Food For Thought on the Abortion Ban
Well, they finally passed the “partial-birth” abortion bill.
- President Bush said he would sign newly passed legislation to end the “abhorrent practice” known by critics as partial birth abortion, giving abortion foes a victory that had eluded them for close to a decade.
Abortion rights advocates said they would immediately go to court to stop what they said was a dangerous incursion against the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The senate voted 64-34 Tuesday to ban a type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed. The House approved the legislation this month, and Bush has urged Congress to get it to his desk.
I won’t bore you with my thoughts about why this sucks. If you’re interested, I wrote about the “partial-birth” myth back in June.
What I think is important to mention here is that we wouldn’t even be talking about this if the Democrats were in the White House or in control of congress. I don’t want to get into a “blame Nader” thing here, but this should serve as an example of what happens when you assume there’s no big differences between Republicans and Democrats. For all his faults, Bill Clinton vetoed this ban twice.
Another thing that’s worth keeping in mind is that the 1997 “partial-birth” ban passed with Dennis Kucinich voting “Yea” and Joe Lieberman voting “Nay”. It’s enough to make you think twice about the conventional wisdom that says Kucinich is the “most liberal” and Lieberman is the “most conservative”. To be fair, Kucinich says that he has changed his mind about abortion in the last year or so, but it doesn’t change the fact that Joe Lieberman has been a much, much stronger advocate for reproductive rights than Kucinich ever has.
6 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Another great post on Republicans and abortion bans can be found at alas, a blog. Read it, it’s good for you. :)
–Kynn
Comment by Kynn Bartlett — October 22, 2003 @ 1:09 pm
two things:
to bring nader up is just tired. all together now… nader was A factor, not THE factor, indeed not nearly the largest factor.
and kucinich. yes, he certainly has voted entirly wrong on reproductive rights in the past. i remember katrina vandenhuvel talking about him on radio nation over a year ago (little less than a year before he declared his candadicy) and he was saying that his daughter was changing his mind or somesuch.
i’ve seen him speak on this matter. he’s the only candidate for universal healthcare. that means pre and post natal care for every woman. this means dependable birth control available to all women. he would allow for more and more comprehensive sex education. he would back family planning with $. all of these things would boost a womans standing in society not to mention make abortions LESS NECESSARY. this to me seems logical. treating the desease rather than the symptom.
he’s also the only candidate that has sworn to make upholding roe v wade a litmus test for judicial appointees. even good ol joe hasnt taken that stand yet.
and, sure bill vetoed that legislation twice. didnt he do that in between throwing all those single mothers off welfare? what a friend to women!
Comment by josh — October 23, 2003 @ 9:10 am
First of all, I’m not blaming Nader for 2000, which is why I said this :
I don’t want to get into a “blame Nader” thing here…
Even without Nader’s spoiler vote, Gore got more votes in Florida. That said, I think Nader’s popularity in 2000 was build on the big lie that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats. It’s complete bullshit and this partial-birth ban is a perfect example of why. If Democrats were in charge of Congress, this never would have made it through committee, and if Gore was President, he would have vetoed it. Both parties may be full of what Bill Maher calls “soulless cash whores”, our whores would have different priorities that would ultimately lead us in a better direction than Bush has.
Secondly, Kucinich’s “seeing the light” on abortion stinks of shameless political maneuvering. As far as I can tell, this was his very first “pro-choice” vote in all his years as a Congressman. Considering that it happened during a presidential campaign is no coincidence. I’m not saying that the other candidates aren’t also guilty of sudden reversals, but it really punctures a hole in Kucinich’s “more liberal than thou” myth. For a candidate that likes to pretend that he’s above the kind of selling out that defines modern politics, Kucinich has shown that he’s as guilty as anyone else.
Comment by greg — October 23, 2003 @ 10:32 am
if he wasn’t such a perfect candidate in every other way i would share your suspicions. sincerly. but he is not selling out. the only evidence i can give of that is the way that he has never wavered on any other issue nor taken even one corporate dollar in his entire political career. all of the other candidates that currently hold office have both wavered and taken corp. donations within this campaign. some within days (did you see kerry vote against the $87 bil? would he do that if kucinich wasnt in the race? would gep?).
Comment by josh — October 23, 2003 @ 2:16 pm
Well the 5th commanment say the should not kill.
What is the diffence the baby is 95% out of the woman but the head so that means the head of the babby is going to kill the woman?
fetus in english means little one mmmmm
When the woman go to the doctor and if she wants to keep it he tells her the babby is well but when she wants to kill it he calls it a fetus
well we all are going to be judge is it going to be up or down for you ?
Comment by bob — March 4, 2004 @ 7:22 pm
i am for Bush, and the abortion ban. abortion is murder, anyway you look @ it, and the ONLY exuse for abortion would b if the mother and the baby’s physical life were in danger. other wise you are murdering someone, so they took a breath of air, and that makes them a human, so, as long as they havent you can kill them no problem. or, you can kill the with in the first 3 months, no no no, abortion is murder… weather the person has taken a breath or not, they are a person, and should be treate as such.
Comment by Marin — May 25, 2004 @ 1:55 pm