From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: George Bush on abortion
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:12:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <ncovey.713802828@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey) writes...

Just for background: Neil had stated that...

nc> Nice try, Missy, but you miss the point, which is that George Bush,
nc> while stating a humane position in regard to his relatives, is also
nc> seeking to make abortion illegal.

        Now we know that Bush has articulated (since 1980) the 
pro-life position. He has even said that it *should* be illegal.
But I am trying to find the nuts and bolts actions that Bush has taken 
to make abortion illegal.

        Neil has offered two items: Bush is running under a platform 
that proclaims that abortion is murder; Bush has appointed Supreme 
Court Justices who have tried to overturn RvW.

        The first item is meaningless. A platform can say anything at 
all, but without any initiative from Bush on the item, we cannot say t
that it is part of Bush's `effort to make abortion illegal.' Without 
any initiative there is no effort.

        That leaves us with the second item. But I am not really 
convinced that this is a valid argument. For one reason, Souter (a
Bush appointee) sided with O'Connor in upholding RvW. In fact her 
argument was that to strike against RvW would somehow undermine the 
legitimacy of the Court (I'm glad that she didn't hear Brown v Board 
of Education). And Souter sided with that grand bit of legal wisdom.
Thomas (the other Bush appointee) voted with the minority.

	That leaves the Bush appointees batting .500. Hardly a decisive
argument that the Bush appointees are carrying out some kind of 
marching orders.

[        Another item that is overlooked is the fact that the Justices 
are appointed by Bush, but they must pass the consent of the Senate.
The fact that a name was picked out a hat goes to Bush, but the 
fact that the owner of that name is on the Supreme Court is due to the 
approval of the Senate. How much credit should we give to them for the 
justices that we have?]

        We really have to stretch the evidence offered to state 
that Bush is seeking to make abortion illegal. A committed pro-life 
president would have been able to do more in four years than going 
50-50 on the Supreme Court.

	I just had an interesting thought: What if Bush actually 
didn't want to make abortion illegal? He knows that if abortion is 
legal, and he states that he is against it, he has a lock on a great 
many of the Democratic (pro-life) voters. Now he doesn't have to 
actually do anything... he just has to articulate a position. In fact, 
if abortion did become illegal during Bush's term, he would probably 
lose those voters. As long as abortion is legal he still can mine 
these voters from the Democratic Party. If it becomes illegal he can 
no longer do so. So what is the pragmatic thing to do if Bush some 
help from Democratic voters? State that he is pro-life and not do a 
thing about it.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu