Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.
UPDATE: Added video.
Do those bothered by Elder Oaks’ comparison in October feel the same about Sen. Reid? Elder Oaks merely said that Prop 8 Supporters faced voter intimidation as did those in the Civil Rights era. He didn’t suggest that Prop 8 opponents were like Jim Crow apologists, or in Reid’s case that Republicans are like slavery apologists.
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
Interesting in a time when the GOP seems to be shying away from social issues (its presidential nominee last year didn’t sure seem interested in them), yet Republican voters account entirely for the pro-life shift.
The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves “pro-life” rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.
I don’t know what would explain for a 10 point shift in one year especially when it hasn’t been a front-and-center issue.
Today is being celebrated and mourned as the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion on demand a constitutional right.
Perhaps I have been reading too much of the bloggernacle, but I was surprised to see how strongly Mormons as a whole oppose abortion. According to a Pew Forum study, Mormons as a religion as are the second most likely to oppose abortion. The survey breaks down views on abortion by degree of support or opposition and by religion. Mormons as a whole, were second only to Jehovah’s Witnesses (?) to oppose abortion in most or all cases, even more so than Evangelicals
However, it’s worth noting that compared to other religions who generally oppose abortion, Mormons are dispproportinately less likely to believe it should be illegal in all cases and more likely to believe that abortion should be illegal only in most cases. That seems in line with what the Church counsels.
Some members have expressed that the the Church is essentially “pro-choice” because its allows some exceptions for abortion. But those exceptions are only in rare circumstances and even then abortion should not be considered lightly. That doesn’t seem to be in line with today’s “pro-choice” view that abortion should be unrestricted and even government funded .
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.”
Early in his presidency President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) said: “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.” Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, as determined by competent medical counsel. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It “should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”
“The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. . . To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.”
Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” October 2008 Ensign (not yet available online).
The horror: Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin’s decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions.
But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.
Q. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
A. Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
However, Sen. Obama’s attempt to side-step an issue that many Americans take very seriously didn’t work. (Note how he short-circuited the intent of the question by draining it of politics and converting it into a religious and scientific issue?) Obama then cut off any follow-up with the perfunctory recognition that “there is a moral and ethical content to this issue” (thanks!) and went on to expound the typical pro-choice line.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the moment that human life begins.
Although, I am more comfortable with Sen. McCain’s view that life begins at conception, it’s a matter of fact that our limited knowledge prevents us from saying for sure when life begins in the womb. But that uncertainty should make our approach to abortion all the more definite.
Sen. Obama pretends to defer to God, but as a state and U.S. Senator he has demonstrated that he either has definite views on when life begins or that he simply doesn’t care. He has a record of consistently opposing any restrictions on abortion, including defeating a bill that would have required medical attention for infants born alive during an abortion. Either way, he certainly doesn’t want to talk about it and yet, he has no qualms implementing policies that show a complete disregard for unborn life.
I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he’s a friend.
But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, ‘Oh, sorry, I didn’t take the time to figure out’ because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it.
He should either say, ‘No scientifically, I do not believe it’s a human being until X’ or whatever it is or to say, ‘Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,’ whether it’s conception or anything else. But to just say ‘I don’t know’ on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.
Obama wrongly claimed that abortions “have not gone down” under President Bush. In fact, the abortion rate has gone down 9 percent, and the annual total has declined by more than 100,000.
But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life . . .
Having endorsed partial-birth abortion, Obama has little room to maneuver on the broader issue. But he does have some. He could take the wise counsel of evangelical Democrats such as Amy Sullivan and come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions — support for pregnant women, abstinence education, the responsible promotion of birth control. An organization called Democrats for Life has proposed the creation of a “95-10 Initiative” in which states and the federal government would work toward the reduction of abortion rates by 95 percent within 10 years. That would be a unifying national goal.
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid’s BYU speech discussed his upbringing, conversion, and his basic political beliefs and how they have influenced his career and perspective on public service. Senator Reid’s prepared text can be found here.
Some past prominent LDS Church leaders wrongly pressed conservatism on church members, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday during a press conference at Brigham Young University.
The Nevada senator attacked President Bush and evangelical Christians while saying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to worry less about abortion and gay marriage and more about health care, global warming, education and jobs . . .
“I think people in the church have to understand there are issues more important than abortion and gay marriage.”
The Church, as an institution, would appear to think otherwise as it has made the rare exception to voice its political opinion on abortion and gay marriage and not health care, global warming, nor jobs.
On past church leaders,:
Reid said Ezra Taft Benson, active in very conservative politics before he became a president of the LDS Church, and Ernest L. Wilkinson, the president of BYU from 1951-71, were among past church leaders “who were very right-wing people politically.”
“Members of the church are obedient,” Reid said, “they are followers in the truest sense of the word, and I think they’ve taken members of the church down a path that is the wrong path. Look at Joseph Smith. Here’s a man who was progressive, to say the least. He broke from the pack. He did things differently than they’d been done. He was against slavery. He wanted to start a national bank.
In the past years we’ve had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people. Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.
Understandably, being a party’s standard bearer can be a tough role to play, but right after speaking about King Benjamin’s example and service to God, Senator Reid took some rather uncharitable digs at President Bush:
“They have focused on just a few issues, flag-burning, gay marriage, abortion,” Reid said. “The country has gone beyond that to other issues. We have a country that needs to do something about health care. Global warming is here. We have a president who doesn’t know how to pronounce the words.”
and at evangelicals:
Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. “They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right.”
