Mitch Daniels has just announced that he will sign the legislation that will defund Planned Parenthood and ban abortions after 20 weeks.
“I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position,” said Daniels in a statement.
He had this message for Planned Parenthood, which had actively campaigned against the bill: “Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.
Bravo for Daniels. Hopefully this will help to allay the concerns of social conservatives toward a Daniels presidential candidacy. As Reagan and Bush I and II all proved, there isn't much that a pro-life president can actually accomplish other than restrict federal funding.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust because two of those three presidents dropped the ball (forced fumbles?), don't forget SC nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBravo for Daniels, and brave he is because the media will roast him for this. If the real message of a "truce" is that these issues properly belong with the states (and I thought all along it's what he meant) then there is no reason social conservatives can't support Daniels for just the reasons Cato mentioned.
One thing remains for thoughtful social conservatives. If Daniels runs and pledges to appoint more Robertses and Alitos to the bench then he is just as socially conservative in point of what can be practically accomplished at the federal level as W and Reagan even if his policy and rhetorical priorities are different. On the issue of judges social conservatives and libertarians are pretty much on the same page.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSupreme Court appointments should be an important focus in 2012. If not, we may win the battle and lose the war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCue John Galt accusing Daniels of political posturing in 5...4...3...2...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDry Creek: That's my other area of concern. Does anybody know Daniels' record on judicial appointments? One of a president's most significant responsibilities. Of the three most recent GOP presidents, Bush II was sterling, the others, not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Cato - "Does anybody know Daniels' record on judicial appointments?"
Not encouraging. More can be found in a column written Prof. Paul Rahe for Ricochet.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like this decision by Governor Daniels. Will this legislative victory prove to be only symbolic? Does anybody more familiar with the specific legislation know if it will be challenged on violating the undue burden standard expressed in Casey? I sincerely hope that more pro-life governors follow suit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegardless of Daniels's ambitions, this is a good move and a big move. The fed gov't is frozen, seized, paralyzed, permanently incapable of doing anything good or useful or correct. All it can do is commit national suicide.
If ANYTHING is ever going to improve from now on, the improvement MUST come from governors. And fortunately, some governors seem to understand this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Cato:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say two of three fumbled, and Bush II was "sterling"?!? Have you forgotten the Harriet Miers fiasco? The only reason Bush II fared better than the other two is because this magazine and conservatives more generally held his feet to the fire and forced a reload. (Sorry if the martial imagery is uncivil.)
@Cato:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou say two of three fumbled, and Bush II was "sterling"?!? Have you forgotten the Harriet Miers fiasco? The only reason Bush II fared better than the other two is because this magazine and conservatives more generally held his feet to the fire and forced a reload. (Sorry if the martial imagery is uncivil.)
In all fairness, since Harriet Miers never made it to the bench, we have no idea what sort of justice she would have been. I believe it is most likely that, had she made it, she might not have produced any great opinions, but would nonetheless have reliably joined Scalia and Thomas in whatever opinions they wrote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhatever you think of Harriet Miers, if you take anytime at all to familiarize yourself with her CV, you would quickly discern that she had FAR MORE practical and notable legal experience than Elena Kagan.
Amongst other things, Miers was the managing partner of a firm that employed over 600 lawyers, and she worked as a litigator for close to 30 years. I'm not sure if Kagan ever tried a single case in a court of law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBan abortion after 20 weeks? How does that hold up against Stenberg v Carhart?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott Wilson's link raises troubling questions, although there are (apparently) mitigating factors as well.
I judge people by their actions, not their words.
So the question for me remains, "What was the ideological bent of those whom Daniels nominated to the Indiana courts?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMiers was a horrible pick, and one (but only one) reason was that "we have no idea what sort of justice she would have been." We do know she was a horrible writer and muddled thinker, but as for the rest, there was precious little indication.
As for Daniels, he vetoed a repeal of so-called merit selection of judges, the method that gave Iowa same-s*x "marriage." No thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs others have hinted, his signing of this legislation *may* be a sign that he does intend to run for president (because he doubtless knows that, if he didn't sign it, his campaign would be toast before it even got off the ground).
So, three cheers for Mitch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Daniels just lost the support of moderate Republicans who supported mostly because of his "truce on social issues" statement. They will see this as Daniels pandering to Christian "fundies", and most moderate Republicans are pro-choice and have no problem with Planned Parenthood. Without moderate Republicans touting him, I don't see him having a shot at the nomination, because there is no grassroots support for him, oustide of some Hoosiers rooting for the local boy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbortion, like most issues, should be decided at the state level (not by the federal government). However you feel about abortion rights, we should all be able to agree that it was monumental judicial activism for the supreme court to rule that abortion is a constitutional right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Steve Koch ,
I don't see how you can argue that the judicial branch banning abortion is some kind of violation of the constitution. You don't seem particulary concened that it was judicial activism that forced a majority of states to allow abortions.
Abortion is wrong, and it's not "big government" for a government to ban things that are wrong. Take slavery, for example.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse