Let's stipulate that people, and particularly politicians, can get into trouble by attempting to speak for God. But that's not the moral of the story regarding Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.
Responding to a question about abortion, Mourdock offered a grieved response — his voice breaking a bit — on the matter of which exceptions he favored. His Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly, also pro-life, said that he would permit abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Mourdock said he had "struggled with it . . . for a long time," but had come to the conclusion that "life is a gift from God." Unfortunately, he didn't stop there. He added that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
That was sufficient for the Democrats and their eager Dobermans in the press to salivate and pounce. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fulminated, "Richard Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women. Unfortunately, they've become part and parcel of the modern Republican Party's platform toward women's health as Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan have worked to outlaw all abortions and even narrow the definition of rape."
The Associated Press headline said "God at Work When Rape Leads to Pregnancy" and the Atlantic screamed "Republican Senate Candidate Says Rape Pregnancies Are a 'Gift from God.'" There was much more along those lines.
Mourdock clarified a day later, saying "God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick."
But absurd is what the Democrats do. The Democratic Party is in the caricature business. Just consider Barack Obama's stock description of Mitt Romney: "He's running around the country saying he has a five-point plan. But he really has a one-point plan: Folks at the top get to play by a different set of rules than you do.
They get to pay lower taxes than you do and use offshore accounts. Or they can invest in a company, bankrupt it, fire the workers, take away their pensions, ship the jobs overseas and still make money doing it."
It's getting hard to tell who's the lower demagogue — Mr. Obama or Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Mr. Mourdock chose his words poorly while attempting something dangerous — to grapple with a serious moral question in a political debate. People wonder why politicians are so guarded and rehearsed. Well, this is why. One stray word and you become fodder for the demagoguery machine.
The very fact that a couple of ill-chosen words by pro-life candidates have become lightning rods this election season betrays the overwhelming bias of the press on this issue. Most Americans consider themselves to be pro-life. The pro-life posture is accordingly the mainstream view. An August CNN survey found that 52 percent say abortion should be illegal in all (15 percent) or most (37 percent) circumstances. A May Gallup survey found that more women call themselves pro-life (46 percent) than pro-choice (44 percent). But the press allies with the Democrats to smear pro-life candidates as "extremists."
Abortions that are the result of rape amount to fewer than 1 percent of all abortions. Yet the press treats these rare exceptions as central. What goes virtually unreported are the doctrinaire positions of liberal Democrats: They oppose waiting periods, parental notification, limits on sex selection abortions, restrictions on late-term or "partial birth" abortions, and laws protecting the lives of babies "accidentally" born alive following botched late term abortions. Has there ever been a political debate in which the pro-choice candidate was challenged about his or her positions on those questions?
It's obviously a ghastly thing for a woman to be raped and to find herself pregnant as a consequence. What Mourdock was saying, if inartfully, was that the child so conceived is innocent, and doesn't deserve to die because of the crime of his or her father. He understands that this is a tough issue. It makes everyone horribly uncomfortable. But the liberal answer — abort the child or else be accused of approving of rape — is a slimy abuse of tragedy and a disgrace to civil discourse.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
7 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
The fact that Republicans say anything about abortion is on its face idiotic. Talk budget, talk economy, talk taxes, talk foreign relations, and when the liberal press asks be aware it is a strawman issue and a losing battle Say it is the law of the land, (it is), and shut up. Let the democrat talk about it. Really stay out of the life of others. Anything lower than 10 on the list of Republican voter concerns, shut up. You see why.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Tom
Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Tom,
You are close to the core problem. Budget, economy, taxes, foreign relations are areas where the government belongs. The culture war issues are not the business of government. Who marries who, medical decisions such as abortion, and religion do not belong in the discussion. If the GOP would stick to the core concerns, at least in the federal government, and stay the heck out of the other issues, BOTH parties would be forced to deal with the nation's REAL problems. Instead the GOP's corporate masters scream "ABORTION!!! GAYS are DESTROYING marriage! GAYS should NOT BE TEACHERS!!! (Opps. That was 1977. Doesn't work anymore.) GUN GRABBERS!!!" and continue destroying the middle class. If the culture wars are off the table, the really important stuff will get the attention it deserves. True conservatives realize that the government has no place in deciding which adults can marry each other or most abortion decisions. (Gun rights are another matter.)
.
