Thursday, March 12, 2009

Michael Steele Is Not Wrong On Abortion


In a new kerfuffle, Republican National Committee Chair, Michael Steele, seemed to be saying that women have an individual right to choose or not choose to have an abortion.

Well, it is not quite that. But, it is a bit convoluted and shows that Mr. Steele needs to be firm in his pro-life stand and articulate it in a clear, unequivocal manner.

This interview in GQ magazine is a clear attempt by Mr. Steele to reach out to those who may not read anything actually said by a Republican, let alone a conservative. And that is a good thing.

But, lets single out the controversial comment.

This is what has many tongues on both sides wagging:


Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.


You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.


On the face of it, I admit, it sounds really strange from a man that was very seriously considering entering the Roman Catholic priesthood.

But, here is the full context:


How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

Absolutely!


Really, what Mr. Steele was articulating was standard conservative, Republican thinking on abortion. That Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That the states should make the laws governing abortion, not the federal government with an assist by the supreme court.

In fact, that was Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's point on the abortion issue during the Death March of a 2008 presidential campaign.

In context, Mr. Steele was speaking on the abortion issue the way that a seminarian would. That there is a choice. There is a right choice and a wrong choice. Where Mr. Steele got into trouble was that he seemingly took what can only be a pro-choice position when asked about a woman's "right" to choose. But, I read it as the way a priest, pastor or minister would answer that question.

The fact is that we all have choices that we make. Some bad, some good. I believe that abortion, by and large, is wrong. Are there cases for it? Yes. Does a woman make a choice whether or not to have an abortion? Of course. But, so does an alcoholic who knows that he or she should not take a drink. A drug addict. Any addict. One can choose to steal, to rob. It is a choice.

Where I would point out that Mr. Steele needs to think very, very carefully in talking with the DDBMSOWM is that they have an agenda. They want to embarrass any conservative Republican. And they want to talk about so-called social issues. As they say, read the whole interview. There is scant little about what President Obama has done in the beginning of the rape of the American taxpayer.

I think that Mr. Steele realizes that he is talking to what I would characterize as a "Blue" audience. Lets face it. GQ does not really attract a lot of conservative Republican readers. I think that Mr. Steele was trying to answer in a way to appeal to a more moderate reader of GQ. One who may think that they are a liberal or Democrat, but may listen to someone like a Michael Steele. That is the appeal of Mr. Steele. But, he has to be very careful to realize in the internet age, a lot of people read these interviews. Thus, it seems to look bad on the surface. But, again, I would ask to read it all in context.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News is spot on. The right needs to lay off Mr. Steele. Mr. Hawkins' point is one I agree with. Mr. Steele is new. He is not an old Washington hand. He will make mistakes. But, he is getting the conservative message out there.

A lot of the criticism against Mr. Steele is inside baseball stuff. About staffing at the RNC. How the special election on March 31 in the New York congressional special election is make or break. One special election? Please.

Again, I ask that if you have doubts about Mr. Steele, read the whole interview. Take his abortion comments not as endorsement of being "pro-choice" but articulating that choices are made. Some bad, some good.

And as far as the thrust of what Mr. Steele was saying, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, is spot on. That it should be left to the states to determine abortion law.

On that, Michael Steele is right and it should be how we take the political abortion battle from here on.



5 comments:

Rightwingsnarkle said...

It's funny to hear you, or all people, arguing for nuance and context. Since when has that been important to you?

Ah, I love the sound of wingnuts backfilling. It sounds like....desperation.

As for Mr. Steele not being an old Washington hand, or such other excuses - get real. The guy's a hack and an idiot, but he's a hack and an idiot in his chosen profession - politics.

He's not some innocent lamb who's been thrown into the lion's den. He sought out the address, busted through the door, and walked right in, elbowing out several others who also wanted the gig.

No, the wingnut fundies, like any other rightwing authoritarians, tolerate no dissent or deviation. They won't have a guy who doesn't stick to the script.

What did Tony Perkins recently say? Something about a big "empty" tent?

That's a shot fired across the bow, my friend. That's the sign of last remnants of a shrinking coalition falling apart.

To the wilderness with you.

Ah, ha ha ha.

skeneogden said...

Had a look at your president's approval rating RWS? It's sinking faster than the Titanic.

We will see how snarky you are after the midterms.

By the way, your ad hominems are getting a little tiresome, but that's to be expected from someone who just regurgitates the ideological line.

AmPowerBlog said...

We might disagree on this one, Mark. I do want to give Steele a chance, though.

Angie Lee said...

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Mr. Steele's "context." I believe his comments should be taken at face value: A choice must be made, whether to abort or not, and that can ONLY be made by the individual. A choice cannot unequivocally be judged "wrong," as that means ALL abortion is WRONG - negating even cases that might be appropriate or necessary.

On the other side of the coin, by making abortion the ONLY choice, the very nature of "choice" has been eliminated: A person cannot "choose" from only ONE option; it is then a mandate, without choice, without free will.

I consider myself "pro-choice" but not in the context of pro-life/pro-choice as traditionally tossed about. By this, I simply mean that we DO have choices - that can only be made by our own selves as individuals and have no moral, ethical, or LEGAL basis being decided by another. Period. This includes everything from abortion to wearing a seatbelt. We do not have to live with the consequences of others' decisions, nor they ours, and it is unfair to expect someone to live with a life choice another has made for them against their will.

These issues should not be up to the Supreme Court (sadly, Roe and Doe have both been WILDLY misapplied as pertains to the contexts as handed down by the court - give an inch and they take a mile) or legislators or even the President of the United States, and they certainly should not be made by the guy standing on the corner with a 2-foot tall photograph an aborted child on a sandwich board.

Someday we will each stand for the ultimate judgment and answer for what we have done - AS INDIVIDUALS.

In the meantime, we need to mind our own houses. In the current climate of intolerance displayed by our society, I fear there is little room for teaching or "persuasion" of those who disagree with our religious beliefs. Some seem more bent on slaughtering the flock than joining it. After all, they have been indoctrinated to believe that "it really IS all about ME." (Just look at snarkie, there, the perfect example of intolerance, blatant stupidity, and selfish self-centeredness as ever I have seen.)

Anonymous said...

Just chiming in that I agree with your assessment of what Steele was saying.

Many liberal talking-points bother me (since they just make them up) and this whole "overturn Roe v Wade" thing is as annoying as any other. What would it take to actually overturn a Supreme Court ruling? A wave of your hands? Wishes and Unicorns?

Has anyone actually stated it is their political goal to overturn RvW? What, exactly, has been done to overturn the decision?

Or is it just the expression that you believe the decision to be wrong enough to make liberals assume your immediate goal is to overturn it?