Musgrave's Anti-Abortion Hit Squad

Despite the fact that, at least in the Interior West, the Republican crusade against abortion has cost the party its political dominance, some Republicans are hell-bent on continuing that push.

As "Bob's Blog" from the Coloradoan points out:

[Former Congress Member] Musgrave was defeated soundly in 2008 by Democrat Betsy Markey. She was hired earlier this year by the Susan B. Anthony List, which focuses on supporting anti-abortion women running for office, to head a new project called "Votes Have Consequences." The new program plans to target a small number of incumbent House members in 2010 who are believed to be "out of step" with their districts on issues important to the pro-life movement.

In other words, the goal of the group is to oust social moderates in favor of hard religious-right candidates, who can then presumably follow in Musgrave's footsteps and lose in the general.

Musgrave recently wrote an article for the Weekly Standard with Marjorie Dannenfelser. Notably, while the two continue to call their position "pro-life," at no point do they confront the arguments that their anti-abortion position is in fact anti-life. Nor do they make any effort to defend the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the full rights of a newborn.

I will not rebut every claim made in the article, but I will address two points.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser write:

When it came to choosing the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, an obscure but important officer in charge of defining each administration's official stance with regard to the Constitution and federal law, the president nominated not simply a supporter of Roe but former NARAL counsel Dawn Johnsen. She believes that pregnancy is the moral equivalent of slavery, and that therefore the anti-slavery 13th Amendment to the Constitution protects abortion on demand. Johnsen made this argument in her best-known legal brief, to the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Services.

This claim by Musgrave and Dannenfelser is simply false. Johnsen did not equate pregnancy with slavery.

Fox offers the relevant context:

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest."

And Johnsen is correct. Forcing a woman -- and the key term here is "forcing" -- to bring a fertilized egg to term is "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude."

It is unfortunate that Musgrave and Dannenfelser choose to distort Johnsen's views rather than present some sort of argument against them.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser are very concerned with allowing medical personnel to choose whether to perform or recommend abortions. (The writers are "pro-choice" when it suits them.) They think "pro-life leaders in Congress" should make sure that any political takeover of medicine ensures this medical right to choose.

But what should trump here is property rights and the right of contract. Hospitals and other medical facilities have the right to set their own terms, and doctors who work their can choose to uphold those terms or find employment elsewhere. A private Catholic hospital has every right to post on its front door: "We do not recommend or perform abortions." Then potential customers know the hospital's policies and can choose their health care accordingly.

Notice that what Musgrave and Dannenfelser do NOT endorse is liberty in medicine. The problem is that, to the degree politicians take over health care, politicians set the terms of health care. That is one of the reasons why politicians should not take over health care.

But the religious right does not truly care about establishing free markets (though a few religious conservatives endorse free markets or at least pay them lip service). This is not a surprise, because the entire purpose of the religious right is to use the force of politics to advance their faith-based agenda.

Cupp On Religion in Politics

S. E. Cupp worries that "the media" blasted the likes of Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and George W. Bush over their religious beliefs while giving Democrats a pass.

For example, Bill Clinton wrote that children "can express their beliefs in homework, through artwork, and during class presentations, as long as it's relevant to the assignment. They can form religious clubs in high school." Joe Lieberman invoked Abraham in a speech about Israel.

But Cupp is making a "moral equivalency" argument like those over which the right likes to beat up the left. Mentioning Abraham in a speech or grading a paper with a religious theme is hardly the same thing as what the likes of Bush and Palin have in mind.

Recall that Bush launched a war partly and explicitly based on his religious faith. Recall that Bush gave us robust faith-based welfare (which Obama has been happy to expand). Recall that Palin wants to completely ban abortion, from the moment of conception, perhaps with some exceptions for the life of the mother.

The religious right is not about speeches and homework. The religious right is about bans on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and in some cases even popular forms of birth control. The religious right is about building a welfare state based on religious dogma and religious institutions. The religious right often endorses censorship and legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Cupp does have a point in that the left increasingly plays the "me too" party on matters of imposing religious faith by force of law. But that hardly justifies the politics of the religious right.

GOP Gives Ground on Abortion

Marilyn Musgrave, who lost her last congressional election largely because of angst over her faith-based politics, has a new job, the Denver Post reports.

She will lead a "Susan B. Anthony List" project to try to defeat pro-choice candidates: "We're going into districts where individuals are vulnerable... We're going to use every possible means to make sure that people know the voting records of these individuals."

I think this a great idea, as it continues to demonstrate the priorities of the religious right, which have nothing to do with preserving liberty and everything to do with destroying it.

Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has come out as a weak-kneed pro-choicer. Following is part of the transcript between Steele and GQ magazine:

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!

So Steele is trying to please both sides by throwing the matter to the states. But the reason that abortion is properly "an individual choice" is that women have the right to get an abortion, because they have the right to control their own bodies. Thus, citizens of a state do not have the right, and should not have the "individual choice," to vote away the right to get an abortion.

The entire point of American government is to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Still, Steele's comments indicate at least that some Republican leaders are prepared to slowly back away from the faith-based politics of the religious right.

Republicans Stay the Losing Course

Kathleen Parker writes that "the six Republicans competing for lead dog of the GOP leadership... are pro-life," meaning they want to ban abortions.

In other words, Republicans have learned nothing from the 2008 elections.

God's Only Party

Yesterday I noted that two Colorado Republican leaders continue to insist that their party promote faith-based politics. Today Gregg Jackson continues the crusade to ban abortion in his column for Town Hall.

Jackson's goal, and his advise for Republicans, is "To end abortion... to believe that all life, both born and unborn, is an unalienable right and protect it at all cost."

That is, a fertilized egg is a person and must be protected, regardless of the costs to the woman.

What Jackson fails to provide is any reason why we should think that a fertilized egg is a person. That's not surprising, because there is no earthly reason.

GOP Remains Party of Faith

If Colorado Republican leaders Mark Hillman and John Andrews are any indication, the Republican Party will remain the Party of Faith and will continue to attempt to impose religious doctrine by force of law.

Andrews begins a recent column, "What many call a concern for social issues, I call a passion for protection of the human person." He goes on to compare abortion with slavery, and he suggests that at least we should have "laws to balance this difficult issue where precious lives are at stake." The Republican Party, he states, should not "abandon its defense of the unborn."

There is just one little thing missing from Andrews's column: any argument as to why we should believe that a zygote, a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells, is a "human person." Recall that Andrews endorsed Colorado's Amendment 48, which would have defined a fertilized egg as a person. Given Andrews's beliefs, his call for "balance" is an unconscionable compromise; does he really want "balance" that would result in the deaths of what he regards as "human persons?"

I guess Andrews is acknowledging that most Coloradans regard his views as ludicrous; 73 percent of the voters rejected 48. And yet he insists on promoting his faith-based politics through the GOP.

Mark Hillman writes:

Recently, some have grumbled that social conservatives - pro-lifers, opponents of same-sex marriage and the so-called "Religious Right" -- are to blame for the party's recent set backs and should be muzzled. If the goal is winning elections, rather than purging membership rolls at the country club, throwing social conservatives under the bus is a catastrophic idea.

But this comparison to throwing them "under a bus" is silly. Here is what I have written:

Religious voters can remain a part of a winning GOP coalition, so long as their goal is to keep politics out of religion, not inject religion into politics. Abortion bans and fear mongering about homosexuals can no longer be the litmus tests of primaries. Republican candidates must clearly endorse the separation of church and state, a separation necessary for the protection of both church and state.

In other words, I am perfectly happy to join a coalition that contains Christians, so long as the Christians stop trying to violate people's rights.

Hillman pretends that evangelicals also favor economic liberty, even though evangelicals blessed us with the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.

Hillman does point out:

This year, moderate "maverick" John McCain enjoyed 72% support from evangelicals (of all parties) on Election Day, despite ranking as the least favorite primary candidate of pro-life Republicans.

I don't know where the statistic is coming from, but it sounds right. Hillman is selectively retelling history. Of course evangelicals such as James Dobson rallied for McCain only after McCain selected Palin as his running mate. These evangelicals supported that ticket because of Palin's anti-abortion record, and despite the fact that McCain is an enemy of economic liberty and free speech. That pretty much tells us where the priorities of the evangelicals are.

Hillman points out that many more people favor some abortion restrictions than voted for 48. True, but irrelevant. Amendment 48 shows the logical consequences of the religious right's position. Voters who value liberty will not sanction Republican efforts to "incrementally" obliterate the right to get an abortion.

Hillman also points out that defining a marriage as between a man and woman is fairly popular. Yet, as I've noted, the stance against gay "marriage" is not strictly religious, and the general attitudes toward homosexuals -- especially among younger voters -- are much more accepting, whereas the propaganda against homosexuals coming from the religious right is vitriolic.

But Hillman, like Andrews is ready to compromise:

[P]ro-life leaders sometimes treat each tangent like a slippery slope. Battles over stem cell research and Terri Schiavo aren't as clearly defined as the mission of saving millions of unborn children.

In other words, banning all abortions is a "clearly defined" mission of the religious right and therefore the Republican Party.

I'm beginning to think that the "new liberty coalition" that I've described cannot arise within the Republican Party. Faith-based politics is incompatible with liberty. I'll be interested to see which mission becomes most clearly defined for the GOP.

Parker on GOP's 'Faustian Bargain'

Douglas Parker, who worked in the Nixon and Ford administrations, offered the following analysis of the Republican Party in a letter to the New York Times:

... The party has made a Faustian bargain by its zealous courtship of evangelicals to gain their political support. ...

Part of the price has been to give the religious right a grip on party machinery that prevents many talented Republicans of different beliefs from even seeking office. At the same time, it has fostered the advancement of some whose most conspicuous qualification is a willingness to promote the approved theology.

The net effect has been a reduced and diluted talent pool or, in the popular phrase, a “dumbing down” of the party, as well as a diversion from its historic principles.

We urgently need a reorientation in which evangelicals continue to be warmly welcomed but are not invited to impose a theocratic hegemony.

Parker's point is dead-on. For instance, look at the selection of the unqualified Sarah Palin to rouse the evangelical vote (and scare away many independents). In Colorado, in many districts if you don't swear to abolish abortion you're sunk in GOP primaries.

How can evangelicals be "warmly welcomed" by a GOP with a renewed commitment to liberty? The evangelicals must agree to keep the church out of the state in exchange for keeping the state out of the church. Of course, it would also help if evangelicals would stop moving toward "green" socialism and the monstrous welfare state.

The GOP could emerge with a forceful liberty coalition, as I outline. But it doesn't look like the part is prepared to do that, so I suspect it will continue to limp along.