creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
29 Aug 2014
Diane Steps Down

There were no ruffles or flourishes. Diane Sawyer stepped down as the anchor of "ABC World News" and the "face"… Read More.

27 Aug 2014
The Lesson for Liberals

There's a painful lesson to be learned for liberals, especially liberal Jews, from the hopefully concluded … Read More.

20 Aug 2014
What Went Wrong in Ferguson

The short answer is: everything. I'm not talking about the killing of Michael Brown. A tragedy, whatever the facts.… Read More.

Waitress Moms and Abortion

Comment

As everyone tries to figure out an exceedingly close election, the focus on women — unmarried women in some stories, blue-collar women in others, unmarried blue-collar women maybe — intensifies. Could they play the decisive role? Especially if they live in Ohio.

Back in 2006, I was writing my book "The Case for Hillary Clinton," and I needed to offer a scenario as to how she could win the 2008 election. Hillary and her people were reluctant to talk to me, even though we were friends. They didn't want even the appearance that they were focusing on anything other than her reelection as U.S. senator from New York. Fair enough. But who could possibly help me with this? Who had the political acumen, the experience, the encyclopedic knowledge of presidential elections to chart her course to 270 for me?

You know who.

The answer was Ohio. More specifically, women in Ohio. All Hillary had to do was win the states John Kerry had won and then do about two points better among women in Ohio, and she would win the election.

So here we are, back to women in Ohio: women who voted for Barack Obama but are disappointed at the hard economic times, women who don't want to see the clock turned back for women, women with real power.

How do you get to them? By focusing on education and health care and Lilly Ledbetter and jobs plans and the like. Certainly that's what Obama's been doing. And, as Mitt Romney put it in his now almost forgotten 47 percent speech (what did happen to that?), by focusing not on convincing them that they were wrong to vote for Obama in the first place, but on the fact that they are right to be disappointed with him now and on not giving him four more years.

You also get to them by pulling this election back to the fundamental issue of who controls their bodies. Abortion has rarely decided elections. Except for a very small percentage of voters at either extreme (most of whom would vote for the candidate closer to their extreme even without the abortion issue), most people vote the economy, not social issues.

But when abortion becomes an issue of integrity, and when the margin is as close as it is right now, everything matters.

This week's big news is from Indiana, where Republican Richard E.

Mourdock distinguished himself from his two opponents in the Indiana Senate race (both of whom oppose abortion except in cases of rape and incest) by saying, "I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite who defeated the more moderate (but still conservative and very respected) Richard Lugar in an ugly Republican primary, is locked in a tight race. Just the day before, Mourdock's campaign released an ad in which none other than Romney looks right into the camera and endorses Mourdock. While Romney's campaign says it disagrees with Mourdock on abortion for rape victims, it is not asking that the ad be pulled.

Disagrees? Hello?

If you have not seen it, you must watch the video of Romney's 1994 debate with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on the topic of abortion. Romney was challenging Kennedy for the Senate. Some people called him "Multiple Choice Mitt" when it came to abortion, but he staunchly fought that label. He was pro-choice — since 1970 no less, since before Roe v. Wade.

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." That was Mitt Romney.

But there is more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

This is also Mitt Romney: "Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

Except in endorsing a man who believes that God somehow intended for a rape victim to give birth. Running on a platform that prohibits abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Sending teenage girls back to the back alleys where a "dear, close family relative" died from an illegal abortion. What will a man do or say to get elected to the Massachusetts Senate, or to get elected president of the United States?

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

25 Comments | Post Comment
Wow. There is a lot wrong with this article. I doubt healthcare will be winning over many women. Sure the ACA covers more people, but it also increases the price of healthcare and makes it worse. You now have medical insurance if you didn't before, but now you and everyone else have to wait a month to see a doctor because there are less of them and more patients. And since when is abortion an issue of integrity. If stabbing unborn babies in the head shows integrity, they must have changed the definition on me. And sure, there are crazy pro-life nuts out there, but unless Romney says something stupid, you can't pin something dumb someone else said on him. There is no stupidity transitive property that goes along party lines. This column is an epic fail.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:08 PM
Ms. Estrich wrote:
"But when abortion becomes an issue of integrity, and when the margin is as close as it is right now, everything matters."
She also wrote:
"What will a man do or say to get elected to the Massachusetts Senate, or to get elected president of the United States?"

We are back once again to the problem of Ms. Estrich's cognative dissonance. I seem to recall that VP Biden stated during his debate that he believed his church's teachings regarding abortion (i.e., That it is murder) but that he didn't feel he should 'force' his opinion off on others. This is the old Ferraro dodge. It essentially boils down to saying, "I believe that there have been 50 million unhindered child murders in the US since 1972, but I don't want to do anything about it. Let the slaughter continue!"

This astounding bit of logic can only be interpreted in only one of two ways. First, the guy actually means what he said. Wouldn't this tremendous moral callousness that this must represent be an issue of integrity? How can I trust this guy to defend me (or anyone else) in a pinch.

The alternate interpretation would be that he doesn't believe what he said but is saying it to gain favor with the voters. Wouldn't this be an excellent example of saying just about anything to get ellected?

With such tremendous logic at its core, is it any wonder that Team Obama is sinking in the polls?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Old Navy
Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:40 AM
Susan no longer believes that all life is created by God. Without Him, life wouldn't occur, even in the case of rape. A better article would have been 'Waitress Moms and Adoption".
Comment: #3
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:01 AM
Re Chris McCoy and Old Navy
Well said each or you. One quibble with Chris and it is this, you say "There is no stupidity transitive property that goes along party lines" Can this be so, given the mass stupidity it takes to vote Democrat and particulary the mass stupidity it takes to even consider a vote for obama?

When one adds to the thoughts expressed by each

(1) the fact that obama and now moochelle are active proponents of late term and partial birth abortion in order to pander to the callous progressive life hating base and

(2) the fact that obama is on record of being in favor of actual infanticide [his votes against the Illinios Born Alive Infant Protection Act] in order to pander to the callous progressive life hating base and

(3) the fact that for the first time obama has permitted federal funding of the killing of the unborn in the womb in order to pander to the callous life hating base and

(4) the fact that obama callously let 4 Americans including his Ambassador be murdered in an attack in Libya without so much as lifting a hand to stop the murders that his Admin watched in real time and then lied about it all to preserve an electoral position that al quaeda is on the run

are not these all examples of obama not just saying anything but in fact doing anything, no matter how callous and inhuman,to rally his America hating, life hating, freedom hating, parasitc base in order to win an election?
Comment: #4
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:14 AM
What I meany by stupidity transitive property is that you can't take a stupid line from one person and say that everyone in that political party believes it. I think most people are democrats because they have no faith in people. They don't think we can take care of each other on our own, so we need to be forced to. A major flaw with this line of thinking is that the people they choose to oversee the wealth transfer are often very corrupt. Democrats also believe that people don't know what they want, so it needs to be decieded for them. This is where the fed comes in and centrally plans the economy. People want carrots more than peas. So the farmers grow more carrots than peas next crop and everyone is happy. Thats the free market. Not in liberal land. There, the government subsidises pea farmers and pays carrot farmers not to grow more carrots. Because in liberal land, government knows best and they know how to spend your money better than you do.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:50 AM
What I meany by stupidity transitive property is that you can't take a stupid line from one person and say that everyone in that political party believes it. I think most people are democrats because they have no faith in people. They don't think we can take care of each other on our own, so we need to be forced to. A major flaw with this line of thinking is that the people they choose to oversee the wealth transfer are often very corrupt. Democrats also believe that people don't know what they want, so it needs to be decieded for them. This is where the fed comes in and centrally plans the economy. People want carrots more than peas. So the farmers grow more carrots than peas next crop and everyone is happy. Thats the free market. Not in liberal land. There, the government subsidises pea farmers and pays carrot farmers not to grow more carrots. Because in liberal land, government knows best and they know how to spend your money better than you do.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:54 AM
Re: Chris McCoy
You think not.
What about the the whole of the democratic party base believing the stupid line from Obama that there is a war on women, or the stupid line that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video or the stupid line that obama saved the car industry or the stupid line that obama killed bin laden or the stupid line that biden is a foreign policy expert or the line that obamacare is not a tax or the absurd obama line that to save the country from bankruptcy that it must spend more of what it does not have or the line that a business owner did not build it or the line that government does it better or the line that the next four years will be better than the last if we just believe in obama.
Oh I think stupidity transitive property is alive and well in the Democrat / progressive world
Comment: #7
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:27 AM
What you said and what I said, while correct, are 2 different things. You're talking about specific issues while I'm trying to dissect the liberal brain and figure out why they think the way they do. You're talking about why liberals worship and defend their tin god no matter what. Its because of partisainship. Both parties are guilty of it. Follow the leader off a cliff if thats what it takes. I think the rise of the tea party has helped curve partisainship. More and more people are rising up with ideas of smaller government and free markets and hold no party lines. These people want to identify as republicans, but will actually take their representatives to task and hold them accountable. Thats one thing that Obamas followers will never do. They will never take him to task and will always coddle him and thats part of what makes him a weak president and explains his weak debate preformances.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:17 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

Always check the premisis. It is not because of partisanship. Partisanship can be the result of thinking or of reasoning and of the drawing of conclusions. You presume that liberals/progressives/democrats actually think or actually reason and have some modicum of independence. It is clear that they do not
.
All suffer from a congenital flaw, a disorder of the mind, that shuns liberty and independence in favor of utter dependence. Liberals do not think, like sheep, they act upon instinct, a herding instinct, a following instinct, a parroting instinct. If obama like a parrot uttered "polly wants a cracker" they would repeat it verbatum without understanding and vote for polly to get a cracker.

The whole unfortunate (but nevertheless dangerous) clique simply craves to be led, they crave others to think for them, to do for them, to provide for them, to coddle them from cradle to grave. That was the whole driver of the loathesome Julia thing and why liberals unlike people capable of independent thought actually found it appealing rather than disturbing. Its why they like quotas, and political correctness and participation medals
.
Like perpetual adolescents they crave a nanny, they crave the benevolent state, a provider, a redistributor. They crave the teat of the state and will repeat, digest and absorb en masse any stupidity so long as the reward is that they get to continue to suckle upon it.

A liberal is only happy when everyone is equally miserable. Figure that out!
Comment: #9
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:23 AM
If liberalism is a disease, then there is a cure. Certain conservative writers on this site are former liberals. I'd rather educate them than degrade them. If I can just a few liberals to question their beleifs, then I think I've done some good. I often do this with libertarian arguments rather than conservative ones since some of our positions collide. Most liberals however are Obama sheep and will never change in their ways. But its when you back those people into a corner or at least get them to admit the president has failed on x, y, orz thats a real good feeling.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:21 AM
Re: Chris McCoy
I am aware of many former liberals who awoke or so soon as they acquired an ability to actually think about liberalism, its destructive effects and consequences left the whole failed ideology behind and moved to the light of conservatism or even libertarianism.

I am however truly not aware of many or even of any conservatives [Oh, I suspect there are some and that they will be named] that have gone to liberalism because that woud require the relinquishing of any ability to think or to reason independently. It is difficult to embark upon the necessary unlearning curve.

There is an old proverb that is applicable
.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him !
He who knows not but knows that he knows not is teachable. Enlighten him !
He who knows but knows not that he knows is asleep. Awaken him !
But he who knows and knows that he knows follow him!

The vast bulk of liberals and progressive fall into the classification of fool and are to be shunned.

The ones of which you speak fell into the classification of teachable or were formerly alseep to be enlightened or awoken respectively.

Enlighten or awaken suitable candidates as you find them. But they are hard to find.
Comment: #11
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:08 PM
Re: joseph wright I like this one.
He who knows he knows, knows nothing. He who knows he knows nothing, really knows.
Comment: #12
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:58 PM
I would agree that more liberals turn conservative than vice versa. I think its easier for someone who is dependent on government to get off and enjoy the freedoms associated with that than for someone who is independant to suddenly want to lose that and get on the government dole.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:58 AM
True event.
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4)- The woman named “Democrat of The Year” this year by the Jefferson County Democratic Party has been convicted of felony theft by a Jefferson County jury for stealing from a developmentally disabled 71-year-old woman
.
On Thursday, a jury convicted 66-year-old Estelle Carson of felony identify theft and felony theft from an at risk adult for stealing checks from the woman and using them to pay her own cable, cell phone and internet bills.

The victim is partially blind, developmentally disabled, has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. She is on a fixed income of $596 per month according to the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office.

The above is just a microcosm, a world in miniature, of what obama and the Democratic party are doing and will continue to do to not just seniors, but to the whole nation and to future generations if obama is allowed another term.

But don't worry abortion will be available on demand and federally funded, there will be free contraception, big bird will be saved.
Comment: #14
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:44 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

The entire progressive ideology is for everyone to be forced to lose the freedoms of being independent of government and to be forced to get on the government dole.


Re David Hendricks

He who knows nothing really knows nothing. That my friend is the driving force of the teachers unions. The more ignorant they can keep our children regarding civics, the Constitution, the exceptionalism of America and its history, the easier it is for progressives to brianwash them and indoctrinate them in liberal fascism in college.






Comment: #13
Comment: #15
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:53 AM

General Petraeus, has put out this statement re the deaths of our Ambassador and three other gallant Americans in Benghazi : "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No The Secretary of State ? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

You bet he did ! Why ? Because he hates America! He is a cowardly, craven, America and American hating ememy within.

Still never mind, the ability to murder more Americans in the womb will be available on demand and federally funded and big bird will be safe.




Comment: #16
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:23 AM

AND SO IT BEGINS

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two volunteer poll workers at an Ohio voting station observed van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia — the state is home to the second-largest Somali population in the United States — being driven to the voting station and guided by Democratic interpreters on the voting process.

A volunteer witnessed Somalis who cannot speak English come to the polling center. They are brought in groups, by van or bus. The Democrats hand them a slate card and say, “vote Brown all the way down.” Given that Sherrod Brown is the incumbent Democrat Senator in Ohio, one can assume that this is the reference.

Another source who also wishes to remain anonymous has seen Democrat interpreters show the non-English speaking Somalis how to vote the Democrat slate that they were handed outside. According to this second source, there are not any Republican Somali interpreters available.

Not content with stealing money and independence from the aged and infirm Democr ats are stealing the votes of citizens and thus disenfranchising the honest and lawful of their say in governance.

Democrats are thoroughly corupt and thoroughly from the lowest strata of the party to the highest.

Still not to worry, the freedom to murder the unborn is the main concern, contraception the second and keeping big bird safe the third.
Comment: #17
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:29 PM
Mitt Romney is not responsible for what Richard E. Mourdock believes or says. Romney cannot make Mr. Mourdock pull his ad no more than Obama can stop some of what Joe Biden says. Why don't you write about how Obama murdered 4 americans or about what the father of the dead Navy seal has to say. You are so biased, you can't write the truth!
Comment: #18
Posted by: susan lopez
Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:59 PM
obama won't lay out a second-term agenda, but we already know what it wll we – More Crushing Debt And Wasteful Spending:

Under obama's policies, The National Debt Is projected to surpass $20 trillion by the end of 2016 – an increase of more than $4 trillion in new debt (“Fiscal Year 2013 Mid-Session Review: Budget Of The U.S. Government,” Office Of Management And Budget, 7/27/12) over and above the debt that he has taken to a record $16 Trillion – an Increase of $5.5 trillion on his watch. (US Department Of The Treasury, 10/15/12)

All in all just an immoral theft from the present and future generations.

Still who cares so long as he increases the freedom to murder the unborn in the womb, offers contraception and rather than protect America and Americans at home and abroad, concentrates on keeping big bird safe.

Its the Democrat way,
Comment: #19
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:28 PM
In addition to the facts set forth in my posts above:

More than 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or looking for work and since obama has taken office the country has lost 316,000 jobs.

