Ocala.com Bloggers
- Broken News
- Bill Thompson
- Digital Editor
- Eric Barnes
- Frame 37
- Ocala.com Multimedia
- Marion Politics
- Newsroom
- Observations
- Naseem S. Miller
- OcalaDay
- Joe Byrnes
- Read My E-Mail
- Allen Parson
- Running Wide Open
- Joe Vanhoose
- Speaking of Business...
- Dr. Philip R. Geist
- The Bowling Blog
- Debbie Whitten
- The Green Zone
- Dave Rhea
- The Sports Blog
- Gregory Broome
- What is that?
- Newsroom
 |
Search Blogs
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Blog Archives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abortion: Is a local candidate's position relevant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Marion Politics |
 |
| Posted by: Ocala.com Election Coverage |
5/2/2008 8:50 AM |
We asked the heads of the local Democratic and Republican parties the following question: Candidates for local and state offices often include their positions on abortion in their platform. Since these candidates do not vote on U.S. Supreme Court justices, are their positions on abortion relevant?
Bruce Seaman, chairman, Marion County Democratic Party
For local candidates, it seems irrelevant. Candidates for state legislative office can have a say in the outcomes of certain legislation, like the recent Senate bill requiring ultrasounds to be performed.
Of course, neither local nor state officeholders are empowered to overturn the decision of the US Supreme Court, but states where Republicans dominate, like Florida, will push the limits of the Supreme Court’s decision and seek to build not-so-subtle deterrents to make having an abortion as difficult as possible while still keeping it legal.
The issue has become a yardstick by which candidates for any office can be measured by certain voters. Any candidate for any office should be able to articulate a cogent response to the question of whether women should have the lawful choice to proceed with a pregnancy or not, or if women should have no choice and be required by law to proceed with a pregnancy, being subject to criminal penalty for attempting an abortion. Every candidate for office should expect to be asked the question and should be prepared with a clear response.
Admittedly, it is largely irrelevant in local races and of small relevance in state races, but some folks – on both sides of the issue – will make their decision for whom to vote based on this one stance.
Having said that, this also indicates the high degree of distortion that this issue has caused. While not minimizing the issue, it’s silly to ask a school board candidate or a county commission candidate how they stand on this issue. With all of the problems that these officials face, this should not be the defining issue and can be seen at best as a distraction. I hope voters give candidates a chance to address the issues with which they expect to be dealing rather than one that they won’t face.
Roy Abshier, chairman, Marion County Republican Executive Committee
The question of a candidate's, any candidate's, support for life or for abortion is relevant and goes directly to the type of person and the type of leader any candidate claims to be. Some insist that the issue of
abortion should not be addressed by a candidate for local or state office, since that candidate, it is said, does not consider the issue directly. This argument is faulty on two fronts: 1) if the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned Roe v. Wade tomorrow, the states would determine the legality of abortion. 2) If a candidate won't defend the most delicate, most vulnerable life, that of a baby in the womb, voters should question if that candidate will defend the lives of the voters.
In other words, the question of pro-life vs. pro-abortion is the most thoughtful question a voter can ask of any candidate. It is a question that penetrates a candidate's consciousness. Does the candidate support life? This seems to be a relevant question at every stage of government – local, state or national. Is life less important locally than nationally?
To eliminate the topic of abortion from the vast number of local and state elections is to eliminate the discussion of the most basic moral question of life v. death.
William F. Buckley so wisely noted less than one year ago, "The movement to eliminate thought on abortion has failed. Failed, because there is an assertive human point at issue, which cannot be denied consideration, any more than the question of slavery could forever be denied consideration."
This precise reasoning is why the Republican Party Platform clearly states, "we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." This is the same reasoning that the led the Republican President Abraham Lincoln to declare: "we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
We believe life is precious at every stage and we deserve to know if those who seek to represent us in office believe the same.
You see the question of life and death is not just a line in a political platform, it is in essence, the quintessential American question. Don't we as Americans promote, embrace and seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for our fellow human beings and ourselves? What happens if we deny ourselves, because it is an offensive question to a few, a discussion on life? Less discussion equals more abortion and more abortion equals less life -- this is the antithesis of Ronald Reagan's America - "I know in my
heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life. " We choose life and all we ask of any candidate is, "do you?" |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (4)
Add Comment
|
Re: Abortion: Is a local candidate's position relevant? |
By Donna Tara Lee on
5/3/2008 10:48 PM |
| Abortion is a health matter between a womyn and her doctor. It has no place in any political arena. Those who make an issue out of it are usually the same voters who attack someone for their Gender or sexual orientation of choice. Their rguements on other issues fail to resonate with the voters so they have to resort to other issues. With how the state is today after the horrible budget decisions by the republican dominated legislature and with where our country is today thank's to the so called christian president we have, well no wonder they don't want to run on their real record. |
|
|
Re: Abortion: Is a local candidate's position relevant? |
By Juanita Martsolf on
5/4/2008 3:15 AM |
| When I hear a candidate asked the question about abortion, I wonder what business is it of usually his? Did he back taking our troops into Iraq and killing so many or was he against that innocent killing. That tells me a lot about them. I do not believe we should have clinics especially for abortion as I know there are some young people who can readily use it as birth control but the decision of every woman should be between her and her Doctor not every Tom Dick and Harry who wants to sound good. Strange that the ones who speakagainst abortion are the least of true Christianity in other ways of life. They never offer to help the woman in any way but feel they do their part by standing by the road way holding signs. That is the limit they will go. The men should go after the fellow responsible and the women should offer a certain amount of help with the baby while the mother usually has to work. They can even support classes in schools that would help children know the results of unprotected sex. There is so much moire to being for or against abortion than just saying yes or no I am for or against it. It is not impressive to see the Catholic church put crosses on their lawn in menory of the aborted babies and tolorate and excuse the abuse they do with child molestation on the inside of the church. It is called hypicritical. And so it is when a person says they are against abortion but supports wars that kill innocent people just because one leader wants to be a war President. |
|
|
Re: Abortion: Is a local candidate's position relevant? |
By Matt Zweil on
5/14/2008 8:55 PM |
| For what it's worth:<br>Abortion is an issue that many people rely on to determine how they vote for a candidate that they otherwise know nothing about. As such, it IS relevant to those particular voters. For other voters, a discussion of a local candidate's opinion on the subject of abortion is, for the most part, a distraction. Local candidate should be judged on a lot of criteria, but whether they agree with you on your definition of what abortion is, whether it "should" be legal and what the moral implications of it are. . .should not determine whether they are likely to, for example, be an appropriate steward of the Marion County 2009 Fiscal Budget.<br><br>I want us to focus on the issues that impact the success of the City and County first and foremost when discussing the merits of potential local candidates.<br><br>Regards,<br>Matt Zweil |
|
|
Re: Abortion: Is a local candidate's position relevant? |
By Barry Leach on
5/20/2008 6:39 AM |
| I am continually amazed at those groups, who are, by and large, thoughtful and sincere, who continue to long for the future demise of Roe vs Wade. It's like listening to your neighbor tell you how he's going to spend his lotto money, should he ever win. If Roe vs Wade is ever to be overturned, it would have been during the last 7 years where the President has appointed the most Conservative judges to the bench as ever before in the history of our Country. They haven't. Therefore, to me, their inaction tells me that the law is good, the decision is sound and the principle of individual rights (that of the the woman's) over religious doctrine remains supreme.<br><br>I find it amusing that Mr. Abshier quotes William F. Buckley. He's the same guy who once said, “The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic.” Sometimes Mr. Buckley doesn't really know what he's talking about. <br><br>And as a former US Marine, I find it highly distasteful, and wrong, that Mr. Abshier would quote from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address when the President was lamenting the loss of tens of thousands of American military dead after one of the most dreadful battles in American history. There is no comparison to fighting and dying for your Country, Mr. Abshier, and the personal decisions a woman makes with her family and doctor. Shame on you.<br><br>Roe vs Wade is the law of the land. We can either support the laws or, worst case, support the anarchy soon to follow by not doing so. Making local little hurdles to either penalize or humiliate the patient into, maybe, changing her mind, are ridiculous and callous to the mother, who has, no doubt, already agonized about her decision and the direction her life has run. Who are you to intercede?<br><br>No sir. Government, however well intended, cannot interfere with a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. It's the law. |
|
|
|
|
|