GOP prepares tough anti-abortion platform

[soontobeka]

The Republican Party is once again set to enshrine into its official platform support for "a human life amendment" to the Constitution that would outlaw abortion without making explicit exemptions for rape or incest, according to draft language of the platform obtained exclusively by CNN late Monday.

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."


The party will reaffirm its opposition to federally-funded stem cell research and demand that the government "should not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage."

Republicans have also inserted a "salute" to states pushing "informed consent" laws - an apparent reference to ultrasound bills that have moved through some state legislatures - "mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation."

The document, crafted Monday in a subcommittee meeting of the Republican Party's official platform committee in Tampa, is being closely guarded by party officials but was provided to CNN by a Republican source here.

The source cautioned that the statement of principle is still in draft form and must be approved by the full platform committee on Tuesday and by delegates to the Republican National Convention next week.

The GOP's abortion plank faces scrutiny every four years, and this year's document contains language similar to the platforms that were adopted by the party at their conventions in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

But the abortion issue has been thrust into the center of the presidential campaign as this year's convention approaches, thanks to comments from Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, a U.S. Senate candidate, about abortion and "legitimate rape."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan sharply condemned Akin's remarks and pledged that under a Romney administration, abortion would be allowed in the case of rape.

An exemption for rape, though, is not included in the platform set to be adopted by the party Romney will officially lead when he accepts the Republican nomination next week.

And Ryan, his vice presidential pick, has opposed exceptions for rape and voted alongside Akin in the House, though Ryan now says he defers to Romney's position on the matter.

Debate over the abortion plank flared four years ago when John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee at the time, said he wanted to add language to the platform to recognize exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

That prompted angry finger-wagging from top social conservatives.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, chided McCain and said it would be "political suicide" for him to add language about exceptions for rape or incest in the abortion platform.


politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/20/first-on-cnn-gop-prepares-tough-anti-abortion-platform/

[Deleted]

I think it is political suicide to not exclude rape and incest, but maybe I'm so far from the mainstream and just don't realize it.

[IIOY]

For me personally, one of the most surprising aspects of Akingate has been the assertion by at least some of his Republican critics that most pro-lifers support an exception in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I have always assumed that such exceptions were not widely supported among pro-lifers, not least because they strike me as inconsistent with an opposition to abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being.

[soontobeka]

I agree IIOY.

[mskitkat]

In a previous life, I was super pro-life, anti-abortion. Even then, rape/incest/life of the mother were understood to be exceptions. People demanding the mother give her life were considered crazy. It is nuts to think the platform has changed so much.

[IIOY]

Aug 21, 2012 6:37:57 GMT -5 mskitkat said:

In a previous life, I was super pro-life, anti-abortion. Even then, rape/incest/life of the mother were understood to be exceptions. People demanding the mother give her life were considered crazy.

This is how many Catholics feel, though. If you truly believe that a fetus is a life, I think this position makes more sense. I'm not sure why the "murder" of a "person,"* if that is one truly believes, should become justifiable simply because it resulted from rape or incest. Health of the mother used to not be an excuse from the Catholic perspective because the mother has been baptized and can go to heaven, whereas the fetus has not. I'm uncertain as to whether this continues to be the position as there was some recent movement on the issue of limbo.

*I'm using dick quotes here because I'm pro-choice and think that abortion should be legal regardless of whether the fetus is a "person."

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2012 5:32:40 GMT -5 IIOY said:

For me personally, one of the most surprising aspects of Akingate has been the assertion by at least some of his Republican critics that most pro-lifers support an exception in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I have always assumed that such exceptions were not widely supported among pro-lifers, not least because they strike me as inconsistent with an opposition to abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being.

I agree with this, if you think life is precious, shouldn't that extend to all life? These social issues truly will cause me to never vote Republican, as much as a fiscal conservative as I am.

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 21, 2012 7:14:11 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

Aug 21, 2012 5:32:40 GMT -5 IIOY said:

For me personally, one of the most surprising aspects of Akingate has been the assertion by at least some of his Republican critics that most pro-lifers support an exception in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I have always assumed that such exceptions were not widely supported among pro-lifers, not least because they strike me as inconsistent with an opposition to abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being.

I agree with this, if you think life is precious, shouldn't that extend to all life? These social issues truly will cause me to never vote Republican, as much as a fiscal conservative as I am.

I agree. I've pointed this out to several people who ended up changing their views on abortion. Essentially the question of whether to allow exceptions highlights the misogyny of the pro-life movement.

If you believe that a fetus is an innocent human life that needs protecting, including fetuses that were conceived via rape or incest, that means you believe a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to her rapist's child. That view is disgusting and misogynistic to many people.

But if you are pro-life but believe there should be exceptions for things like rape or incest, that really highlights how sexist the movement is. A child conceived via rape is equally an "innocent human life" as one conceived via consensual sex. It is inconsistent to allow abortion for one but not the other if you believe abortion is murder. This just shows that it is more about control of women's sexuality, and making sure women are not allowed to have consensual sex without consequences than it is about protecting innocent fetuses.

[redheadbaker]

So, they're not even pretending to focus on jobs anymore?

[IIOY]

Aug 21, 2012 7:41:00 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

So, they're not even pretending to focus on jobs anymore?

I don't think that's a fair conclusion. The abortion issue is just one of many planks in the platform and the issue of its inclusion arises with every Presidential election because it's a controversial one. We are seeing a similar issue this year with the D platform vis a vis LGBT rights.

[mcgee]

I once pointed out to a pro-life Democratic state rep, who I liked tremendously both personally and as a politician minus his position on abortion, that an exception for rape or incest is logically inconsistent - that if it's a life worthy of legal protection then it shouldn't matter whether it was created in love, lust, or violence. The almost universal response was, "You're right, but we can't say that. It's cruel, and no one wants to punish a woman for being raped."

My response, "So you DO want to punish women for having sex?"

The conversation kind of went downhill from there.

I think most pro-lifers who are capable of logic and reasoning understand that an exception for rape is logically inconsistent with the idea that a fetus is a person worthy of legal protection. The problem for them is that I don't think most of America agrees with forcing rape and incest victims to bear children conceived from those despicable acts.

Hence Ryan, Akin and co trying to redefine rape, to separate "forcible" rape from somehow "less forcible" rape. A woman beaten senseless within an inch of her life? Yeah, forcible rape. A woman drugged by a guy at a party? A woman who wakes up and realizes that her abusive husband is having sex with her without her consent? A 13 year old who is easily overpowered by a grown man and lacks the physical strength to push him off her? Sorry, they're out of luck. It's disgusting.

[ringstrue]

Aug 21, 2012 5:32:40 GMT -5 IIOY said:

For me personally, one of the most surprising aspects of Akingate has been the assertion by at least some of his Republican critics that most pro-lifers support an exception in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I have always assumed that such exceptions were not widely supported among pro-lifers, not least because they strike me as inconsistent with an opposition to abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being.

IMO, this just reaffirms that a) Most people calling themselves pro-lifers don't really know what that means, and b) the GOP platform is calling itself pro-life just to pander.

[IIOY]

Aug 21, 2012 7:54:58 GMT -5 mcgee said:

I think most pro-lifers who are capable of logic and reasoning understand that an exception for rape is logically inconsistent with the idea that a fetus is a person worthy of legal protection.

I agree, and I don't have a problem with pro-lifers saying they are tolerant of such exceptions. I just think that in doing so, they need to acknowledge that there is a sliding scale of morality in play here and that the "life" of a fetus is not, in fact, the only consideration.

[summer]

Aug 21, 2012 8:06:15 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Honest question. Why does the life of the fetus outweigh the life of the mother

Because the fetus is innocent and she isn't (hence the pregnancy)?

[charminglife]

How does this platform work with Romney's comments yesterday that his administration wouldn't oppose abortion for rape victims?

[redheadbaker]

Aug 21, 2012 7:43:40 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 21, 2012 7:41:00 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

So, they're not even pretending to focus on jobs anymore?

I don't think that's a fair conclusion. The abortion issue is just one of many planks in the platform and the issue of its inclusion arises with every Presidential election because it's a controversial one. We are seeing a similar issue this year with the D platform vis a vis LGBT rights.

So, it's ok for them to have a "side" issue, but not Obama? He was criticized by Republicans for working on healthcare reform and speaking about LGBT issues, because they felt his sole focus should be the economy and jobs, I guess?

[wawa]

I really would like to understand how it became set in stone that limited federal government, balanced budgets and low taxes went hand in hand with being pro-life.

How is this a thing? And I know "the religious right hijacked the party" is the accepted answer - but that's really it? When did this happen? Why? They have NOTHING to do with each other. There is no logical connection. Why must they go hand in hand?

ETA: i really do not in any way want this to devolve back into "why we make the choices we do in voting" convo. DO NOT.

[msmerymac]

Aug 21, 2012 5:32:40 GMT -5 IIOY said:

For me personally, one of the most surprising aspects of Akingate has been the assertion by at least some of his Republican critics that most pro-lifers support an exception in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. I have always assumed that such exceptions were not widely supported among pro-lifers, not least because they strike me as inconsistent with an opposition to abortion based on the belief that a fetus is a human being.

I agree. I don't know that not excepting rape or incest is MORE popular, but it's always struck me as inconsistent. As though "murder" is okay when the pregnancy is not your fault, but if you were having sex for *gasp!* fun, then a child is a punishment for your actions, hor! Excluding rape and incest, frankly, makes me think the pro-lifer in question is more about misogyny and less about the sanctity of life - isn't the life of every fetus equal? And, of course, I say this as someone who is completely pro-choice.

However, this plank being in the platform of one of two of our major parties scares me to death.

[msmerymac]

Aug 21, 2012 7:54:58 GMT -5 mcgee said:

I think most pro-lifers who are capable of logic and reasoning understand that an exception for rape is logically inconsistent with the idea that a fetus is a person worthy of legal protection. The problem for them is that I don't think most of America agrees with forcing rape and incest victims to bear children conceived from those despicable acts.

Isn't this because the majority of Americans are at least marginally pro-choice?

[mcgee]

Aug 21, 2012 9:36:50 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Aug 21, 2012 7:54:58 GMT -5 mcgee said:

I think most pro-lifers who are capable of logic and reasoning understand that an exception for rape is logically inconsistent with the idea that a fetus is a person worthy of legal protection. The problem for them is that I don't think most of America agrees with forcing rape and incest victims to bear children conceived from those despicable acts.

Isn't this because the majority of Americans are at least marginally pro-choice?

Yes. A majority of Americans believe abortion should be available in some way or form. They don't like late-term abortions, and they're fairly divided on minors having abortions without parental knowledge or consent, but they do agree that abortion should be legal.

[bqbride]

Aug 21, 2012 7:41:00 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

So, they're not even pretending to focus on jobs anymore?

You know better than that. They have to pretend to focus on jobs and the economy because that's the only way they get people to vote against their own consciences on issues like abortion and equal rights. Just like in 2010, once elected, they will focus exclusively on pushing their disgusting social agenda. Yay for small government!

[mominatrix]

Aug 21, 2012 9:15:31 GMT -5 wawa said:

I really would like to understand how it became set in stone that limited federal government, balanced budgets and low taxes went hand in hand with being pro-life.

How is this a thing? And I know "the religious right hijacked the party" is the accepted answer - but that's really it? When did this happen? Why? They have NOTHING to do with each other. There is no logical connection. Why must they go hand in hand?

ETA: i really do not in any way want this to devolve back into "why we make the choices we do in voting" convo. DO NOT.

Reagan.

He wanted to expand the Republican party, in order to get more votes, so it became strategery to court the Religious Right. It wasn't about intellectual consistency or purity, as it was about getting votes.

[mominatrix]

OK here we go.

It wasn't just, "oh, we need people, let's create a religious movement."

Roe v. Wade was 1973. In reaction to it, the religious right began to coalesce around the movement (well, not just Roe, but Roe was the easy target. Remember, early 70's = reacting to the hippies, the 'free love', the crazy music, the sex, the lack of prim hats and white gloves.)

Jerry Falwell went on a big tour in 1976 and founded the Moral Majority in 1979... just in time to flex his political muscle in favor of RR.

Why the Republicans, and not the Democrats? Now, others might have theories about this, but the one I hold dear is that most of these religious conservatives were White Southerners, completely pissed off at the Democratic party over the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and casting about to move to the Republican party in reaction to that.


Now, my sense has always been that 'mainstream' Republicans have thought that they could keep this particular wing of the party 'under control'... and that this control has been fading more and more every election cycle.

[ESF]

Aug 21, 2012 8:02:51 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 21, 2012 7:54:58 GMT -5 mcgee said:

I think most pro-lifers who are capable of logic and reasoning understand that an exception for rape is logically inconsistent with the idea that a fetus is a person worthy of legal protection.

I agree, and I don't have a problem with pro-lifers saying they are tolerant of such exceptions. I just think that in doing so, they need to acknowledge that there is a sliding scale of morality in play here and that the "life" of a fetus is not, in fact, the only consideration.

I agree with this. I don't really have a problem conceptually with the idea that someone could be pro-life except for rape and health of the mother. My problem with that position isn't that it's inconsistent, it's that enforcing that kind of law would: (1) involve fucked up invasions of privacy that don't belong in a civilized, free, and democratic country, and (2) put doctors in really horrible positions.

The people who support those kinds of restrictions shouldn't be judged for being inconsistent, because really, that kind of rhetoric doesn't help, as it seems more likely to push them to a more absolute pro-life stance than a pro-choice one. Rather, the dialogue with those people really needs to start at: how on earth do you propose enforcing those laws?

I can respect different views of the constitution, and appreciate that people can take the view that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. But, where it all falls apart for me is how someone can come up with a constitutional scheme for policing the enforcement of an abortion ban. I really wish that was the focus of the debate, because I think that for the moderate people who don't really label themselves either way (probably most of the country), that's the type of conversation that might resonate with them, and might actually move the needle towards resolving this mess.

And with that, I'm out for the day.

[2vermont]

Aug 21, 2012 7:10:46 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 21, 2012 6:37:57 GMT -5 mskitkat said:

In a previous life, I was super pro-life, anti-abortion. Even then, rape/incest/life of the mother were understood to be exceptions. People demanding the mother give her life were considered crazy.

This is how many Catholics feel, though. If you truly believe that a fetus is a life, I think this position makes more sense. I'm not sure why the "murder" of a "person,"* if that is one truly believes, should become justifiable simply because it resulted from rape or incest. Health of the mother used to not be an excuse from the Catholic perspective because the mother has been baptized and can go to heaven, whereas the fetus has not. I'm uncertain as to whether this continues to be the position as there was some recent movement on the issue of limbo.

*I'm using dick quotes here because I'm pro-choice and think that abortion should be legal regardless of whether the fetus is a "person."

Voodoo's post was a good one wrt Catholic teaching. The whole baptism equation is an interesting one because it's not usually discussed (at least it was't in the Catholic, pro-life circles I used to hang in). Technically, limbo was never an actual teaching of the Church...and technically, one must still be baptized to get a chance at Heaven. It appears as if teaching has changed but in the end the unbaptized (whether adult or infant or preborn) only have a shot at Heaven via the mercy of God.

[bqbride]

Aug 21, 2012 11:32:53 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I will never be able to understand compartmentalizing your life such that this kind of thing takes a backseat to, and is eclipsed by, economic policy.

Particularly when said economic policy has failed, spectacularly and repeatedly. Makes one wonder what the real reasons for voting for the extreme social conservative platform are, doesn't it?

[2vermont]

Aug 21, 2012 12:13:18 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Aug 21, 2012 11:32:53 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

I will never be able to understand compartmentalizing your life such that this kind of thing takes a backseat to, and is eclipsed by, economic policy.

Particularly when said economic policy has failed, spectacularly and repeatedly. Makes one wonder what the real reasons for voting for the extreme social conservative platform are, doesn't it?

Wait a minute, haven't we had multiple discussions accusing a number of people of putting economic policy ahead of gay rights? Granted, I don't believe for a second that most of these Republicans actaully feel this way, but to many out there the right to life is very much a civil rights issue much like gay rights is a civil rights issue to the left.

[heyjude]

Why the social agenda? Because the real agenda is wealth accumulation in as few hands as possible but this agenda is untenable to your average American voter. So you've got to throw up some pretty window dressing like We hate the Gayz and Your Fetus Belongs to Me and 10 Commandments for All Y'all, etc to get the peeps on board. It's so fucking obvious.

[aw]

Aug 21, 2012 12:27:55 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Why the social agenda? Because the real agenda is wealth accumulation in as few hands as possible but this agenda is untenable to your average American voter. So you've got to throw up some pretty window dressing like We hate the Gayz and Your Fetus Belongs to Me and 10 Commandments for All Y'all, etc to get the peeps on board. It's so fucking obvious.

This is so condescending and ridiculous. You think the Republicans on this board are that stupid?

That's like me saying to all of you Democrats that the real agenda of your party is to turn America into a socialist nation and give the government all the power, but that doesn't appeal to your average American voter. So you've got to throw up some pretty window dressing like "your body, your choice" and "global warming" and "they want to throw grandma off the cliff" to get the peeps on board. It's so obvious.

Do you really think that both parties don't include people with good intentions, like Republicans who truly believe in smaller government or Democrats who truly believe in social justice, without power and greed being their primary motivation? And do you really believe that people on either side are so stupid that they will vote simply because someone tells them to hate homosexuals or hate the people that want to restrict Skittles for poor people?

[ttt]

Aug 21, 2012 12:27:55 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Why the social agenda? Because the real agenda is wealth accumulation in as few hands as possible but this agenda is untenable to your average American voter. So you've got to throw up some pretty window dressing like We hate the Gayz and Your Fetus Belongs to Me and 10 Commandments for All Y'all, etc to get the peeps on board. It's so fucking obvious.

All. Of. This.

Does anyone think that Mitt Romney personally gives a crap about abortion or gay marriage or even illegal immigration? Or Newt Gingrich? Or the majority of the Republican party leaders? Of course not. They don't put gay marriage referenda on the ballot because they deeply believe the people should speak on gay marriage. They do it to get people fired up and get them to come out to vote, and hey while you're here voting against gays or illegals, vote for Republicans for Congress too!

It's a political tool, and it's a mighty effective one.