Contraception, Abortion and the "War on Women"

Those of you who know me, have read my blog or listened to me speak on CRF Radio, know that I'm a fiscal and constitutional conservative, but that I'm more of a moderate on the social issues. So it should come as no surprise that I've never written about prophylactic-contraception or abortion.

Frankly, until President Obama made it an issue by putting a mandate in the "Affordable Care Act" (aka Obamacare) that requires hospitals and schools run by religious institutions - as well as private companies run by people of faith - to provide coverage for contraception and the "morning after" pill in their healthcare coverage, it wasn't something I felt a need to address in any great detail.

I believe that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly because it's a Tenth Amendment, State's rights issue. The Supreme Court should have ruled to let each state make their own laws and then Congress should have passed a law protecting a woman that goes to a state that permits abortion from being prosecuted when/if she returned to her home state. If you don't like the laws in your state, you're free to move to another state. As the census showed us, in the last 10 years millions of Americans have left states like New York and California and moved to states like Texas and Florida. So evidently, whatever their reasons, people do and have voted with their feet.

I want to try to examine both contraception and abortion  in terms of the so-called "moral high ground", which somehow Democrats seem to have seized (at least in the media).

I should note that I have no objection to people using contraception. That is a personal choice. And frankly it's also the personal responsibility of both the man and the woman if they choose to have sex and don't want to have a child. What I do have a problem with is people expecting taxpayers and people of faith that disagree to pay for what happens in their bedrooms.

I also should make it clear where I personally stand on abortion. I neither want to outlaw all abortions, nor do I think it should be legal to terminate a pregnancy once the fetus is viable outside the womb. Both positions are extreme to me.

Once the baby can survive outside the mother it is, in my opinion, no longer simply a matter of the woman's choice. There is clearly another person who has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness involved at that point. And six months is more than enough time to decide to have an abortion if you truly don't want to have a baby.

Hopefully having clarified my own positions, I want to address the way that progressives like Barack Obama, Sandra Fluke and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz talk about these issues and the "moral high ground" they claim to stand on.

Whether it's contraception or abortion, progressives claim that the issue is a "woman's access to healthcare". This is an intentionally false and deceptive argument.

After all, what disease does contraception cure? Being fertile is the natural condition for most women. In fact, according to the CDC, approximately 200,000 women a year utilize fertility drugs because they can't get pregnant, even though they would like to conceive.

Again in the case of abortion, becoming pregnant is natural -- it is the means by which we procreate and perpetuate our species. So to claim it's simply a women's health issue is disingenuous at best.

So why do progressives frame the debate this way? Simple. If they said they wanted to give women the right to kill their unborn child they'd sound like monsters. It's much easier to demonize people of faith and good conscience than to try to debate civilly about an issue that so divides people.

More recently progressives have doubled-down on their arguments claiming that Republicans are waging a "war on women" due to their moral objection to abortion.

When Barack Obama said he didn't want his daughters to "be punished with a baby" I believe the left lost any claim to the moral high ground on the issue of abortion.

I will say that if the circumstance is either rape or incest I can completely understand why a woman might not want carry a baby to term. I don't want the government telling a woman that's been the victim of either of these violent assaults what they have to do about a pregnancy that results from it. It's a personal decision that the woman must make.

At the same time it's also disturbing to see a "pro-choice" ad featuring a mother essentially saying that she wants her daughter to have the "right" to terminate her unborn grandchild. Again, unless it's the result  of rape or incest, shouldn't the woman have insisted on the use of contraception if she's going to have sex?

It is also despicable when women that do choose life for their child, i.e. Sarah Palin or Tim Tebow's mother, Pamela, are attacked and ridiculed for that decision. I would think that the maternal instinct would be to choose life, not abortion. I know, what a concept!

Another disturbing thing is that most who describe themselves as pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood are completely ignorant of the origins of this organization and it's founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger was a eugenicist and a racist. She felt that people of color were "unfit" and that the "procreation of this group should be stopped".

No wonder so many Planned Parenthood clinics are located in African-American neighborhoods. It's really pretty shocking that some of the biggest defenders of Planned Parenthood are black politicians. Of course this is one of the reasons that the left has so dominated our public education system and curtailed the history that our children are taught. An ignorant population can be led to the slaughter much more easily than an informed one. But I digress.

One other thing that rarely gets talked about when discussing abortion is the man. What about the rights of the man in all of this? As things currently stand the woman gets to decide whether or not to keep the baby. The man has absolutely no say in most cases. However, if the woman decides to have the child the man is usually expected and often required to foot all or some of the costs of raising that child. So much for the "war on women".

The issues of prophylactic-contraception and abortion are not going to be solved here, or likely anytime soon in our political debates. But it would be nice if the debate were on the actual issues involved, rather than on disingenuous attacks on people of faith and good conscience.

2012 Could Be a Train Wreck

Is the Cain Train just the first derailment of 2012?

The meteoric rise and catastrophic derailment of Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain should be a cautionary tale for all grassroots conservative/Republican activists and for the leadership at the NRCC, NRSC and RNC.

Herman Cain’s ascent in the polls and popularity with “tea party” activists came about due to the candidate’s approachability, his straight-talking style and his common sense approach to solving the problems that confront our nation.

His embrace of his outsider status and his quick-witted answer when his political inexperience was brought up as an issue also won Cain scores of supporters.

When asked about his lack of elected experience he would simply remind people that we’ve been sending people to Washington, DC who have political experience and then simply ask, “How’s that working for you? How about sending a problem solver to the White House?”

Unfortunately some of the very things that made Herman Cain such an attractive candidate to many, also led to his ultimate demise.

Cain talked a lot about “making sure we are working on the right problem” and“surrounding yourself with the right people”. On both counts his campaign, and therefore he, failed miserably.

Herman Cain’s biggest problem, other than his inexcusable lack of understanding of foreign policy and national defense issues, as well as, his apparent inability to learn – despite allegedly discussing the topics with distinguished experts like KT McFarland and John Bolton – was his senior national campaign staff.

Cain’s national campaign chairman, Mark Block, has his own FEC scandal smoldering in the background. He is a man that was barred from involvement in elected politics for 3 years and he obviously lacked the knowledge and experience to deal with the firestorm of controversy and allegations that inundated their operation after the first Politico article was published.

JD Gordon, Cain’s communications director/foreign policy advisor, was completely incompetent in dealing with the Politico story despite having 10 days advanced notice that it was coming. He infamously called Geraldo Rivera’s cell phone while Rivera was on the air and gave an amateurish interview that was heard through Geraldo’s lapel microphone.

Additionally, each time candidate Cain made yet another unforced error – whether it was not knowing the Taliban isn’t in Libya, his tortured answer about negotiating with Al-Qaeda to get a captured soldier back:

Or not being able to clearly articulate his own position on abortion:

– Gordon inevitably came out with a statement that tried to explain each gaffe away by blaming a lack of sleep, the media and/or the public for being unable to understand Cain’s answers.

You can read JD Gordon’s biography here. I’ve read it several times and based on the bio, his performance and my personal interaction with him, I’ve come to two conclusions: 1) Based on his resume Gordon should have done a much better job at both damage control and interacting with the media. 2) He lacks the expertise to call himself a “foreign policy advisor”.

For a couple of weeks I implored Herman Cain on Twitter, on my radio show and anywhere else I could to fire Mark Block and JD Gordon and get his campaign back on track and back on message. Unfortunately he did not heed my advice and the emergence of a woman accusing the candidate of engaging in a 13-year extra-marital affair became the preverbal last straw.

The “Cain Train” was the best vehicle for the GOP to reach the White House in 2012. With the train derailed some activists find themselves taking another look at Newt Gingrich or one of the other remaining candidates. But unfortunately none of them have the combination of qualities that attracted voters to Cain.

Gingrich is the biggest Washington insider of the group, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. Yet he seems, at least for the moment, to be convincing some voters that he is the consistent conservative they’re looking for.

Despite having a firm grasps on the economic, monetary and other domestic policies, Paul’s foreign policy stances make him a non-starter for most GOP primary voters.

Jon Huntsman is a Republican In Name Only and would actually get more traction as a Democratic challenger to Barack Obama.

Rick Santorum’s best arguments for his candidacy are his accomplishments as a US Senator. Not the best position to be in when the electorate is looking for outsiders.

Rick Perry’s accumulated gaffes and flubs have pretty much eliminated him from consideration by many grassroots activists.

It seems only fair to have an obligatory mention of Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer. Done.

Michele Bachmann surged early, especially in Iowa, then lost some of her luster – and a lot of her traction -- due to unforced errors on the part of both her national campaign staff and herself. She was widely seen as behaving like a “diva” on the campaign trail. One of the chief complaints from people on the ground was that when booked at an event (Lincoln Day dinner, etc.) she would arrive late and leave early – sometimes not even eating at the dinner – annoying event planners.

Bachmann also had a bout of campaign-threatening foot-in-mouth decease where she said things that were factually untrue, and/or absurd, or she would make a great point in a debate only to blow her momentum by taking her argument just a little too far (see Gardasil).

Perhaps her most grievous error though may have been co-opting the Tea Party label and movement for her personal political gain, which makes her look like a “typical politician”.

Founding and chairing the House Tea Party Caucus might have been a great idea, if Bachmann were staying in Congress and continuing to fight for lower taxes, less spending and smaller, more constitutionally centered government. Not so much when she appears to have done it only for political benefit.

So now Republican primary voters have a choice to make and less time to make it than many average voters may realize. The first in the nation caucuses will take place in just over 3 weeks – less considering Christmas and New Years – and the current crop of GOP presidential hopefuls is not generating excitement within the base. It’s down to Romney or “Not Romney” and that’s not going to generate enthusiasm (think John McCain in 2008).

Short term there seems no doubt it’s Newt Gingrich that benefits from derailment of Herman Cain’s campaign and his departure. With or without Cain’s endorsement, and there is some doubt as to whether it’s forthcoming or even desirable, Newt is already seeing a bump in his poll numbers. But Newt has a long and colorful record for the media, his opponents and his former congressional colleagues to revisit and expose. Can the former-Speaker weather the storm that is inevitably coming his way?

What has happened thus far in the current primary season leads to questions about the “inevitability” of a Barack Obama defeat in 2012. But beyond that it also raises questions about the GOP retaking the Senate and increasing its majority in the House.

The coattails of a successful presidential candidate cannot be overstated. Down ticket candidates can be helped or hurt by the enthusiasm and voter turn out generated by a strong top of the ticket candidate.

Looking around at some of the declared candidates for senate and house seats around the nation, there are some excellent candidates and some not so exceptional candidates. Some of the excellent candidates are in tough races. Some of the not so exceptional candidates are in impossible races.

Perhaps more troubling is that in some of the house and senate races there are 11 or more candidates vying for the GOP nomination. These fields are as wide as the Grand Canyon and about as deep as a rain gutter. Quality would be more desirable than quantity in defeating entrenched incumbent Democrats. Even in an anti-incumbent atmosphere incumbency is a powerful tool.

Unless a Republican presidential ticket is chosen that offers a clear alternative to the policies of Barack Obama and generates the passion among the grassroots activists that actually win elections by knocking on doors, making phone calls and getting out the vote, 2012 could be a train wreck.

Al Sharpton Uses The ‘Sauce’

On Friday’s edition of Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation on MSNBC, the man MSNBC President Phil Griffin has called an “elder statesman”, addressed the kerfuffle between House Speaker John Boehner and the White House over the scheduling of President Obama’s “much anticipated” jobs speech.

Predictably Sharpton towed the White House line and mangled the English language in the process. Al said that, “The White House is furious with John Boehner and someone on the inside is speaking out,” he continued “according to Politico a White House ‘sauce’ (source?), Boehner crossed the line when he forced President Obama to change the date of his jobs speech.”

That’s an interesting interpretation of the facts. Al failed to acknowledge that since the speech had not yet been scheduled, Boehner hadn’t “forced” the President to “change” anything. He also ignored the fact that a joint session of Congress is something that every President – even Barack Obama -- has to request from the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. That’s because the Executive and Legislative branches are equal. There’s no obligation for Congress to grant a joint session, much less accommodate a specific day and time requested.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In addition, even the Politico article Sharpton was cherry picking quotes from acknowledged that:

“The White House was well aware the president’s speech would conflict with a planned Republican debate sponsored by POLITICO and NBC to be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. The debate would be broadcast live by MSNBC and live-streamed by POLITICO. CNBC and Telemundo will re-air the broadcast.”

Sharpton went on to characterize John Boehner telling Obama that he could have a joint session on Thursday rather than Wednesday as “a big change in tone.” He began to layout the idea that where once the White House thought the Tea Party Caucus was the “real problem” in Washington, that now “it’s a whole new ball game” and “maybe it is him.”

Yeah, because the tone coming from the President and House Democrats has been completely apolitical, non-partisan and friendly for the past 2½ years. No false accusations of Republican obstruction while the Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives at all. No Democrats falsely condemning Tea Party activists as “racists”, “terrorists”, “hostage takers”, or a host of other derogatory pejoratives.

