A Sobering Discussion of Right-to-Life

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

In my continuing dialogue with Larry Perrault, I make clear to him that I'm willing to support the Republican ticket in 2008 -- period. He's willing to support the ticket IF it's headed by Mike Huckabee, but he may sit out the election if any other (likely) candidate is at the top. He pins many of his hopes on the Democrats NOT doing what they say they will if, as appears likely, they win the election.

The over-riding issue for Larry is the question of abortion. He's strongly pro-life and is especially concerned about Rudy Giuliani's position on the subject. Here's my response to him:

Frankly, after having been associated with National Right to Life for about 25 years (more?), I sometimes wonder if the Movement has lost sight of any achievable goal. The Supreme Court is NOT going to do away with Roe v. Wade anytime soon. Even if it did, the issue would revert to the states, where about half of them (roughly) would be restrictive on abortion -- and half would not. In that case, things would not change much, because people would cross borders to get abortions.

Thus, Roe v. Wade is "bad law," but the notion that overturning it is going to produce major changes in the U.S. doesn't reflect reality. Even if the Supreme Court were to do away with Roe -- something that may or may not happen in a distant "someday" -- abortion apparently would not diminish sharply in the U.S.

Currently, support does NOT exist -- in Congress or the states -- for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.The real question is: should we just bemoan this fact, or should we do the best we can?

In a practical sense, Giuliani's position -- reducing abortions and increasing adoptions, as happened when he was Mayor of NYC -- might be the best PRACTICAL approach. If we continue to take an all-or-nothing stance on the issue, we may very well end up with nothing (which is basically what we've gotten over 30-plus years).

Pre-Roe v. Wade, there were 200,000 (more?) abortions per year in the U.S. Post-Roe v. Wade (if there is a post period, and there will be none if Hillary Clinton is elected), would there be less? It's doubtful.

So, might not the best answer -- as opposed to the unachievable "perfect answer" -- be to make the case for more adoptions and fewer abortions as the way to affirm life in all its forms? True, that may not be as emotionally satisfying to some pro-lifers, but the practical effect might be more significant than the current mainly rhetorical effort.

We need more practical steps -- increasing pre-natal counselling, providing better pre-natal health care, coming up with improved avenues for adoption -- TO REDUCE ABORTION. Since we are never going to eliminate it, we should seek to reduce it. To that end, it's critical that we move beyond trying to outshout the opposition.

I have zero interest in generating more rhetoric about abortion. I also have zero interest in PRETENDING that we are going to eradicate it. However, I have a profound interest in the nation taking workable steps to reduce abortion to the greatest degree possible.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA


Additional Response to Larry


Additional Response to Larry's column "Stranger in a Foreign Land," http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/

Defending what you BELIEVE to be right is in fact your obligation. My point is that I don't see how you defend them by not opposing people who believe the opposite. I wonder if the explanation to God you mention wouldn't instead revolve why you didn't "choose ye this day" between the partly objectionable and the completely objectionable?

Your point is that the Democrats don't "really" mean what they say. My point is that they probably do. Yes, being President is a lot different from running for President, whether you're Hillary Clinton or Mike Huckabee. However, as you point out with Gore and Gephardt on abortion, there are certain stances a Democrat MUST take -- such as being pro-choice -- if he or she is to run for President.

With Republican candidates (and voters), obviously, there's not a litmus test. Bill Clinton dealt with abortion by not mentioning it, an approach Mrs. Clinton may also take. When necessary, she will admit her strong admiration for Justice Ginsburg (hint, hint).

What you said about Richardson is also instructive. As he's veered to the Left, he's gone up in the polls. Republicans are big on "purity of heart," as Romney recently noted. Democrats have that problem to a much lesser extent (when they have it at all).

As I said previously, Bill Clinton did great damage to the FBI and the CIA, not to mention the U.S. military. He did so because, well, "it's the economy, stupid." It turned out (First WTC bombing, African embassies, the Cole, and the run-up to 9/11) that it was not the economy, stupid (Bill). The American people persist in liking him a lot, perhaps for some of the same reasons they like the Simpson family.

I generally stay away from commenting on Ron Paul and Hugh Hewitt, lest I resort to bad words. Hugh's favorite candidate, Mitt Romney, who has spent $20-plus million has 8% in the new Gallup Poll. Take out MA, UT, and NH, and he's well below Huckabee nationally. Mitt has some big decisions to make in the next 45 days.

Right now, the race is probably between Rudy, Fred, and Mike, with John still having a chance but a slim one.

steve maloney