Pawlenty reportedly stumbled on an important pro-life issue in Iowa on Monday, telling an interviewer that he opposed any “criminal sanction” on abortion. His staff later issued a clarification, saying that Pawlenty does in fact believe “abortion providers should be subject to a penalty possibly including a criminal penalty” but “does not believe women should be penalized.”
Pawlenty’s primary opponents may well pounce on this incident as either a flip-flop or an indication of a lack of serious commitment on the abortion issue, but the fact remains that there is disagreement among serious pro-lifers as to what specific sanctions should be put in place to protect the rights of unborn children. Even more important than this for pro-life voters, I think, is to gauge the overall sincerity of a candidate’s commitment to the general principle that unborn life should be protected by law. In this regard, I think Pawlenty’s speech to the Susan B. Anthony List in March 2010 repays study. (This adapted version appeared in the Human Life Review.)
In that speech, he talked about the need to change hearts and minds on abortion, so that we will have a chance, incrementally, to change the laws. And he explained how that has worked out in practice:
In Minnesota — again, one of the most liberal states in the country — I proposed, signed, and passed Women’s Right to Know, 24-hour waiting period, fetal-pain legislation, legislation about positive alternatives to abortion. I got elected. I got re-elected. And so, it’s not only politically viable, it’s the right thing to do. [I think he meant the reverse order here, but this part of the speech may have been off-the-cuff.---MP] And for people who say you have to soften, you have to distract, you have to dilute: That’s not what we believe, it’s not what’s right, and again, if you can do it in Minnesota you can do it anywhere in this country.
That sounds to me like a man with certain core beliefs, who advances them in a prudent manner.
Our own Kathryn Lopez attended that speech, and her column of the time summarizes the effect that speech had on the audience: He came across as the real thing. (Personally, I was especially impressed by the kind words he said about his possible primary rival Michele Bachmann, for whom I have a bit of a soft spot. The remarks about her were more effusive than they needed to be, considered in purely political terms; and thus they, too, suggested sincerity.)
I do not intend this post as an endorsement of Pawlenty, or even as an assertion that he is the “most pro-life candidate” (however one might wish to define that phrase); I have no candidate as yet. But I think anyone inclined to distrust or disparage Pawlenty on the pro-life issue should look at the SBA List speech, and at Kathryn’s column, before doing so.
You mean the same Kathryn Lopez who finds Mitt Romney's "conversion" on abortion utterly convincing as well?
As for Michelle Bachman, T-Paw can be as magnanimous as he likes: he knows she has no chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan someone explain the reasoning behind criminalizing the performance of an abortion, but not the receiving of one? If this is a heinous/murderous crime, how can the woman not be complicit?
I look forward to your answers.
/crickets chirping
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, because we see women as another victim in the situation.
In many cases, they're not given proper informed consent, and often they're given outright false information (e.g., they're told that their 9-week fetus is nothing more than a "ball of cells"). They're not given the opportunity to study fetal development or see an ultrasound picture of their child prior to the procedure.
Also, some studies estimate that up to 60% percent of abortions are due to women being coerced, pressured, or otherwise forced to procure an abortion by family/friends/significant others (see www.theunchoice.com).
If a woman knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that she's contracting with an abortionist to kill her living, growing child, and she knows the child has a right to life but kills him/her anyway, then absolutely she should be held responsible, just as if she'd killed her newborn or her toddler.
The fact is that most women don't know these things when they procure their abortion, and only find out afterwards when they suffer Post-Abortion Syndrome (which abortion proponents still refuse to believe exists, despite clear evidence to the contrary).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a non-issue and is merely a trap question by the mainstream media not interested in an honest coverage of the abortion debate.
Governor Pawlenty shares the mainstream pro-life view that every major organization takes -- that criminal penalties regarding illegal abortions should be imposed on the offending abortion practitioner not on women. That is the case, for example, with any state legislation concerning banning late-term abortions or the partial-birth abortion ban that received so much support and was affirmed in the Supreme Court.