Pregnancy from rape is a truly awful situation. There are no tidy solutions, but fuzzy thinking like Mr. Akin's magic vagina powers and Mourdock's clear implication that abortion in such situations should be illegal because HIS RELIGION believes that the rape caused pregnancy is some sort of holy expression of GOD's divine plan have NO place in our law. The comment should not be ignored. The woman should be the one to determine her path through this minefield, not some bible thumping politician and said bible thumping politician should be told so.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mark
Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Another simple approach would be to 1) accept a person's right to believe whatever he wants to, and simply vote yea/nay for him/her based upon what you think about the sum of his/her personal beliefs, and 2) realize that a single person in congress with extreme beliefs cannot change the law of the land. Mourdock's belief on this issue (and others) should only be relevant to those being asked to vote for him or for his opponent.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Doug Morelly
Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:27 AM
|
|
|
|
I think it is telling that the majority view is considered extreme by the media. The man is simply pointing out that if you believe life starts at conception, that life deserves equal protection under the law. The same liberals who support the dream act because children should not be punished for the crimes comitted by the parents should be able to grasp this easily.
I think it is far more extreme to believe in the taxpayer supported snuffing out of a million lives each year just because folks are too simple to use an effective contraceptive.
Comment: #4
Posted by: david
Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Mark,
I might be a little closer to being fair than you, I agree with you on this one, "Budget, economy, taxes, foreign relations are areas where the government belongs." but find no truth in another, "If the GOP would stick to the core concerns, at least in the federal government, and stay the heck out of the other issues, BOTH parties would be forced to deal with the nation's REAL problems." I will try to explain without becoming Sweeneyish.
I'm driving home from work a few months ago and the announcer tells me that President Obama has come out in favor of gay marriage. Flip-flop that? Was that announcement "sticking to the areas where the government belongs."? Politicians are all still running for Prom King, and in this instance Obama chose a path of little resistance.
I say "little resistance" because here I would like to suggest that huge media conglomerates are themselves "corporate masters" and they also scream at us with shows like "The New Normal". I don't recall a huge corporation screaming, "ABORTION!!! GAYS are DESTROYING marriage! GAYS should NOT BE TEACHERS!!! (Opps. That was 1977. Doesn't work anymore.) GUN GRABBERS!!!", " This wouldn't seem like a good business practice in 2012. But I do hear these media "corporate masters" (such a quaint, becoming almost politically provincial term) screaming in defense of gays, abortion, and against gun rights. Now I might sarcastically ask where and in which decade do you live? There is a new normal, and that is all. Most of us are comfortable with it, we are not going backwards no matter how many references to "Ozzie and Harriet" the some would insult us with.
My real point is that understanding is a two way street. Mourdock is trying to reconcile his belief that ALL life is precious against a real life situation that bumps into such a belief. He resists being a hypocrite, il tente, and comes off like an idiot guaranteed to please no one. I assume a liberal tries also to reconcile their protection of the innocent with the fact that millions of innocents are aborted every year. The exception tests the rule. How many exceptions should test the rule becomes a bigger question when viewed from this angle. Here in the center peace has been made with abortion. It is most often brought up by the left, and then bungled in response by the right. Truthfully that is why it is brought up: Works every time for the past 40 years. Meanwhile I see no pending legislation to outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now Doug Morelly writes one of the best responses to this incident I have seen, and does so with pointed economy. He attacks no one, and that is as it should be. It is what Charen neglected to mention.
Should I say thanks, uh... Tom
Comment: #5
Posted by: Tom
Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Oh, Mark, I wasn't trying to play "tit for tat" or "gotcha" with my statement about President Obama, I just wanted to exemplify the fact that both parties involve themselves in culture wars. I draw little distinction between those who thump the bible and those who thump "Rules for Radicals." I know you get my attempt at fairness in the face of these polar opposite fringe dwellers. Both parties have to put up with these obstacles to resolution; For every Trump there is a Matthews. Balance is never achieved by committing to only one end of the scale.
I read your responses and often find them excellent.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Tom
Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:47 AM
|
|
|
|
I am very much in debt to a woman who fought with two doctors who scheduled her for an abortion after an assault--on the basis that it wasn't the child's fault. Her son is now our adopted grandson and is a smart, happy child who has enriched our family. She wasn't offered the choice--she had to demand it.
Comment: #7
Posted by: partsmom
Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
