GregsOpinion.com

Two out of three gets you Fred Barnes' designation as being sufficiently "pro-life." Out of hand, I'll dismiss the third item because, quite frankly, if one part of the test is to measure yourself up to a special interest lobby, then I think that's a flaw, not a feature. Too many lobbying groups will look at a legislator who votes a mere 80-90% of the time with them as just the same type of enemy that one who votes 0% of the time with them. Groups that seek to define purity don't do themselves favors by devising enemy lists with such a high bar to jump over.

As for the remainder of the test, Barnes splits hairs and naturally omits the comparisons to Bush's own comparable statements on the matter over his time in the limelight. Then again, Ronald Reagan was a paragon of pro-lifers, having penned a book on the matter. But what was the result of his 8 years in office? When last I checked, Roe still stood, and in no small part due to the success of the SCOTUS justices he himself put on the court.

Nevermind that Reid rightly points out that in order for the issue to come to a point of mass acceptance, it won't happen in the courtroom. This is, you guessed it, more about politics than reducing the number of abortions.

Having worked in the Democrats for Life caucus at the last State Democratic Convention, I have to confess that I was rather pleased to see the leadership and attendees recognize a wide array of issues affecting life. There was outrage over Texas' HB2292's pillaging of lower income health care for kids. There was also the realization of what Bill Clinton once stated: The best social program is a rising economy. There's still a debate to be had over what actual restrictions are worth meeting halfway over and where the line is worth drawing in earnest.

So, I'm curious why Barnes doesn't include in his test the reality that when you only bring votes on abortion up close to election time, letting a ban on partial birth abortions sit for almost a full year, that this does not exactly speak well for one's intentions on the issue itself as opposed to the effects it might have for elections in the weeks ahead. Likewise, there's the point that the right does not allow for the health of the mother as a consideration in many restrictions. Seems that such language leaves too much leeway up to the doctor. So much for trusting the people. There's a lot wrong with this issue being left in the hands of the far right, and to me, that's why its important for Democrats and those on the left taking some ownership of the issue back.