Almost 47 million Americans are on food stamps. Millions of women have lost thier jobs
.
Last year, the United States spent over $61,000 to support welfare programs FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD that is in poverty. "According to the Census's American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," The Senate Budget Committee notes "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending by Government per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

The dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. If welfare programs are meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it is clear that the spending has failed, the numbers simply do not add up.

Still who cares so long as obama increases the freedom to murder the unborn in the womb, offers contraception and rather than protect America and Americans at home and abroad, concentrates on keeping big bird safe.

Those that subscribe to liberalism or progressivism or vote Democrat or who will consider voting obama are without doubt sufering from some sort of disoder of the mind. Q.E.D.
Comment: #20
Posted by: joseph wright
Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:17 AM
I don't generally agree with Susan Estrich's politics, but I do think that she has interesting things to say. On the subject of women's issues, abortion is "so twentieth century" as my daughter would say. This issue has been beaten to death, and nothing that any politician says is gong to make a significant change in the reality of abortion. The only thing left to argue about is FUNDING for abortion--who is going to pay for it. Personally I do not believe that citizens should be forced to pay for tpa etching that they find abhorrent--those who agree with it should pay for it with their charitable contributions. We should have a check-off box on our tax return that asks how many dollars you want to go to fund abortions. Everyone can use their dollars to express their own moral standards. And Planned Parentlyhood and others should spend their money providing services rather than lobbying Government to pay for those services. United Way sponsors Planned Parenthood almost everywhere. Give money directly to Planned Parenthood if you,like what they do, and allow me to have a clear conscience.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Jill Osiecki
Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:42 PM
Those who are so excited about the Lilly Ledbetter law should consider what the reality of bringing a discrimination lawsuit actually entails. I had to do so at one point in my life, and it was brutal, costly, and ultimately a virtual no-win situation, even though the facts were solidly on my side. If you win, you barely recover what you lost, and if you lose, you are a pariah everywhere forever. I would not wish that on my worst enemy. The BEST solution for women receiving equal pay is just exactly what Mitt Romney said in the debate--a vibrant economy where jobs are plentiful and pay is increasing. As someone who has gone through the experience, I would advise any woman to spend her talents and efforts to find a new job with a better employer or at least a better supervisor, and avoid the horrible experience of an Equal Rights claim. In a rapidly growing economy, employers focus their efforts on recruiting good talent and retaining their best employees. Progressive employers will reward their best employees, female or male, and the non-progressive employers will lose excellent employees, thus competition and natural selection will winnow them out.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Jill Osiecki
Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:56 PM
Re: Jill Osiecki
Great common sense reasoning, something many people lack.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Oldtimer
Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:08 AM
Re: Jill Osiecki
Re Oldtimer

Both correct.

But what is being touted by obama and the rest of the lying Dems about Lily Ledbetter is a conscious deceit.

The Lily Ledbatter Act does absolutely nothing to establish equal pay or non discrimination rights for women. The law was perfectly clear on that point and indeed was entirley unamended by the Lily Ledbetter Act.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111-2, S. 181) is a federal statute amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by simply amending the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination. Nothing more.

The BEST solution for women receiving equal pay is just exactly what Mitt Romney said in the debate a vibrant ecomony. Indeed the best nay only solution to the evils that obama has wrought is the election of Romney.

Comment: #24
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:40 AM
So, i suppose that using your logic the only answer is that obama is every woman's friend. How naive you must be at your old age. I do not think that abortion is the answer to the problem. How about taking responsibility, both on part of the man and the woman for contraception. What a novel idea, instead of having an abortion as a means of "birth control". I have no problem with a woman or a girl making a decision after all the information is presented. Of the options available, even from incest or rape and let them make the decision.

Abortion should not be used as a means of just plain "birth control" by people that are so flippant in their sexual behavior that they do not take precautions.

The unborn children's blood is on you liberals hands and that you will have to answer for that, maybe not here but somewhere else.
Comment: #25
Posted by: gilgarza03
Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:00 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 3 Sep 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 2 Sep 2014
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 1 Sep 2014

28 Jun 2013 Political Stops and Starts

9 Oct 2009 The President's Choice

19 Oct 2011 Age Discrimination