|
NRL News
KEEPING
YOUR EYE ON WHAT COUNTS A look at past elections reminds us that the “pro-life increment” makes a decisive difference in close contests, that many people “vote their pocket book,” and that some people think too much about “making a statement” instead of thinking about the long term and “making a difference.” To take the last point first, the lessons from the past when supposedly “principled” (but actually foolish) behavior at election time seriously harmed the right-to-life cause were reviewed in my April 2007 column (“When Common Sense is Lacking”). You might want to look at it again (http://www.nrlc.org/news/2007/NRL04/PresidentColumn.html). At present, there is only one thing to add: When some people think that neither of the two major parties offers us an ideal candidate with a good chance to win the election, they are tempted by visions of a third-party choice. Don’t fall for this temptation! Going this route virtually guarantees that the right-to-life cause loses out in the general election. Just look at history. Not even as charismatic and popular a figure as President Teddy Roosevelt could get elected on a third party ticket. For pro-lifers to divert their votes to a third party would simply assure that those votes become irrelevant to the contest that actually counts. Worse, wasting the vote on a third party might actually give a win to the least desirable candidate of the major parties. The whole point of activating and energizing voters who value the right to life is to make the “pro-life increment” large and decisive in the contest between the two major parties. That way, pro-lifers can also exercise influence over policies after the election. Next we need to consider the “pocketbook” issue, even though such matters are usually not in the purview of NRLC. Here we only need to be concerned about a specific aspect of that issue. The current sense of economic unease arises mainly from the fact that—worldwide—literally billions of workers have joined the free market place during the last two decades. Moreover, this competition in the world economy will persist and potentially even increase—no matter which party is in power in Washington, D.C., (that is, the new workers abroad won’t go away). Since a “pocketbook” vote won’t change much about that aspect, pro-lifers can more than ever argue that voters pay attention to the fundamental issue, the right to life, and vote for candidates who make it easier for us to promote that right. The major problem for the pro-life side is that the Supreme Court didn’t just legalize and “federalize” abortion in all fifty states—it “constitutionalized” the right to abortion on demand. Thus, the Court’s erroneous ruling can’t simply be fixed by enacting new laws in Congress or in the state legislatures. There are only two ways of nullifying a fictitious constitutional right created by the errant Court: either the Constitution is amended or the Supreme Court reverses itself on the matter. American voters are generally reluctant to take away “rights” (no matter how wrongly established). And public opinion is split on the right to life. Thus, it is highly unlikely that a constitutional amendment establishing the right to life will succeed any time soon. That leaves the reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court as the next best way to “de-constitutionalize” the right to abortion. Such a reversal in itself would not establish the right to life, but at least it would send the matter back to the legislatures where pro-lifers could seek to secure the right to life by law. The chances of the Supreme Court reversing itself on the abortion issue wax and wane over time depending on the composition of the Court. By the early nineties, it seemed possible that the Court might abandon Roe v. Wade and return the matter to the legislatures. But then, in 1992, the Court severely disappointed pro-lifers. In Casey, the Court modified Roe v. Wade, but left the “constitutional” right to abortion intact. Matters got significantly worse with the election of Bill Clinton as president. With pro-abortionists firmly in control in the White House and in Congress, Clinton replaced retiring Justice Byron R. White, who had dissented from Roe v. Wade, with an extreme pro-abortionist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then he got to replace the author of Roe, Harry A. Blackmun, with a more competent but still pro-abortion justice, Stephen G. Breyer. When pro-lifers think of Bill Clinton’s election to the presidency, they immediately remember his disastrous first day in office when he promptly issued executive orders overturning the pro-life policies of presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Yet, his appointments to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary over eight years have done much more serious damage to the right-to-life cause. To drive the point home: Just think of the unbearable disaster in the Supreme Court that the election of Al Gore or John Kerry would have created. The election and re-election of President George W. Bush staved off that disaster for eight years, but with the upcoming election the threat arises once again. Pro-lifers in need of further “consciousness raising” need only contemplate three things: (1) the potential election of, let’s say, a Hillary Clinton to the presidency, (2) the pro-abortion leadership currently controlling Congress, and (3) the age of several of the Supreme Court justices. And how many justices could think of retirement during the next two presidential terms? No fewer than six: Associate Justices Stephen G. Breyer (age 69), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 74), Anthony M. Kennedy (age 71), Antonin Scalia (age 71), David H. Souter (age 68), and John Paul Stevens (age 87). A president Hillary Rodham Clinton in power for two terms would freeze the Court in a pro-abortion mindset for decades, yes, decades! Is that enough to keep you awake at night? Economic concerns, worries about the “perfection” of other candidates, etc. pale in comparison to the lasting damage that the election of a presidential candidate committed to “securing reproductive rights” would inflict on this country with his or her appointments to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. It’s time for pro-lifers to be realistic—and then work with the greatest determination. |