I have known single-issue voters in my thirty-seven-year life span. One of them, a man with an intellectual pedigree that would be coveted by many, nonetheless informed me, and not in jest I might add, that he would vote for Satan himself if he could guarantee the abolition of Roe v. Wade. An anomaly? Perhaps in certain circles, but it would be imprudent to neglect just how many Americans subscribe to similar thought patterns. What is curious is how convinced these people often are of the moral rectitude of Republicans when it comes to the debate itself. The GOP, knowing full well that millions of Americans do vote on this particular issue, has profited from this perception.
Rarely placed under scrutiny is just how Republicans have facilitated legalized abortion throughout the years. Aware that parties do indeed change in ideology over time, one cannot, in all fairness, associate the GOP of Lincoln with the GOP of today, nor the Democratic Party of the early 20th century to what we have presently. With this factor acknowledged, one should look at the Republican Party only within the time frame that includes its shift to its current incarnation as the party of social conservatism and traditional morality: the early 1960s to the present.
The role of Republicans in the legalization of abortion can be traced with a great deal of ease.
Dwight David Eisenhower, a man who is as rarely mentioned by today's GOP leadership as Reagan is quoted by them, played a role in this drama. Having nominated William Brennan and Potter Stewart to the Supreme Court, Eisenhower would give the court two men who would go on to judge in favor of Roe v. Wade in 1973. In fairness to the memory of the late President Eisenhower, most would argue that the very debate on the subject of legalized abortion would never have even been a consideration when these two men were nominated. Thus, Eisenhower can be exonerated in this regard, but the fact remains that two Republican nominees did later help facilitate this landmark ruling.
While Democrats were in control of the Oval Office from January of 1961 to January of 1969, two of the justices of the Supreme Court who would later rule in Roe v. Wade were appointed. One was Byron White, a Kennedy appointee and the other Thurgood Marshall, who was nominated by President Johnson. Curiously, it was the Kennedy nominee who was one of only two dissenters during that fateful case in 1973.
From the time he assumed office in January of 1969, until the decision in Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon gave the United States four additional justices of the Supreme Court. Of those four(Rehnquist, Burger, Blackmun and Powell), the only dissenter was William Rehnquist. Having made his nominations at the beginning of his term, it is illogical to think that Nixon could not have at any time seriously considered the abortion question. The issue of its legalization was already quite prominent, particularly in California where Republican Governor Ronald Reagan signed into legislation one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation. Although Gov. Reagan later cited coercion and deception as factors in his decision, one must ask if this was another cynical, expedient move for the aspiring president of all 50 states. One cannot gainsay that Nixon delivered three justices who are forever associated with Roe v. Wade. Nor can it be denied that such appointments were made at a time when the legalization of abortion was a serious issue for public debate.
With Nixon's resignation in 1974, our nation gained the conciliatory Mr. Ford, often credited with mollifying much of the anger engendered by his predecessor's criminality. Ford also has his place in the furtherance of reinforcing abortion's legality across the land for it was he who appointed John Paul Stevens to the court. Initially believed to be a stalwart conservative, Stevens went on to side with the more liberal element of the Supreme Court, particularly on the abortion issue. In addition to his nominations, Ford himself hardly fits the portrait of a pro-life Republican as he and his wife, a prominent cultural influence on the nation, were often described as "pro choice."
Governor Reagan of California found a counterpart of sorts in the Republican governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller. It was Rockefeller who signed into law in 1970 a repeal of the state prohibition on abortion. Four years later, Rockefeller became vice president to Gerald Ford.
Returning to the theme of Ronald Reagan. Governor Reagan, who coveted the GOP nomination in 1976 and lost, brought himself back into the fray in 1980, this time gaining the nomination for presidential candidate. Victorious, he found himself early on in his presidency obliged to nominate a replacement for Potter Stewart. Replacement came in the form of Sandra Day O'Connor, a woman whose stance on abortion was opaque, to say the least. Reagan went on to appease his constituents with the nomination of Robert Bork and a less-than-convincing rationale for his 1967 decision regarding abortion and legality in California. Reagan, whose nomination of Robert Bork ignited a firestorm across the nation, eventually offered us Anthony Kennedy, who would go on to join, in 1992, O'Connor's plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.
History repeated itself during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. During the elder Bush's tenure in the White House, he gave this nation two justices for the Supreme Court: David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Thomas, reviled by the pro-choice lobby, would serve as the foil to Souter, a conservative on several issues who nonetheless took the side of O'Connor and more liberal members of the court on this issue.
The presidency of George W. Bush was probably the most directly correlated with the goals of the anti-abortion movement. Bush the younger gave the Supreme Court Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Thus, today's GOP, thanks partly to George W. Bush, is seen as the anti-abortion party. The association continues despite a history that shows something to the contrary.
At no time did I offer my opinion on the legality of this practice. My purpose in writing is to demonstrate to the reader that the GOP have played a considerably liberal role concerning an issue where they are seen as the voice of opposition. This is only part of the story. Some of the most prominent men in the GOP have enabled legalized abortion to remain law since 1973. As many Republicans today boast of the proud legacy of their party as fierce abolitionists in the 19th century and the unfortunate role early Democrats had in upholding slavery, it is interesting that they do not feel the need to resurrect this part of their history. It is just as much a part of Republican history as the Lincoln Administration, but one can be certain that today's Republicans will much more quickly cite the party of Lincoln than those men who helped continue a practice for which they maintain abhorrence. This engenders one question, a rather cynical question, but an important query nonetheless: do the Republicans know that they could lose a substantial sum of single-issue voters and therefore call for the abolition of Roe v. Wade whilst doing everything behind the scenes to make sure that it remains the law of the land? For if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, is it not unlikely that the party would lose a significant selling point to voters? That is something to ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment