ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Steele vs. Steele -- tries to clarify views

Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:44 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
RNC Chairman Michael Steele has come under criticism for statements he’s made so far -- from some even in his own party.

We mentioned this morning his lengthy, wide-ranging Q&A with GQ. The big news from the piece was his comments on abortion, calling it an “individual choice.”

Steele issued a statement through an RNC spokesperson to clarify his views and tries to walk back and redefine his "choice" remark.

"I am pro-life, always have been, always will be," Steele said. "I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a ‘choice’ before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro-life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue. But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.”

During the GQ interview, Steele also said he thinks Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided.”

But he wasn't so strident on Meet the Press in 2006, when he was running for senator in Maryland against Ben Cardin. Steele said then that Roe v. Wade should actually remain in place, and he deflected questions on supporting a constitutional amendment.

“Is is your desire to keep it [Roe v. Wade] in place?” asked Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert.

“My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes,” Steele responded.

When Russert also asked if he would "vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion," Steele demurred.

Here’s the exchange from Oct. 29, 2006:

MR. RUSSERT: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here’s the latest headline. “Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate ‘values voters’ by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. ... National Right to Life’s political action committee plans to run radio commercials on Steele’s behalf ... and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail.” The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think...

MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.

MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?

LT. GOV. STEELE: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that
should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

A lot more in the interview
While his views on abortion have caught a lot of the focus, the interview is worth a full read. There are lots of other noteworthy nuggets.

Asked if being gay is a choice, he was unequivocal.

“Oh, no,” he said. “I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.’ It’s like saying, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.’”

He reiterated earlier stated views that the Republican Party has not demonstrated openness to minorities.

The GQ reporter said, “You made the comment at the convention about the sea of white faces. And you got a little bit of heat for that.”

Steele responded, “I sure did. And I looked at the people who gave me the heat and said, ‘What’s your problem? You tell me I’m wrong. Look at the room. Thirty-six black folks in the room? What, are you kidding me? Out of 4,000 people? Come on!’”

Though, Steele said, “I don’t know” if he’d have his job if he were white.

On the political pressure he faces, Steele noted it’s tough “balancing so many competing interests. Balancing the House, the Senate, the base. I mean, everyone’s got something to say, and they’re saying it. [laughs]”

On how he deals with the criticism, he said he prays on it, but what does the former seminarian say to God in his prayers? “Hey, let me show just a little bit of love, so I absolutely don’t go out and kick this person’s ass.”

On pursuing the priesthood, he said his friends at Johns Hopkins were surprised that he decided to go for it, because he had a reputation as a partier: "I loved to party—still do—and have a good time."

Steele, who spent three years in Seminary school, also talks about the church scandals and that he "knew there were men who should not have been there. These are individuals who were, you know—they used the priesthood as a place to go hide."

He calls Rush a "bomb thrower extraordinaire", said "Rodney King" "la la land" bipartisanship can't work, that he "probably" voted for Ford over Carter (he's not totally sure).

He even plays fashion critic to the Obamas, saying "wasn't feelin’” the president’s inaugural white tie (since he didn’t have a tail) and that he didn’t like Michelle’s dress -- though he admits he "tucks his undershirt into his pajamas." The only time his shirt comes untucked, he said, is after "one or two drinks."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

This kind of culture warfare has hamstrung the GOP in recent years.  There's an inherent hypocrisy that they can't reconcile.  They want the government out of their lives and out of their business, but they want to legislate what others can do so they're just like them.  Example: stay out of my life, but make sure two loving men in Nebraska can't get married.  Don't take away my guns but make sure a teenage girl who was raped by her uncle in Oregon has to deliver her baby.  

