When one identifies oneself as a Republican, assumptions are made.
Hillary Rosen’s comment drew attention to . And with each of the Republican candidates asserting themselves as pro-life — although presumptive nominee Mitt Romney is a former choicer — the ensuing hysteria that Roe v. Wade will be overturned has reached fever pitch.
The unfortunate consequences of the well funded and noisy “religious right” hijacking the Republican party’s traditional values of small government, cautious spending and personal liberty are many. Ask yourselves these questions: will it affect your daily life if your lesbian or gay friends marry? How about if your babysitter begins taking birth control pills before she leaves for college? What if the nice lady three blocks over decides to terminate her pregnancy? And what if a coworker’s mother, dying from cancer and suffering unspeakable indignities, asks for euthanasia?
Social conservatives believe that the government should take a strong role in determining a society’s moral code, thus increasing the presence of Big Brother in the average citizen’s day to day life. Yet, isn’t a society that guarantees freedom of religion already determining that moral code, without help from our elected officials? And how does that jive with fiscal conservatives who want less interference from our bloated governmental friends?
As a fiscally conservative voter, I don’t believe that creating expensive, wasteful bureaucracy automatically solves society’s problems. And I definitely don’t want my government weighing in on whether or not I can get an abortion or whether my gay friends can get married.
High handed moral commentary doesn’t sit well with the electorate at large. Even when the Republicans enjoyed Congressional majority plus Oval Office residency, Roe v. Wade remained intact; the “moral majority” did not succeed.
I don’t believe that Republican leaders really believe in the pro-life cause. In fact, I think they think it’s a lost cause. They do not take up socially conservative reforms with the zeal of tax reform, government spending or universal health care.
Nevertheless, many Republicans believe they require social conservatives’ support for electoral success. When they pander to these special interests, they lose what I believe is a growing constituency of voters who support limited government and low taxes but believe that what goes on in America's bedrooms and doctors offices is private.
It’s time for our Republican leadership to stop pandering to the religious right so we can hear instead about their personal beliefs. Republicans talk about being pro-life — and they may be, in their own personal decisions — but they’re actually pro-choice.
Exhibit A? None other than Romney, who declared himself pro-choice during a senate run versus Democrat Ted Kennedy. Even after he decided he was pro-life while running for the governor’s seat years later, he did nothing to overturn Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws. In fact, he forced the state’s Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Exhibit B is the morning after pill, a topic that social conservatives scramble to address. Scientifically, the pill works before conception occurs, thereby removing the pro-lifer’s “personhood” argument. Even former presidential candidate Ron Paul, a physician by trade who also happens to be pro-life, stated that the morning after pill is nothing more than amped up birth control. And guess who made the morning after pill available over the counter to adults over the age of 18? Everyone’s favorite presidential punching bag, George W. Bush.
So far — and this is why I think pro-choicers have little to fear — social conservatives have only demonstrated that they believe abortion is wrong. They have not proven to the American people why abortion — or gay marriage, for that matter — should be illegal. And I don’t believe that they will ever be able to win that argument, as evidenced by their abandonment of Roe v. Wade to focus on legislatively establishing a fetus as a person (and thus protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, negating Roe v. Wade).
What is especially ironic about the conservative religious stranglehold is that socially conservative attitudes limit personal freedoms, a philosophy that Republicans say they hold dear. Extremist rhetoric from both sides forces level-headed voters out of the debate entirely. And it’s these level headed voters that the Republican Party needs most.
First, I believe that most voters — Democrat or Republican — believe that major health decisions should be private. Second, social services are expensive. Given the choice between keeping abortion legal and funding expensive bureaucratic programs, isn’t it wiser to allow personal health freedom while also limiting social spending? Third, legal abortion does not limit the individual’s right to not get an abortion — in other words, you’re still pro-life!
The point is that the Republican Party would be wise to adopt the “big tent” policy as espoused by the Republican Majority for Choice. These GOPers believe social tolerance promotes personal freedom and privacy through education and prevention initiatives. And as we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.