Once again Al quoted Politico’s White House ‘sauce’ as saying, “what happened this week is a big deal. It shows the House Republicans will do no outreach, nothing.” All this because Boehner asked the President to make a political speech one day later.

Next, Sharpton was joined by the Washington Bureau chief of the Huffington Post, Ryan Grimm, to whom he posed the probing, and completely non-leading question, “Has John Boehner been the problem all along?”

Grimm agreed that Boehner was certainly one of many problems Obama has. But his real gripe seemed to be that the president wasn’t being tough enough with the Speaker. He suggested that if all the White House was going to do is have anonymous quotes given to the press, that Boehner “will keep rolling and rolling and rolling right over him [Obama].

I would argue that rather than “rolling over” the President, John Boehner actually did Obama a huge favor by rejecting his request to speak Wednesday, immediately before the long scheduled Republican Presidential Debate.

Had Boehner allowed Obama to give what is likely to be a highly political speech, containing few details and little of substance in terms of an actual plan to create jobs, that would have allowed the GOP candidates to instantaneously rip the President’s speech apart and attack him for using a joint session of Congress for a political stump speech.

Rather than Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney and the rest of the GOP field directing their barbs at the new frontrunner Rick Perry -- which would be to the benefit of Obama -- the address preceding the debate the would have invited, no demanded, that the candidates dissect his speech.

Grimm – with the banner “Double Speaker: Details on White House Reax to Boehner’s Obstruction” on screen as he spoke – then suggested that, “maybe the best way for Obama to start dealing with Boehner is to ask for the opposite of what he wants.”

So MSNBC says it’s “obstruction” to ask the president, again, to wait one day to give his speech and at the same time they have a liberal columnist telling Al Sharpton and his audience that President Obama should use reverse psychology on the Speaker of the House to circumvent that alleged obstruction.

At this point Sharpton the master linguist (sarcasm mine) laid out what he would have done if he were President (shudder the thought), in a nonsensical diatribe:

“On Thursday night, even though I would have called Boehner’s bluff Wednesday night, let’s play out your scenario. Maybe he goes Thursday night. Lays out a plan. Let Boehner rebuff him and goes to the American public who has shown in every poll that they are more with the President and than what Boehner is saying, and take them to a mat in a way that a lot of people want to see him take him to the mat.”

Okay, where to start. What bluff is that? Boehner said no, he meant no, and there was absolutely nothing Obama could do about it. Does anyone, even Sharpton, believe that Obama is actually going to layout a plan in this speech, as opposed to the previous 9 speeches? Has the American public really shown in “every poll” that they have confidence in the President’s handling of jobs and the economy? And just how is the President going to take Boehner “to the mat”?

Remarkably Grimm seemed to follow Sharpton’s reasoning and agreed, saying that if Obama would have stood up to Boehner it would have been a “debacle” for Boehner, because making the President speak Thursday instead of Wednesday would some how make it appear that House Republicans “don’t want to hear him.”

Sharpton and Grimm continued their incoherent and illogical back and forth, with Sharpton listing some of John Boehner’s supposed slights and failures, some of which he naturally blamed on the Tea Party, and Grimm suggesting that several months ago the House Republican coalition in the House looked like it was fracturing but that Boehner brought it back together by amassing what “is probably one of the most extreme records that a House Speaker has put up in decades.”

Of course Al concurred with Grimm’s assessment, accusing Boehner of “being probably the most extreme speaker we’ve seen in a decade.” Really? John Boehner is more extreme than Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker who infamously said of the Obamacare bill, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”? He’s more extreme than a woman who accused American citizens peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights of being “extremists” and “Astroturf” among other things?

For good measure these two intellectual giants falsely accused Republicans of not wanting to extend the payroll tax cut and of being “irrational”. Of course Republicans are fine with continuing the payroll tax cut. But they also realize that a limited payroll tax “holiday” has no long-term benefits for the economy and does nothing to encourage employers to hire more people.

I’d like to humbly suggest that Al Sharpton and Ryan Grimm lay off the ‘sauce’ and try a sober analysis of Barack Obama’s failed economic policies. They might also want to consider that while the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, they failed to pass a budget (the Harry Reid led Senate still hasn’t) and the only budget Obama submitted was rejected 97-0 by the Democrat controlled Senate.