As far as not charging women are concerned, Pawlenty was the second governor to sign the Abortion Recovery/Awareness Month (External Link
) and point to the fact that millions of women regret their abortions or have been hurt by abortions from either medical or mental health standpoints. They are a second victim in abortion, are lied to by abortion centers about the development of their unborn child, and polling data shows people believe abortions hurt women and that they would not recommend one to a friend or family member (External Link 
).
There is no "flip-flop or an indication of a lack of serious commitment on the abortion issue." In fact, as I've written here at NRO, Pawlenty is very likely the most pro-life candidate in the race with an extensive pro-life record signing legislation, vetoing anti-life bills, supporting pregnant women and reducing abortions in Minnesota, and putting pro-life-friendly judges in place. See External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no idea who I will vote for in the primaries next year, but having the press play this kind of gotcha politics is as lame as a "one-legged man in a but* kicking contest."
I mean the man has been a governor of a state, what is his record on the abortion issue? If he misspeaks slightly, so what? Same with Obama's 57-state comment. that was lame too, but in relationship to what else he said on the campaign trail, the comment was lame to comment on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQ: Who is the most pro-life republican presidential candiate with a long term voting record to prove it?
A: Ron Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRealistically, the woman who asks the "doctor" to murder her child, any father who participates, the doctor and the attending staff should all be criminally punished. The problem is that we can't advocate for that because it sounds awful to punish the mother, and very often they are underaged girls who are led down this hideous path by adults. For PR reasons alone we can't do it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Can someone explain the reasoning behind criminalizing the performance of an abortion, but not the receiving of one? If this is a heinous/murderous crime, how can the woman not be complicit?"
Because women are morally pure, precious little snowflakes who must never, ever be held accountable for their actions, so there you big meany!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the culpability of women who have abortions vs. that of abortionists: A useful analogy is drug abuse, for both moral and practical reasons. Morally, drug addicts are involved in bad behavior (Catholic moralists would speak of the "objective sin"), but one can imagine many contingent circumstances that lead the addict to his sorry state. It is not that the addict does no wrong, but that because of his mitigated culpability, he is often the object of pity, instead of moral outrage. Less pitiable and more loathsome is the pusher who tempted the addict, and many others like him, to perdition, for far less sympathetic reasons.
Practically, it makes more sense to punish the dealer than the addict. Punishing addicts leads to overcrowded prisons, doesn't give the addict the proper help he needs, and doesn't do much to stop others from receiving drugs. More effective and just to go after those who are propagating drugs and stop the source.
(Note that I'm not saying that women can become "addicted" to abortion, or are at all like addicts, except in the limited sense that they are more morally sympathetic--for sensible reasons--than those who provide abortions or drugs.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@trunk
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can think of two reasons for not criminalizing the woman's actions in an abortion. First, criminalizing the actions of the abortion provider may be sufficient to discourage abortions. Second, criminalizing the behavior of the mother may be counterproductive in that it makes it less likely that any law against abortion is adopted.
"In Minnesota — again, one of the most liberal states in the country"
I see Pawlenty using this line quite often. Is it true though?
Sure, Minnesota has a very long record of voting Demcoratic in presidential elections. But it has definitely trended conservative. The GOP has controlled the State Legislature for most of the past decade. Half of the House Congress members are GOP. And while still voting Democrat in presidential elections, I seem to remember the margin in Minnesota was far less than a slew of other states. Didn't Bush get fairly close to winning the state in 2004?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost "pro-life" can mean no abortion under any circumstances, including the life of the mother. Wanting the "most pro-life" candidate to run as a Republican can make a "gentle pro-choice" (legal, safe, and rare) look good to the mostly pro-life voter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHan Solo may just have sent the pro-life movement back by one full decade.
Nice going.
And, how would you know if he's more pro-life than real Tea Party candidate Herman Cain?
Ron Paul sure DOES have a voting record, a lot of which is against his favor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePawlenty has some 'splainin' to do on cap-'n-trade before we get to the abortion issue with him.
On which, I'd be OK with a "conditional discharge" for the 1st offense of procuring an abortion. Successive offenses? You are on your own. Three strikes and you're in, too (albeit not for life, but definitely doin' some time).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse