Like millions of other Americans, last night I was given the unique opportunity to see what CNN wanted me to see of the Republican presidential hopefuls. (For those interested, the small group I gathered with allowed me to live-blog with M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Frosty Wooldridge, Iowan Chris Dorsey, Iowan David Redlawsk, Elizabeth Blackney and assorted others at Back Roads to the White House.)
Although this morning the hub-bub on the cyber- and boob-tubes seems to be about questions that were possibly planted by other campaigns (Hat tip goes to Don for that first link), all we actually have are confirmed supporters of other campaigns having their questions selected. Still, the whisper of impropriety is in the air and, at least in politics, one whiff is often all it takes. I personally witnessed not less than five activists groups from both the left and right political fringes brainstorm strategy to get their questions selected for this debate. The same holds true for the previous Democratic YouTube debate. I seriously doubt that any of the questioners — human or animated — were isolated from politics in general or from campaigns.
That being said, there were two questions in last night’s debate that had me perking my ears for the answers. The first came from already outed John Edwards’ supporter Journey who asked about the criminalization of abortion.
Congressman Ron Paul, a former obstetrician/gynecologist, said that in his 30 years of medical practice he “of course, never saw one time when a medically-necessary abortion had to be done.”
Granted, I don’t have the medical credentials of Dr. Ron Paul, but I have a very difficult time believing this. Either he was extremely fortunate and never oversaw one high-risk pregnancy, or he is pandering a point to the anti-abortion crowd. In my circle of friends, I personally know a minimum of 10 women, excluding myself, who have had medically-necessary abortions.
Paul went on to add: “I think it certainly is a crime, but I also understand the difficulties. I think when you’re talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial-birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a penalty for the person that is committing that crime.”
I don’t know of many medical professionals who use the term “partial-birth abortion,” a phrase that was created by a politically motivated group to add emotional turmoil to a flimsy, non-medically-related argument. The medical term for these types of procedures is dilation and extraction, or D&X, and they amount to less than one percent of all abortions performed. The reason the D&X is done — or was done, thanks to our now religiously-charged Supreme Court — is because it is often the safest procedure for the woman.
There is a reason the evangelical community is not dancing in the streets over the Supreme Court ruling. They aren’t happy because the ruling did nothing to stop late-term abortion. The Supreme Court ruling effectively banned one — the safest — late-term abortion procedure. What’s legally left are other procedures that also end with an aborted fetus, but provide much more risk for the woman.
Paul ended his talk about the criminalization of abortion by saying the doctors performing the abortions should be punished and the states should decide what that punishment is.
Lest anyone mistake the why and how evangelical and/or fundamentalists Christians ended up in bed with the oft-scandalous Republican Party, Fred Thompson provided the answer: “The young lady’s question is premised on if abortion becomes illegal. That presumes that Roe vs. Wade is overturned, which I think should be our number one focus right now and that has to do with the kinds of Supreme Court judges we’ve put on the bench.”
Thompson said he also believes the decision on abortion should go back to the states and that the person punished should be the doctor performing the abortion. He added that he believes the current rule of viability in most states should be rolled back to a “much earlier” date in the pregnancy.
Another questioner, AJ from Millstone, N.J. (as far as I know he’s not been outed as a plant, but that’s probably because he asked a question most on the right liked), asked if the candidates would sign a federal ban on abortion.
Rudy Giuliani was the first to answer, and, in a move I’m sure did not earn him any points with the social conservatives (not that he holds hands with many of them anyway), he said that he would not sign the ban. He pledged instead to “leave it to the states.”
Giuliani, arguably the most moderate of any of the Republican candidates on human rights, added that he did not think abortion should be criminalized.
On the flip side, Mitt Romney seemed excited about the prospect of an abortion-free America and smiled as he said that he’d “be delighted to sign that bill.” He then lamented the fact that America wasn’t at that point of consensus on the issue.
What’s extremely sad about all of this is the fact that many on the political surface speak about the decision of Roe v. Wade as if it only impacts abortion rights. The ruling spoke directly to a violation of a constitutional right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Protection of a woman’s health was really not a consideration of Roe v. Wade, but was determined during the little discussed companion ruling of Doe v. Bolton, which was released the same day as Roe v. Wade and dealt specifically with Georgia’s abortion law.
What we had last night was a stage full of men who are willing to throw medical privacy under the bus for everyone, and who will continue to pander to religious fundamentalists instead of taking a stand to protect the health of American women.
