Pro-Abortion ‘Republican’ Group Cheers Demise of Mexico City Policy
By: Warner Todd Huston
With the disingenuous premise that the majority of Republican voters are actually pro-abortion, Republican Majority for Choice is celebrating President Obama’s repeal of the policy that prohibits federal money from flowing to foreign abortion mills — variously called the Mexico City Policy, the family planning gag rule, or the global gag rule.
This group forms a sort of enemy within that, while small, has great appeal to the far left in America when they are looking to promote what they consider “reasonable” Republicans — and by “reasonable” they mean Republicans that don’t actually believe in anything other Republicans believe in. This being the case, there is no surprise that this group’s largest success is found in the quixotic state of Colorado they having garnered the support of long-time Colorado Republican Hank Brown — former Senator and late president of the University of Colorado.
In their press release, the RMC claimed that “millions of Republicans” support their cause:
The global gag rule has been a massive obstacle in efforts to provide safe and effective medical care to the most underserved populations around the world. Millions of Republicans across the country supported overturning this measure and stand with us in support of desperately needed international family planning funds,” said Kellie Ferguson, RMC Executive Director.
Millions? Really? By what reckoning do they say this as if it were overwhelming? There are around 55 million Americans that have registered as Republican, which is well and good, but how does the RMC know that “millions” of those voters are on their side? Well, as proof of their majority status they cite a flawed phone poll of 1,006 respondents that claims that 78 percent of Republicans support their pro-abortion position.
Using their poll results, the RMC has opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as well as that of the excellent nominee for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge William Pryor, back in 2005. This same group also launched an effort to defeat Mitt Romney’s candidacy for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination because of his stance against abortion. This group funded anti-Romney TV ads urging voters to reject the then anti-abortion Romney. (The co-chair of the RMC, Jennifer Stockman, was a Giuliani supporter) This group also refused to support McCain/Palin after the party made its choice last September so it also did not fall into line to support the party in 2008.
As you can see, the RMC, formerly the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, is a group that routinely attacks its own side (if you can accept they actually are Republicans in the first place, that is) and publicly works to defeat the majority opinions of the Republican Party.
But what about their claim that most Republicans are actually “pro-choice” but don’t know it? This is the claim the RMC bases on its 2004 phone poll. I think that what the RMC mistakes for a pro-abortion sentiment is really a state’s rights or federalist sentiment because at its root is the premise that the federal government shouldn’t tell people what to do about abortion. That is the national issue, after all, it coming down to the illicit 1973 SCOTUS decision of Roe v Wade.
In this case, if misunderstood, even I could be called pro-abortion because I say the federal government should not be making law about abortion and that is why I am for the repeal of Roe v Wade. However, I am for the state’s having the right to decide to outlaw abortion if its voters so desire. Personally, I am against any and all abortions and would fight to impress the majority to back my position, but I do realize there is a certain rule of the majority that a democracy has to respect. So, the question is quite a bit more involved than the RMC wants to pretend. The RMC simplistically misuses its poll to support its disingenuous supposition of being in the majority.
And, in fact, the poll that the RMC commissioned is on its face wrong in its conclusions. As lifenews.com shows, the majority of voters that declare themselves to be Republican do not support the RMC’s position.
But that’s far from what actual Republican voters said when they participated in exit polls following the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.
More than three-fourths of all Republicans in Missouri (74-23 percent), Tennessee (75-22), Alabama (76-20), Oklahoma (76-22) and Arkansas (81-18) say they want all or most abortions illegal and take a pro-life position.
But a majority of Republicans in other states are also pro-life.
Some 64 percent of Republicans in Illinois said they want all or most abortions illegal while just 33 percent want all or most to remain legal. Golden State Republicans take a pro-life position by a 54 to 42 percentage point margin. And some 70 percent of Ohio Republicans take a pro-life position saying abortion should be illegal while just 28 percent support legalized abortion.
In Arizona, 58 percent of Republicans take a pro-life position compared to just 37 percent who don’t while Utah Republicans were even more strongly pro-life with a 85-13 percentage point split.
The only part of the country where a majority of Republicans are pro-abortion is the northeast, including (head of RMC, Jennifer Blei) Stockman’s home state of Connecticut.
The number of Republicans that favors outright abolition of abortion or closely regulated restrictions on it far out number the opposite making the claims of the RMC risible in retrospect.
Now, what is this piece all about you may wonder? Why give these disingenuous, Benedict Arnold’s the time of day? Well, understandably there has been a lot of talk about how we should revitalize and reorganize. To do this we have to take stock not of just the other side, but of ourselves. And this is a subversive group right in our midst that we must not simply dismiss. To do that will give them the room they need to define the debate. And, since they have the support of our enemies, we might find them in a position to speak for us before we are fully cognizant that they are out there speaking at all. We cannot let groups like this side swipe us. So, consider this posting an intelligence gathering dispatch, won’t you?
On the important issue of pro-life, we must reiterate our principles, elicit the views on this issue from candidates, and stand strong for the rights of the unborn to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We must not allow the debate to fall into trope, either. With the advent of the genetic sciences the issues of the sanctity of human life are ever more complicated and we cannot cede the debate to those that want to diminish that sanctity.
We must redouble our efforts to urge this debate upon the American people. In an age when we are increasingly able to manipulate the very basis of life at the cellular level we need to evaluate just what we “are.” Is human life to be a commodity that can be used, bought and sold on the open market? Or are we going to view our lives as something beyond our ability to so casually regard — or disregard as the case may be?
There are already groups out there advocating that humanity be allowed to mix its genome in whatever way it so pleases even to the extent of modifying man to sprout wings, or take on traits of animals through genetic manipulation (often called transhumanism). Science will quickly outpace the philosophical debate if we are not careful and we must not be left in the dust with outmoded or half thought out platforms or philosophies.
After all, it sounds “reasonable” to most uninformed voters that we should be able to use science in any way we can that would “make man better.” But we must take this time on the eve of scientific invention to define the ground rules of just what “making man better” means. We absolutely must invest in the vague idea of “helping man improve” a belief in the notion that man is special in his natural state. We must promulgate the ideal that we cannot make our genes, organs or our very lives something that can be bought and sold on the open market and that to do so not only diminishes human life in general, but will create a category of people that must, in the end, be categorized as subhuman or less than desirable merely because of a lack of momentarily accepted manipulation. We must convince our fellows that such manipulation must result in a precarious social status for those so manipulated. Just as this year’s clothing fashions will be gone the next, imagine the capriciousness of faddish manipulations of the human genome? We can almost already see what harm such a continuous cycle of whimsical manipulation might wreck on society and the human being by comparing the current culture of plastic surgery to the possible ability to manipulate our very genome for cosmetic purposes.
Can we long endure as a race if some are manipulated to be â€œbetterâ€ than others? Can we stay a meritorious society based on freedom and a mobile, classless society if some have been favored with the â€œinâ€ genetic alterations while others donâ€™t or cannot afford to indulge their inner transhumanist? And what is to become of what might easily be viewed as the lowly â€œnaturalâ€ human that isnâ€™t manipulated at all? Second class statusâ€¦ even slavery?
And how are lives to be treated if we can mix and match body parts by bidding for them on ebay? We are already seeing how cheap life can be for the â€œwrongâ€ type of people, yet how lucrative can be their organs by the black market trade in transplantable organs from China! Without a proper philosophical debate on the sanctity of life, this can only get worse as time goes on.
In any case, this is a debate that we must have, not just as Republicans but as a human species, and I take the occasion of pointing out the apostasy of the Republican Majority for Choice as my opportunity to continue that debate.