegged pretty well? I have nothing but respect for her.
Abortion is a hot button issue with a lot of people. You are bringing religious beliefs and convictions into a debate. When I state my moral convictions, they are mine alone. I cast neither aspersions or malice, nor am I making judgments on others.
I have strong convictions on the subject of abortion, and to the extent you are put off by my comments, I can only say I am sorry for your interpretation. I stand by my beliefs, but I respect yours as well.
I usually like to add this quote when someone talks about “choice”.
“appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.”
“We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”
That’s from a little known Supreme Court decision called Roe v. Wade.
I understand that abortion is the law of the land as provided by the US Supreme Court. However, I consider Roe v. Wade to be a horrible ruling (as does Norma “Roe” McCorvey).
And to quote from the dissenting view in the case:
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.”
I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court has a history of finding “rights” and language where they do not exist, and in making wrong decisions. The Dred Scott decision is a prime example that comes to mind. I doubt you will find any sane person that agrees with that horrible decision! It took 3 amendments to wipe out that bad call. (Well, technically just the 14th, but 13 and 15 made sure this ugly chapter in out history was stopped dead.)
Right now, the support for an abortion amendment (to prevent them) is not there. I don’t know if it ever will be.
I am hopeful that an anti-conception drug will some day be developed. Not an “abortion” pill, like RU-486 that has risks of it’s own. But a safe, cheap and readily available pill that prevents fertilization (after sex). If no conception occurs, I don’t see how that could be a problem with anyone.
This is a tough subject, and it has no place in this campaign. Deeds claims McDonnell has introduced 35 anti-abortion bills. Actually, there were only 7 different bills that were submitted numerous times.
Deeds himself has voted to restrict abortions. You will not see him in Bath County talking about how pro-choice he is. Nor will he talk about gun control there, or many of the issues he is now playing up in NoVa. His problem is that his home base has many Democrats that are more Conservative than many Republicans. He has a choice. Lose his home support, or his NoVa support. The problem is, if this plays out like 2005, he will need both and then some.
I am no fan of the Roe decision either, but, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
It is, in fact, the job of the Supreme Court to decide what those others are.
If the majority in Roe should have simply written, “Read the Ninth Amendment; this is one of the ‘others.'”
(Sorry — ignore the IF in the last sentence.)
Brian & I had an interesting conversation last night about this. I’m no scholar on Roe v Wade nor the subsequent decision (the name of which escapes me right now) but I was unaware of this part of the decision.
The other case was Casey
Since Roe is not going to be overturned any time soon, certainly not in the next four years, the candidates views on abortion really don’t matter. This really looks like a desperate attempt to come up with an issue.
Um, no it wasn’t. You may read me often but obviously not often enough to know that I don’t follow anyone’s dictates.
Ok. Let’s call it a self imposed sense of duty to your party. Take a quick spin around the Blue Blogs for the week, and nearly all of them, including you, have joined the chorus that Joe Abbey called for over the weekend. This will be “hit McDonnell on Abortion week”.
And you played along.
You quote the same editorial that Abbey did, use the same arguments.
And this is not the first time you have done this, nor will it be the last.
Are you telling me that you suddenly and spontaneously decided to echo Abbey on this? Really?
Actually, it was. If your read my post, I was talking about the radio show that Deeds participated in and that I co-hosted. I simply used the WashPo article as a lead in.
I don’t play “follow the leader” Tom. It’s not my style. And that quote I used at the bottom was sent out a couple of weeks ago. If I were interested in playing “follow the leader,” I certainly wouldn’t have waited until after the radio show to use it.
BTW – I’ve previously pointed out that I don’t consider McDonnell a moderate. This post is simply a continuation of that.
No one forces a woman to have an abortion. If the Supreme Court should ever overturn Roe v. Wade, Virginia already has legislation prepared to immediately close clinics and sanction anyone offering that service. If choice is ever taken away then women will become nothing more than breeding stock which is how I see Mssrs. McDonnell and Cuccinelli’s respective view of women. They are IMHO the Virginia version of The Taliban.
There is no legislation prepared. How could there be without the exact wording of any such ruling?
Your views are simply hysterical and extreme.
Taliban? How can anyone take what you say seriously?
Think of all the lives that would be saved.
Although I am against abortion, I would hope that before it becomes illegal again, if that ever happens, we have a “pill” to prevent conception after the fact as well as a far better adoption process. A lot of women would turn to illegal abortions with things as they are now, and the resulting deaths and botched surgeries would also cause deaths, so I don’t see totally outlawing it as doing anything more than trading one life for another.
This is a serious and complex issue, one for which there is really no good answer right now. But those of us that are against abortion are going to keep pushing medical science and the legal system to help create a safe and reliable method that satisfies almost everyone. Without people pushing against abortions, medical science will grind to a halt on the issue.
“prevent… after the fact”
Non sequitur alert!
Far fewer females died in abortions pre-Roe than post-Roe.
Ms. Page-I viewed you as credible source; however, you took the caller’s question totally out of context. She said many of the talk show listeners were born again Pentecostal Christians who oppose abortion and same sex marriage. She did not say “our community – meaning the black community – doesn’t support issues like abortion.” You should state the facts and not your interpretation of the caller’s statement.
Nonetheless, did that justify Mr. Howard disrespectful conduct? Did Mr. Deeds interject or even answer the question that the caller posed to him about the targeted audience that he was addressing? No, instead Mr. Deeds said how grateful he was that he and his wife were not so poor that they did not have to consider the option of abortion, which speaks in volumes. A savvy politician would have responded by saying he respects all individual views regardless, however, his particular platform run counters with those who believe abortion is wrong in any given situation; and that he doesn’t judge people according to the decision one makes.
In any event, next time call an ace an ace and a spade as spade don’t twist words.
Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between a direct quote and paraphrasing. The direct quote is here (note the use of quotation marks):
I paraphrased here:
Note the difference? No quotation marks. My words, not hers.
And I was doing this based on my recollection of the conversation, because, despite repeated attempts, I have not been able to get a copy of the recording of the show. Maybe you have one you can share?
And as for Howard – I did say that he took offense at her statement and referenced his rant.
Now – if all you wanted to do was say that Deeds didn’t say anything about Howard’s rant, you could have easily done so without saying that I “twisted words” when I clearly did not.
Brian, you seem to be quick to castigate others for an offense, without even having read the article with comprehension.
It sounds like to me you have allowed your ideology trump your common sense.
Try harder next time.
First, I did heard Mr. Carlos Howard’s August 16, 2009m radio talk show; did you hear it? I believe you misunderstood the point; my comments were directed toward Mr. Howard’s acrimonious conduct and Mr. Deeds insensitive response toward the caller who asked Mr. Deed if he was aware that most of Brother Howard’s listeners are born again Pentecostals Christian who oppose abortion and same sex marriage; and then she asked how could align his platform with those Christian values ( I’m paraphrasing).
Next, unlike what Ms. Page wrote, the caller DID NOT say “Our community is conservative.” Again, the caller said many of those listening opposed abortion and same sex marriage (again paraphrasing).
What I took issue with is the level of disrespect displayed (on part of the Reverend Howard) and the lack of sensitivity (on the part of Mr. Deeds). It’s not about the abortion issue, for me, as much as it is about of common courtesy and respect. If bloggers got a wind of that tape, I’m sure it would set off a controversial firestorm; Rev. Jeremiah Wright-like firestorm.
Finally, Mr. Howard will not release the recording because he is embarrassed and understands that he may loose support from Black Christians who keeps his funeral parlor in business. Heard through the grapevine his business is suffering, thus, he can’t afford to turn over the tables in the temple.