Michael Steele is in an impossible position.  The country, whether they want to admit it or not, is no longer "a center-right country."  As more young people become voters and become informed on political issues, the nation is becoming a center-left country.  People under the age of 30 care less and less about the social issues every day, and to try to "legislate morality" will continue to drag down the GOP.
Gee, do think maybe Steele won't have to apologize so much NEXT week? Guess that depends on whether or not he can quit giving interviews. This man is a train wreck and shines the light on just what is so wrong with the GOP. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him........(almost).
Given more of a background on the Steele story, it does sound like it wasn't just a simple mistake as I had thought.  I just hope he backs out of public view, like Palin has somewhat.  He's not a good spokesman for the Republic party (though, I'm not sure who is).
Steele just can't stop sticking his foot in his mouth. He won't last through the summer at RNC. Some sort of coup - or his own resignation - will get him out.

http://www.political-buzz.com/
Brian Crooks - I'm sure you mean "as more young people become voters and become 'misinformed' about political issues."

I say that because it's not that you are Democratic in your beliefs but your views don't reflect any deep thinking. You are, in my opinion, just repeating the propaganda that you read and hear. Find another source for your info and try to digest it with a common-sense opinion.
To Dookie, if you are still around-

Apparently the earlier GOP thread is no longer posting comments, so my response to your statement didn't appear.

First, thank you for your clarification as to the specific issue.  Having looked back over three August 2006 polls from Opinion Dynamics, I haven't yet found a specific poll question asking if the responders hoped Pres. Bush would fail in Iraq.  I believe it is critical to have the actual data present when accusing people of something as serious as not supporting our nation's military efforts- as I believe the citing of that particular poll question does.

I suspect that the original question was part of an internet poll, rather than from legitimate polling methodology.  Considering the news network in question, I am inclined to dismiss their "poll" as inflammatory rhetoric.  If you are able to provide a link to actual data, I would appreciate it.
The GOP believes in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unlike the Obama administration.

Obama admits to being Christian (?), like so many others, but chooses to vote the legality of snuffing out life in it's most innocent form, even after partial birth has begun. That's barbaric and would question his faith-based background. To make it worse, he is radical about it. He believes in God but not what his God teaches. It's as simple as that. And he is arrogant about it. He, or anyone, can't have it both ways. There is no grey area in this arena. It's the devil or the Lord.
93% of the country is employed. You sure you want to use that demographic?

> Just remember, you reap what you sow.

Yes we do. Work hard, don't over price yourself, don't be a problem - be a solution, re-educate yourself to fit the current work market. Yes, we do reap what we sow. Yes we do.
Keep Your Money - Vote Republican (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:36 AM)
-----------------------------------------------------

And if 98% of america was working Obama would be a legend...so yes I agree with Nashville...

And you may want to "Keep your Money" but we want you to "Pay for the Privledge"...try make republican money in any other country.  Won't happen legally
I suggest each state that wants stimulus money should submit a list of projects to VP Biden for review and approval before they get one red cent of the money.  
eagle1776

Too funny. "Submit the projects to Biden"? What does he know about them? It would take thousands of federal bureaucrats to monitor the states spending. Obama hasn't even presented any guidelines to the states other then giving high and mighty (and meaningles) speeches on the subject.

No, here is how it's going to work. The states are going to get and spend the money, then Biden and his klan will go through what the states spend the money on, mostly the Republican states, and look for the gotchas. Then Obama and Biden will stand up before the cameras and bludgeon the offender. This entire oversite bs will be an absolute joke designed to score political points. Don't think so? Wait.
Mission Impossible IV.  In six months, just after Steele announces that there should be reasonable restrictions on automatic magazine capacity, the GOP finally dumps him.

Whereupon he rips off a rubber mask, revealing himself to be Bill Clinton.
Isn't the federal legislating in favor of abortion?  And therefore, from the pro-life point of view, legislating immorality?  
No one, not even republicans, says we don't need government to protect the peoples safety, rights, property, etc.  
One of the best statements on human life I've heard lately was from Dr. Manhattan in "Watchmen".
It is nice to read a common sense post before the bomb thowers' rants began to appear.  People are so full of hatred these that you just cannot get rational discussion going on.  I feel so bad for those of you sticking by to fight on.
Michael Steele is absolutely right on abortion-it should have remained a state decision, because voters have more sway over their state legislatures than they do on the federal government.  By the way, before roe v. wade, 'theraputic' abortions were legal.  In any case in which the life of the mother was threatened, abortions could be performed at the choice of the mother.  

As for gay marriage, I have come to the conclusion that we need to get ALL churches, including my own, out of the civil union business.  My great-grandparents had to be married in city hall 30 days before their church wedding, (why 30 days I have no idea), so this isn't a new concept.  We also have to reiterate the right of churches to decline to perform religious marriage ceremonies that violate church tenets.  In Connecticut, driven by the so-called 'Voice of the Faithful', legislation was introduced to force the Catholic church to turn over their finances to the state-a statute introduced because the church refused to perform a marriage ceremony for two men.  What the heck ever happened toseparation of church and state?

And--I'm just wondering, and hope someone has an answer to this:

everyone seems so focused on California's proposition 8, and I can understand that frustration.  However, Florida had the same kind of amendment up for vote in November, it needed 60% of the vote to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, and passed by 62%.  My question is, why no mention of the passage of the same kind of amendment in a different state?  No protests, not outcry, zip, zilch, nada.  What is the difference?  Does anybody have any ideas.  (And, no, I am not being facetious, I honestly have no idea what the difference might be.)
Well said Brian!

Steele is another dead man walking, the ghost of GOP present and future
this is the defination of the repub party... hypocrisy at its best... Brian Crooks... i couldnt agree more
Steele is such an idiot that he talks out both sides of his mouth and makes a fool of himself and his decrepit losing party.  Two years ago he tried running away from the bushwhacker but he didn't fool the voters of Maryland with his tomfoolery.  It's so funny that he's running the show with all the evangelical christian lunatic fringers crying foul that he's not a clueless culture warrior like them.  He tries to appeal to too many diverse groups who just aren't going to turn to the repugnant ones for salvation and the core will get rid of him like so much garbage.

The party of white supremacists is trying to fool minorities into thinking the repugnant ones care about them, but they only care for those minorities with big bank accounts.  They think they can close the minority gap with this Uncle Tom but minorities are too smart to fall for this shameful ruse.

In Obama We Trust!
In Steele and Limburger They Bust!
Isn't the federal legislating in favor of abortion?  And therefore, from the pro-life point of view, legislating immorality?  
No one, not even republicans, says we don't need government to protect the peoples safety, rights, property, etc.  
I think the biggest problem the GOP has with this issue is that it cannot separate the idea of being pro-life from the idea of being pro-choice.  It is very possible to be both, and I think a lot of the country are both pro-life and pro-choice. I am a Democrat, and while I feel that there are WAY too many abortions performed in this country, I do not think it is something that needs to be made illegal.  I am all for educating everyone on the choices they have with their pregnancy (abortion, adoption, keeping it), and I would love to see less people actually choose to have abortions.  I look at abortion as a last resort, and am saddened that some use it as their preferred method of birth control.  However, the other side of that coin are the people who keep cranking out babies knowing the government will give them welfare to help raise them.  But through all of that, this is a decision that needs to be left to the individual.  The government should not be making the legal choice for them.  And for a party that wants less government intrusion into personal lives, their views seem blatantly hypocritical.
Brian Crooks, Naperville, IL (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:01 PM) . . .

Great comments. It always amazes me that the republicans are so worried about life and so "compassionate", but when it comes to providing the social programs so that the "unwanted" child has a decent life, they are dead set against it.

So they are pro-life, but against that life having a fair chance at a equal health care, good education, and a strong future.
Steele may be a fiscal conservative, but he certainly is not a social conservative.  He seems very uncomfortable with the right-wing positions on gays, abortion, and affirmative action.  Interesting.

I just wish he'd be more open about it.  How many other "closet" Republican moderates are hiding out there?  I think that Republicans will not regain popularity with the diverse American people until they are honest about their true values, which are more centrist than they want to let on. McCain is a perfect example of someone compromising his core values for political gain.  Look where it got him.
Mronic that the party of life causes so much death, devastation and suffering, while the compassionate conservatism of the last 8 years has left most of us falling without a safety net.  Make no mistake, I expect we will see a big drop in abortions once the idiot policies of teaching abstinence only is replaced with sex education and the promotion of birth control and family planning.

judge on what they do, not on what they say and look at the results not the promises
It's the devil or the Lord.
---Monkberry Moon

I choose a reality based world and reality based decisions thank you
If I didn't find this whole steele adventure so funny, I would almost feel sorry for him. But nope, no sympathy - just chuckles for the hypocrisy of mr steele and the irrelevant gop.  But I think it's just rewards and a fitting face for todays repub party - hapless, floundering, a train wreck.
Man!  The Republicunts remain in the downward death spiral mode, LOL!!!  Most of the American people FINALLY realize that most of them are immoral, dishonest (a few Dems are also), hypocritical (a few Dems are also), disingenuous, lying and thieving selfish pigs. They're like a bunch of roaches scattering all over the place right now.  Sorry for everyone who lost money under Madoff, but this is what happens when there isn't any regulation.  

On a lighter note... the Republicunt owned/manipulated markets are up, GMC has declined more money (for the moment), and President Obama is fabulously taking care of the people's business.  Keep up the good work, President Obama!
Dow Up @ this point today 121 points on Maddoff's going to jail. Coumo will bring more to Justice as the Wall Street Ponzi scheme continues to be uncovered.

The All White Power Structure is fighting President Obama with all they have because they see their Stranglehold on Us Peons slipping away on a Daily basis. We elected a very Intelligent african american male to lead us from the Nightmare of GOP led Unmorality(do as I say, Not as I do). Now that Abortion & Gay marriage is No longer a viable reason to vote your Morals (does'nt put food on the table)the GOP(white power structure)they are left with " Let's put an African American male in as GOP leader because that's what America wants Now". Where is Micheals Steel'es Wife ? Does he have one ? If not, then why ?

Hey First Read, how about a commission on the Muzzle Chicken George put on ya for 8 year's ? How about a commision on Trickie Dick's Deathsquads roaming the Planet ? Better Yet, How about a commission on Chicken George's running from a 6 foot 4 Arab who said he would bring economic Disaster to the last World super Power ( and did it )?

Commision this & that, but 1st of all, get up off your lazy A$$es & find out Why these people who put America & the World atlarge in this position, we now find ourselves in, are still leading the very Parade that put us here ! Investigative Reporting is an
endangered Species !
Brian Crooks - I'm sure you mean "as more young people become voters and become 'misinformed' about political issues."

I say that because it's not that you are Democratic in your beliefs but your views don't reflect any deep thinking. You are, in my opinion, just repeating the propaganda that you read and hear. Find another source for your info and try to digest it with a common-sense opinion.
______________________________________________________
Really?  I'm one semester away from a Master's degree in political science and I don't think deeply on politics?  Give me a break.  You basically read what I said and then called me stupid but didn't dispute a single point that I made.  By all means, explain to me how young voters are really conservative on social issues.  Explain how conservatives want to get the government out of everyone's lives but at the same time want to legislate issues they don't agree with that have nothing to do with them.

I'm spewing propaganda?  You're the one who tried to label me as misinformed and naive but didn't have a single fact or even a semblance of a position to back it up.  Nice try, junior.  Back to the batting cages.

P.S., everyone else that has mentioned my name agrees with me.  Maybe there's something wrong with YOUR thinking.
Why is it the GOP wants a Constitutional Amendment for all of their special, specific and narrow agenda items? We tried legislating morality once. It lasted 13 years. It was called prohibition. The Mafia gained strength during that time. People died from bad bathtub gin and rebelious young people started smoking and drinking who might not have otherwise done so.

As Brian Crooks Naperville, Il mentioned, the Republicans don't want government in their business but have no problem telling other people how to live. That is pure hypocrisy.

Unfortunately for the Republican party they have no real leadership. It is not Steele's fault. He has to deal with Uberconservatives (including evangelicals), the Neoconservatives (Bush supporters) and the moderate Republicans all at the same time. One can but wonder which of these factions will dominate the party. Each has done so in the not too distant past. Now, it appears none of them are dominant and it is a mess. By moving to the left the Republican party will have much more success. Like it or not the pendulum of American politics has swung to the left after spending time on the far right. It will eventually swing back to the right but not after spending time on the left. So either get on the band wagon or stay out of the way because the parade is marching leftward like it or not.
amid all the accusations of hypocrisy, the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, why are we not teaching our children uncompromisingly...wait till you are married?  why are we not teaching our teens, abstinence really works! if you aren't having sex, you won't get pregant or acquire a disease.  its so simple that even democrats can understand it.  but then, if you are pregnant, here's the hyprocrisy...make a victim of the innocent, unborn child.  that's called "pro-choice."
I printed the GQ interview to read later...but the font the website uses is tinier than sports agate!  Discrimination against aging eyes?
Obama admits to being Christian (?), like so many others, but chooses to vote the legality of snuffing out life in it's most innocent form, even after partial birth has begun. That's barbaric and would question his faith-based background.
Monkberry Moon (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:21 PM)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama is a Christian. He has stated this very directly in his books and on national TV (unlike McCain). You have his positions on abortion all wrong, taking what you have read on right-wing sources as the truth.  What is the truth is that Obama wants to see reductions in the number of abortions--by supporting women economically, providing low-cost birth control (McCain voted against insuring this), providing information about family planning, and emphasizing the "sacredness of sex" (his words from the third presidential debate).  He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban ONLY because it didn't have a clause that allowed for the very rare cases where it might be necessary to protect the life of the mother. As an authority on constitutional law, Obama is a stickler about things like that.  

He is more to the left on this issue than I am, but I appreciate what he says about reducing the number of abortions while keeping women safe if they choose to have one (I disagree with this choice, but I know that some women will choose to have one regardless.  I'd rather they be legal and safe than illegal and unsafe.) The abortion rate has steadily gone down since 1980; however, the rate is higher for the economically disadvanted (minorities and single mothers). The key, then, is to work towards lifting women out of poverty and making sure that they have access to good health care--things that Obama has certainly made a priority so far in his presidency.

And I'd sure like to see men be a lot more responsible. My brother has six kids he can't afford just because he was unwilling to use a condom and forbade his wife from using barrier methods ("God will close her womb if he doesn't want her to have any more babies.") How do we overcome this kind of thinking? Maybe when men can get pregnant, they'll stop being so judgmental of women!

           Pro-Choice is the issue!

Not pro-life vs abortion, which is a politically and morally charged way of stating it.

            A womans' RIGHT to choose!  

Either way, I'm sure the decision does not come easy for any woman in that position.


But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life.
--------------------------------------------------------
But Bush had no problem with a senseless war and thousands of innocent lives lost. I am Pro-Life and try to be consistent in all areas including abortion, war and the death penalty. Most Republicans are all over the map on those issues and therefore can't claim to be Pro-Life. Having said that, I (registered Republican who voted for Bush twice) voted for Pres. Obama because I think his policies will actually reduce unwanted pregnancy: education, poverty issues, birth control. I am a results person and overturning Roe V. Wade is not the solution.
Proud member of RepublicansforObama.org
This is great. I was raised a conservative and still am in some ways. I agree with everyone here who criticize the GOP for wanting less government but also wanting to legislate morality. I do hope they stay on this course so someday I or my children can see the rise of a third party. To bad Ross Perot was such a nut. We could have had another party to consider. I for one am a true Independent. Voted for GWB the first time, Kerry the second. I voted for Barack Obama this time around and I hope he does bring the change this country needs. We shall see. For all of you who are already criticizing BO, give it a rest. Let's see what things are like in 4 years.
Like Mr. Steele I too am a Republican. While I am pro-life I recognise that it is the womans choice to make and carry out. However, in a world with over 6 Billion people I think it would be irresponsible to repeal Roe-Vs-Wade.
For a Republican the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth. Once Steele learns this he'll be fine.
There ought to be a law: "You cannot espouse a Pro-Life position unless you have personally adopted at least one orphaned and/or abandoned child".  God gave man and woman a Free Will, and Free Will = Pro-Choice.
It always amazes me that the republicans are so worried about life and so "compassionate", but when it comes to providing the social programs so that the "unwanted" child has a decent life, they are dead set against it.

So they are pro-life, but against that life having a fair chance at a equal health care, good education, and a strong future.
--------------------------------------------------
Hmm.  Republicans are mean and nasty.  How about those Dems who voted to kill the DC Voucher program this week, so that 1700 poor minority kids will now have to attend crime ridden, failing schools.   Where was the compassion of the Democrats this week?  (Republicans voted in favor of keeping the program.)  
Priceless, reading comments on here about Steele putting his foot in his mouth.   Remind me who the VP is again?  
The GOP believes in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unlike the Obama administration.

Obama admits to being Christian (?), like so many others, but chooses to vote the legality of snuffing out life in it's most innocent form, even after partial birth has begun. That's barbaric and would question his faith-based background. To make it worse, he is radical about it. He believes in God but not what his God teaches. It's as simple as that. And he is arrogant about it. He, or anyone, can't have it both ways. There is no grey area in this arena. It's the devil or the Lord.
Monkberry Moon (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:21 PM)
________

What liberties exactly?  They want to tell you who to marry, when to carry to term, etc.  And especially no freedom of speech, since everyone seems to have to apologize to Rush these days.

Just exactly what liberties *does* the GOP include in "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Monkberry Moon- I find it interesting that you would quote the line "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to defend the Repubs but yet so easily forget the last two parts of the phrase. The Republicans couldn't be further from the truth when it comes to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If that were the case, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue because it would be legal. Apparently Repubs only remember liberty and happiness when it means money in their pockets.

And thank you Chris for pointing out one of the biggest hypocrises of the Republican viewpoint on abortion- their neglect when the child is actually born (i.e. cutting welfare). Apparently children only matter before they're born- after that, you're on your own kid.
Monkberry Moon,

You DO realize that nowhere in the New Testament is abortion mentioned, don't you?  So if you are a Christian, which is a follower of Christ, don't you think maybe He would have mentioned it if He thought it was important?
Well, apparently Ken Blackwell has weighed in on the Steele comments:

"Chairman Steele, as the leader of America's Pro-Life conservative party, needs to re-read the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, and the 2008 GOP Platform. He then needs to get to work -- or get out of the way."
------------------------------------------------------
Am I reading this right- is Mr. Blackwell identifying the GOP as a Christian-only organization?

Umm, what about that inconvenient separation of church and state problem?

Very interesting.
When I read some of the liberal comments here, it makes me wonder what's next?  What's up with this craziness over "choice" anyway?  Does someone have the right to 'choose' to beat up their wife?  Or the 'choice' to murder their grandparents because they have become a financial and personal burden?  Or the 'choice' to take your car because their stopped working or ran out of gas?  Stop this nonesense about 'not legislating morality'... almost every law we have is about legislating morality, as it should be!  You do have rights... but they end where your rights start to infringe on the rights of others.  Your right to owner or gain things ends where you start to try to take things that someone else owns.  Your right to pursue happiness ends where you begin to destroy others right and ability to pursue happiness in the pursuit of yours.  Note: nobody has the right to BE happy, just the right to pursue it as long as they are not interfering with others' rights along the way.  And not interfering with others' rights is what pro-life is all about... you have NO right to take the life of aging parents, unborn children, disabled or otherwise helpless individuals... because they you are interfering with THEIR rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which should NOT depend on their age or level of ability.  
Everyone speaks of the right of the individual. What about the rights of the unborn? When will they (male or female) have the same opportunity to mature and make choices regarding the life they may help to conceive?

The notion that the person who is being harmed is the one making the decision to end a life but rather the one who's being denied the same rights regarding their choices is harmed as well.
Nothing brings out the most rabid, foaming Christian fundamentalists like a debate about abortion.  Abolish the death penalty, then talk to me about taking away a woman's right to choose - until then don't you dare preach to me about God's law.  Either all life is sacred or none of it is.  You can't have it both ways.

And Steele is a self-serving moron, plain and simple.
Dear Inquiring Minds... you you want more liberty?  Like, if your child wanted to marry a horse, that would be OK?  Or if they wanted to kill a 2-day-old baby because they didn't like the color of his hair, that's OK also?  Liberty ends where others are harmed.  Abortion is murder.  It's DEAD wrong.  
As for pursuing happiness... it's admittedly a relative thing... pursuing happiness has to be subject to some kind of common sense.  Our society has chosen certain guidelines and they should NOT be overturned just because some people don't like it.  We should NOT legalize certain drugs because some people want to pursue this kind of happiness.  We should NOT change the traditional definition of marriage just because some people consider this a happiness issue.  We should NOT tolerate public indecency in dress, language, or behaviour just because some people think it makes them happy.  Get a grip.  There are rules for good reasons.  
amid all the accusations of hypocrisy, the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, why are we not teaching our children uncompromisingly...wait till you are married?  why are we not teaching our teens, abstinence really works! if you aren't having sex, you won't get pregant or acquire a disease.  its so simple that even democrats can understand it.  but then, if you are pregnant, here's the hyprocrisy...make a victim of the innocent, unborn child.  that's called "pro-choice."
______________________________________________________
Chaz,

Sarah Palin just taught her oldest daughter uncompromisingly to wait until she was married.  How did that turn out?  I'm not saying that to pick on Sarah Palin, I'm saying it because it illustrates a point.  Abstinence only is completely unnatural.  We are genetically driven to mate once we hit puberty.  That doesn't mean we should hump the first thing that comes by, but it does mean that we need to educate our children on not only the importance of sex, but the importance of safe sex.  And we need to provide them and adults alike the proper avenues in the event an accidental pregnancy occurs.  I again point to a pregnancy generated by underage incest.  Should a 13 year old girl who's got a pedophile for an uncle be required to carry the pregnancy to term?

The other issue that NEVER gets discussed is who gets prosecuted if abortions are illegal.  Are we going to lock up teenagers who get the abortions?  You would have to at least name them accomplices to murder.  Are we going to start rounding up OB-GYN's and putting them on death row?  How about in the case of a miscarriage?  Do we then do an investigation for wrongful death or involuntary manslaughter?  How about all the frozen embryos in fertility clinics?  Do we prosecute for unlawful imprisonment?  There are a TON of questions that need to be answered before we criminalize abortion.
amid all the accusations of hypocrisy, the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, why are we not teaching our children uncompromisingly...wait till you are married?  why are we not teaching our teens, abstinence really works! if you aren't having sex, you won't get pregant or acquire a disease.  its so simple that even democrats can understand it.  but then, if you are pregnant, here's the hyprocrisy...make a victim of the innocent, unborn child.  that's called "pro-choice."

chaz, farmington, mi
____________________________________________________

I'm not against teaching abstinence, I actually think it should be taught in schools.  However, I don't think it should be the only method taught in schools, and be taught alongside safe sex as an option to prevent pregnancy and diseases.  The fact is, kids will be kids and half the time won't listen, so we must give the information they must have to protect themselves if they find themselves in that situation.  Let's say a kid not taught about condoms is alone with another kid, and they have sex, having not been educated on the specifics of sex and what can lead to pregnancy?  Now they're pregnant, so much for abstinence-only.  We can't have our heads in the sand that our kids will do the right thing always, because they won't.  I find it ironic too that teen pregnancy rates are higher in areas that teach abstinence only.  Another argument I hear is that "the parents should teach them".  Well to that I say, not everyone is lucky enough in life to have responsible parents like me that taught me about those things.
Caitlin, since the Bible doesn't mention all illegal drugs by name, does that mean they should all be illegal?  How can you pursue that line of thinking at all?  The Bible tells us that children are a precious gift, and that God knew each one of us while were still in the womb.  That's a pretty clear indication that God values the unborn child, don't you think?  Just because the Bible does not specifically prohibit each individual type of evil that man can imagine does NOT mean that those things are OK.  Yikes.  What is this world coming to when we can't see that killing babies is WRONG?  


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1833769

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google