Scott Walker releases wimpiest “pro-life” ad of the year

Earlier this week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker released a new ad in response to an EMILY’s List campaign regurgitating the usual “War on Women” blather. But rather than fighting back with a clear, unapologetic defense of pro-life principles and policies, it tries to defuse the situation with mealy-mouthed equivocation:

Hi, I’m Scott Walker. I’m pro-life. But there’s no doubt in my mind the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy is an agonizing one. That’s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. Now, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens.

Accept “end a pregnancy” as a euphemism for killing a child? Check. Emphasize that he’s leaving abortion between “a woman and her doctor”? Check. Gratuitously affirm that favoring legal abortion can be “reasonable”? Check. Bend over backward to insist it’s all about the women rather than their babies? Check.

This is exactly what many feared would happen when Scott Walker hired pro-abortion spokeswoman Alleigh Marre for his re-election campaign. This may have been a deluded attempt to appear more reasonable than the caricature, but all Walker has done is preemptively conceded the legitimacy of various pro-abortion premises and rhetorical fictions.

Contrary to Right Wisconsin’s Collin Roth, who calls the ad a “worthy attempt,” it would have been less damaging if he had just kept his mouth shut. Silence may be weaksauce, but at least it doesn’t go out of its way to draw attention to just how weak.

If you’re still not getting the impression that Team Walker really doesn’t want to talk about abortion, the statement they released with the ad spells it out even more:

Special interests from Washington, D.C., are spending millions of dollars to distract voters from Governor Walker’s positive record and Wisconsin’s improving economy which have helped to create more than 100,000 new jobs and 25,000 businesses over the last four years.

Gee, it sure is a drag that killing over six thousand little Wisconsinites a year is a hot button issue, because we’d much rather talk about what we think really matters: the economy.

And incredibly, that’s not all. The Cap Times reports that Walker did not receive Pro-Life Wisconsin’s endorsement in 2014 because he declined to fill out a candidate survey, yet his website still touts their support, presenting their 2012 endorsement as if it was current. (Pro-Life Wisconsin declined an invitation to comment on this new ad; neither Wisconsin Right to Life, who has endorsed Walker this year, nor Wisconsin Family Action have responded to requests for comment.)

Even more troubling from the self-proclaimed 100% pro-life candidate:

Asked by Channel 3000 on Wednesday whether he wanted all abortions made illegal, Walker responded, “That’s not even an option in the state. The Supreme Court more than 40 years ago ruled that is not an option.”

My hero.

It may seem baffling, but the writing was on the wall. This is simply the natural progression of a governor who’s decided the culture wars are just too politically messy. After all, he has previously said of pro-life laws state GOP leaders ditched, “it’s not on my radar if it’s not about jobs, balancing the budget or lowering taxes,” and claimed “the women I talk to in my state never talk about” abortion. By my math, all this falls well short of 100%.

Is the GOP establishment all drinking the same spiked Kool-Aid? You’d think they’d learn a thing or two from the way Ken Cuccinelli’s efforts to downplay abortion in favor of the economy blew up in his face and gave Terry McAuliffe the governorship of Virginia. Or that, while Cory Gardner’s overall poll numbers against Mark Udall are looking pretty good now, Gardner still trails among women, despite throwing personhood under the bus and offering up over-the-counter birth control.

And Walker himself? RealClearPolitics’ polling average only has him up half a percentage point over Mary Burke—a would-be governor of a state whose only political experience is two years as a school-board member, who apparently has so few policy thoughts of her own that she has to pad out her platform with plagiarism. If an experienced executive is still neck-and-neck against that, there’s officially a problem.

No matter how many times they run the experiment, Republican leaders and their hack consultants and strategists simply refuse to learn that there is no hiding from the issues voters care about more than they do, that changing the subject never makes hostile narratives go away, or that it’s all but impossible to weasel out of principle without looking like you’re doing exactly that.

  • ReformedWingNut

    “War on Women” blather? As a man who considers himself a feminist, I can state unequivocally that the War on Women is very real. For proof, one need only look at the Hobby Lobby decision. One need only look at campaign to defeat equal pay laws. One need only look at the numerous laws designed to restrict access to abortion under various pretenses. Abortion has been a strong, positive force for women’s equality. It has given them autonomy over their bodies and over their own lives. It is not “killing a child.” An embryo with no awareness and no identity is not a child, it is an organism with the potential to become a child if and only it the mother chooses to carry it to term, which, for many women, thanks to the conservatives who block real social reforms, still means putting careers on hold, being tied to abusive men, and living in poverty.

    • In your Disqus profile you claim to be an independent thinker, yet your comment consists entirely of mindless, ignorant platitudes.

      1.) Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 contraceptives ObamaCare mandated, and simply didn’t want to pay for the few that kill embryonic human beings. The Supreme Court simply recognized that the mandate violated federal law: http://liveactionnews.org/ginsburgs-atrocious-hobby-lobby-analysis-draws-a-deluded-crowd/

      2.) Claiming there’s some sort of attack on equal pay leads me to wonder if you’re also stumped by how a household can have 2.5 children. Actual sex-based pay discrimination has been illegal since 1963, and nobody’s looking to change that. The “gender gap” is a myth: http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-gender-pay-gap-is-myth-it-s-just-not-true-experts-say

      3.) Abortion a “positive force for women’s equality”? Funny, most of the women in my life would be incredibly offended by the suggestion that they’re incapable of achieving equality without killing their sons or daughters.

      4.) “Autonomy over their bodies and over their own lives”…by destroying someone else’s body and ending his or her own life.

      5.) Not killing a child? Here, have some actual facts: http://liveactionnews.org/decode-pro-abortion-talking-points-with-the-choicespeak-to-english-dictionary-part-1/

      6.) “conservatives who block real social reforms”…oh, good, you’re uninformed about economics and the effectiveness of the welfare state too.

      7.) “being tied to abusive men”….yes, let’s ignore the fact that abortion is incredibly useful to a rapist who wants to destroy the evidence. Or that Planned Parenthood looks the other way for abusive men: http://www.liveaction.org/monalisa/
      http://www.liveaction.org/traffick/

      • Cynical_Meliorist

        I was going to respond to the original poster, but you pretty much hit all of my points. :)

      • ReformedWingNut

        1. You were quick to praise the Supreme Court. Have you forgotten that it was the Supreme Court that declared abortion a Constitutional Right, not once, but twice: in 1973 and again in 1992.

        • Lilian

          I take it you believe that “human being” is not synonymous with “human person”.

          • ReformedWingNut

            I do not believe that simply having homo sapiens DNA make an organism either one. I consider a fetus pre-human. It could become a “human being” or “human person” eventually, but it isn’t one yet, plain and simple.

          • Basic science says you’re wrong. See the link I gave you on the subject.

          • Lilian

            If you consider the fetus pre-human, what do you believe it is in actuality? Simply a “human organism” or “human fetus” distinct from “human being”?

            Do you consider a fetus pre-human until the status as fetus is complete? In other words, you believe the human fetus transitions from pre-human to human being at live birth?

          • Basset_Hound

            This is the same crap Peter Singer spews out when he “reasons” that an adult chimpanzee is a “person” while a human toddler is not.

          • PJ4

            Pre-human? Ok… so what’s your scientific empirical evidence for this?
            Give me one biology embryology or genetics text that backs you up.
            I’ll even accept a peer reviewed paper.

            Go on… I’ll be over here… waiting…
            (most likely forever)

          • Valerie Finnigan

            No, but growth, development, self regulation, the ability to eventually reproduce- that’s what makes every human being an organism- including each human fetus.

          • ReformedWingNut

            Being an organism doesn’t make a fetus human. The word “human” has socio-moral connotations that don’t apply to a fetus.I don’t think there’s any debate about whether a fetus is an organism.

          • Valerie Finnigan

            Human refers to the species homo sapiens. If a fetus is a living organism, he or she has to be of some species. A living human fetus is human. A cat fetus is feline. An elephant fetus is an elephant.

          • ReformedWingNut

            No, the word “human” is not a scientific term. It is loaded with many other connotations. A fetus is only a potential human.

          • PJ4

            No, a human fetus is a human.

            Even your fellow pro aborts admit this.
            Why can’y you?
            Unless… can you find any evidence to back up your claim?
            An embryology text perhaps?
            Biology text?
            Peer reviewed and published paper by a renowned geneticist?
            A peer reviewed and published study?
            Anything?

            Oh that’s right… I forgot… you don’t need science that disagrees with you… you’ve got your feeeeelings….

            I’d take the advice from your camp if I were you… you lose ground when you don’t admit the truth..

            We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the “good guys” – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word “choice” is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases “products of conception” and “contents of the uterus,” or exchange the word “pregnancy” for the word “fetus.” I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong… It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening —Dr. Judith Arcana, abortionist : “Feminist Politics and Abortion in the US” Pro-Choice Forum (Psychology and Reproductive Choice) Sponsored by The Society for the Psychology of Women.

            Forgive me if I take her word over yours

          • ReformedWingNut

            You seem like a black-and-white tinker, so it would probably be a waste of time to explain it to you. Also, your request for “Scientific evidence” is nonsensical because I’m making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one (as I already stated once quite clearly). The evidence you provided isn’t scientific evidence, either. It’s editorial commentary from a science textbook (not experimental data, etc.). If can provide me with scientific evidence that a 24-week fetus is capable of forming opinions and making moral choices, the way a fully developed human could do, maybe I’ll change MY opinion.

          • If can provide me with scientific evidence that a 24-week fetus is capable of forming opinions and making moral choices, the way a fully developed human could do, maybe I’ll change MY opinion.

            Is a toddler not “a fully developed human” either?

          • PJ4

            You seem like a black-and-white tinker, so it would probably be a waste of time to explain it to you.

            Meh, you seem like a condescending, pretentious nimrod trying to pass yourself off as a clairvoyant now.
            Good one.

            Also, your request for “Scientific evidence” is nonsensical because I’m making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one (as I already stated once quite clearly).

            Translation: You got nothing.
            I figured. Thank you for proving me right. Much appreciated.

            The evidence you provided isn’t scientific evidence, either. It’s editorial commentary from a science textbook (not experimental data, etc.).

            Um… I didn’t provide you with any evidence… just an opinion of one of your fellow pro aborts. She’s also an abortionist, so I thought perhaps her words would mean more to you than mine.

            editorial commentary? Oh… you mean scientific observation that disagrees with your opinion. Of course.

            If can provide me with scientific evidence that a 24-week fetus is capable of forming opinions and making moral choices, the way a fully developed human could do, maybe I’ll change MY opinion.

            Oooooh I see… you’re one of the crazy left wing fringe that believes as Peter Singer does, that children up to age 5 can me terminated

            Yes, that explains everything about you.
            Reformed wingnut, indeed.

          • PJ4

            I’m willing to think about changing my position if you can provide scientific evidence for your claim.

            Let me start you off, from Developmental Biology. 6th edition

            Chapter 2Life cycles and the evolution of developmental patterns

            Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965)pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. —Dr Scott Gilbert

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10044/

            and

            Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual –Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).

            “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place. —Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

            *note how they never say potential.

            Your turn.

        • PJ4

          I know who you are! You wrote this, didn’t you?
          http://www.returnofkings.com/16089/how-to-convince-a-girl-to-get-an-abortion

          Bet you also wrote The 10 Slut Commandments.

          Any man in favor of abortion is a coward.

          You are a horrible weak man who needs abortion to abandon your responsibilities.

          We women do not need abortion.. and if you think anything on that left wing nut job pro abortion fringe blog Jezebel is anything but liberal tripe then you are sorely mistaken.

          You are not a man. You are boy.

          We do not need to kill our children to be equal to men.
          And it doesn’t matter how many times you refer to abortion as not killing a person. It still won’t be true.

          You will never convince me and many other strong independent women that my child was not my child just because he was in my womb.

          • ReformedWingNut

            Not only did I not write that article, I had never heard of it until you posted it. Maybe you wrote it in order to defame the pro-choice side; it doesn’t represent the views of any abortion rights activist I’ve ever met.
            Few, if any, people who support legalized abortion have any interest in persuading someone to get one. People who support reproductive rights respect women enough to trust them with whichever decision they make, whether it be abortion or motherhood.
            Your anecdotal evidence is essentially meaningless, but it’s the typical ploy of those who positions aren’t supported by empirical evidence.

          • those who positions aren’t supported by empirical evidence.

            Says the guy babbling nonsense about “pre-humans”…..

          • PJ4

            hahahahaha! yes!
            I think he thinks fetuses are homo erectus…

            LOVE IT

          • PJ4

            What do you think your little “study” was based on other than anecdotal material.

            You have nothing to refute my evidence that legalized abortion helps abusers.

            People who support reproductive rights respect women enough to trust them with whichever decision they make, whether it be abortion or motherhood.

            Bumper sticker lines… that’s all any pro abort ever has.
            *Sigh*

            I’m sorry… but if I want to prevent rape, I’m not going to say “trust men to make the right decision”.
            Same thing goes for abortion. If a women decides to kill her child while he/she is in his/her weakest state, then she cannot be trusted.

            Abortion=might makes right.
            It’s what you people stand for.
            It’s sick.

          • Basset_Hound

            Really? Then you haven’t heard of Tucker Max or several of the posters on Return of Kings. One blogger even whined that the abortion restrictions passed in Texas would “interfere with his sex life”.

            http://liveactionnews.org/pro-choice-writer-texas-abortion-restrictions-will-make-casual-sex-outside-of-relationships-becomes-far-more-difficult/

          • Basset_Hound

            Too bad the 10 Slut Commandments disappeared. It was worth it’s weight in gold whenever someone claimed that pro-choice was the position that shows “empathy towards women”.

        • Eponymous1

          What makes abortion not “killing a person?”

          If it’s not alive, why does someone need to “terminate” him or her with a knife?

          If it’s not human, what species is it?

          If it IS alive and human, why is it not a person?

          Bonus question: Do you go to jezebel for all your “scientific studies?”

        • I merely pointed out that in this case, SCOTUS made the right call (which should be obvious to any “independent thinker” well-versed in the RFRA and the relevant constitutional concepts). That doesn’t at all say they’re always right; in fact, Roe is so indefensible that even honest pro-choice scholars admit it: http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wade/article/1080661

          I’m guessing you haven’t bothered to discuss women’s rights with many women.

          Heh. If that’s what you need to believe to sustain your prejudices, then you go right ahead. Apparently that’s all the rage with “independent thinkers” these days.

          And it doesn’t matter how many times you refer to abortion as killing a person. It still won’t be true.

          My saying it isn’t what makes it true. Being factually literate is what makes it true. Try it sometime.

        • Cynical_Meliorist

          “You were quick to praise the Supreme Court. Have you forgotten that it was the Supreme Court that declared abortion a Constitutional Right, not once, but twice: in 1973 and again in 1992?”

          Most likely, it’s because giving credit where it’s due, and assigning blame where it’s due, are not complicated or somehow mutually exclusive. They can make both good and bad judgments, and each case should be examined that way. Unless you believe that if they did one really good job, that *all* of their cases must also be good decisions, which is highly unlikely.

          “I’m guessing you haven’t bothered to discuss women’s rights with many women. A lack of access to abortion not only traps many women in poverty, it often traps them with abusive men.”

          Since the pro-life side of the debate is a majority of women, it’s unlikely this was bypassed. To counter, there are articles on this site which also state that abortion is used to cover up crimes such as rape, incest, and that women are coerced into having an abortion as a result of said abusive boyfriends. The pendulum can, and likely does, swing both ways. Lacking abortion services, however, isn’t the overriding reason people remain in poverty or anything else you’ve claimed. Access to proper education, socioeconomic conditions in any given area, and a multitude of other items are what constitute the perpetuation of poverty. It’s intellectually dishonest, and incorrect, to try and lay all of the problems on one specific issue. Also, Jezebel isn’t exactly the best source either, but we can let it slide for now.

          “And it doesn’t matter how many times you refer to abortion as killing a person. It still won’t be true.”

          So, you have empirical evidence of this fact, or is this just an argument from personal incredulity? I’m curious to see any proof you have, since literally every biology, embryology, and scientific body has recognized that human life begins at conception…a new, genetically unique human person. Is there a qualification you have which somehow we’ve missed?

    • PJ4

      Abortion access helps absusive men, rapists and pedohpiles
      That hands-off approach also makes it easier for physically abusive men to intimidate their partners into an abortion they don’t want.

      From my friend Adam:

      And what are you doing to stop pro-abortion violence? After all, your side has racked up quite a body count.

      Joseph Minard used a homemade bomb to murder his pregnant girlfriend, Deana Mitts, after she refused his demands to have an abortion. Also killed in the blast was her three year-old daughter. http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2
      Shamari Jenkins was shot to death death after she refused to exercise her “right to choose.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new
      So was Hawa Gabbidon. https://www.lifesitenews.com/n
      I guess Tanner Hopkins wasn’t as good of a marksman: he fired a semiautomatic pistol into his girlfriend’s car at close range but didn’t manage to kill her or their child. http://www.whio.com//news/news
      Tasha Rossett’s boyfriend liked to use a knife for family planning; the pregnant 23 year-old woman was found dead with a slashed throat after she argued against aborting their child. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/

      Alex Santana took the same approached when he stabbed his girlfriend,

      Leah Diver, after she expressed some reluctance about going to the clinic. http://www.boston.com/news/loc
      Michael Panagapko seems to have been another blade man–he attacked Faye Arellano as she peacefully attended a pro-life demonstration. https://www.lifesitenews.com/n

      Nathanael Plourde decided to bury his problems when he stuffed his pregnant girlfriend, Roxanne Fernando, under a snowbank. Beating her to death first probably made doing that a lot easier. http://www.canada.com/cityguid

      20 year-old Christian Ferdinand wasn’t pleased when the 14 year-old he had been abusing announced that she was pregnant. After young Shaniesha Forbes declared that she wouldn’t be having an abortion, Mr. Ferdinand decided to smother her with a blanket and then set her body on fire. http://www.nydailynews.com/new

      It’s not surprising that abortion is an attractive option for abusers. After, a trip to the clinic is a hell of a lot cheaper than child support. Keep in mind, cases like the ones above are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg–there’s no telling how many women have succumbed to threats and aborted children that they desperately wanted to keep. And, by making abortion a no-questions-asked procedure, people like you are helping that coercion to take place. Happy?

      Abortion is equal to rape. Yes, I said it.
      Get over it.
      Yes, I’m a woman and mother of 5 (2 I adopted from women I took into my own home and helped take of during their crisis pregnancies) and I’m here to tell you that men who are in favor of abortion are abusers
      You support pedophiles and rapists if you support abortion.
      I have more real stories of male abusers using legal abortion to coerce women into killing their babies… if it amuses you as I’m sure it does.

      Go read a book on embryology and seek help for your abusive and repressive ways.

    • Nordog6561

      Hey, you’re a nut.

      Refusing to pay for someone’s chemical castration supplies is not to make war on them.

      You’re not reformed. You’re still a wing nut, just a Left wing nut.

      • ReformedWingNut

        Such insightful comments! You’re really smart. (Snicker, snicker.)

        • Nordog6561

          The obsession with Leftists with who’s smart and who’s not is pathological. Funny, but pathological.

          To the Leftist it’s not the true that is important, only the claim of “smart”. Not even being actually smart, just the claim, and by extension the denial of someone else’s being smart.

          You are all like spoiled children.

          • ReformedWingNut

            Would you like to know what I find funny about you? That you so quickly revealed your hatred of women by calling birth control “chemical castration.”
            (Are you aware that Hobby Lobby pays for vasectomies for men? Because that’s a lot closer to castration.)

          • Nordog6561

            Like I said: Spoiled children.

            You’re just one of those bigot Leftist projecting your own wicked bigotry on to others.

            Let me guess, you’re the one that said, “Get out of my bedroom! Hey, wait, leave your wallet!”

            Pay for your own sterile sex supplies you freakin’ creep.

          • PJ4

            And let’s hope they start covering RISUG :-)
            100% effective birth control

          • Nordog6561

            Are you still talking to me?

          • PJ4

            LOL, why wouldn’t I be?

          • Nordog6561

            Hey, I saw all those up-votes you gave to your friend I was fighting with.

            ;-)

          • PJ4

            Oh…haha… yes, well… you’re argument with CM, is your argument.
            I hate internal fights.
            :-)

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            I did tell him before people hated that, but he didn’t believe me. Figured that was worth mentioning. Poor lost puppy looks glad that you’re still talking to him though! :)

          • PJ4

            Why is it hateful towards women that he referred to birth contra as chemical castration?
            What part of that comment says I hate women??

            I mean I would think that the real women haters are the people who think that the natural bodily function of women is so defective that they need to take a pill in order to make themselves equal to me.
            Or that women are so weak that we cannot afford our own chemical castrations and need government hand outs in order to enjoy our sex lives better.

            (if you can’t take the hint.. I’m taking about you)

  • Bobloblaw67

    Walker isnt good enough for the purists. I hope some idiot with a prolife blog doesnt sink Walker because Walker isnt 100% good enough

    • If he loses against a left-wing plagiarist with no serious experience in elected office, it’ll be entirely due to his own ineptness. Nowhere did I say pro-lifers shouldn’t vote for him; despite my frustration with him, I would if I were still a Wisconsin resident.

      But I’m not going to look the other way at screw-ups of this magnitude just because some people are too impatient for principle.

    • Basset_Hound

      But why the hell do we have to accept someone who is soft on the social issues because it’s “cool” or the way we “reach out”? What ever happened to LEADERSHIP and PERSUASION.

      I was proud of Scott Walker for standing up to the teacher’s unions and insisting on some sort of fiscal responsibility in Wisconsin. I’m sorely disappointed that he’s turned in to such a weasel.

      • Thomas

        Tell me about it! I had high hopes for Illinois to be annexed by Wisconsin and it seemed like a good solution to our union-loving democrats “leadership” but now I’m having serious doubts given Walker’s waltzing with the wolves :)

      • Cynical_Meliorist

        Wanted to interject here for a moment.

        If you’re asking what happened to leadership, look no further than who we, as an electorate, put into office (or even consider for it). If you really look closely at most of them, I believe you might see what I (think I) see.

        Not a desire to lead, but a desire to govern. To dictate. To rule over. By hook and by crook, slowly we’ve replaced statesmen and leaders over time with those who simply are nothing more than people with a great deal of power, but who have a middle management ideology. We(as a people) elect community organizers with no leadership, governing, or real experience to the highest office in the land. It shouldn’t come as any surprise when they delegate their issues out like middle management. They lead from behind, but call it “leadership” only because they have the position to actually tell someone else what to do, and use it to that effect whenever it furthers their agenda. They use their position as a bludgeon, only because the weight of such a position exists.

        • Basset_Hound

          Look how many good candidates who would have been aggressive in articulating conservative positions get torpedoed by the “establishment”. They cut Cucc off at the knees by shutting off his money supply and leaving him to twist in the wind. Then there were the last minute robo-calls in Mississippi. Disgusting tactics.

          Then they always put forth the argument that we can’t get everything we want, so we have to “compromise” and go with somebody who’s “electable”. We’re treated like the crazy relatives in the GOP and told “send us your money, then fluck off”.

  • Shootist

    Like Gay Marriage and the RKBA, abortion is a done deal. Let’s all get together and end something really important: The Corporate Welfare Surveillance State.

    • PJ4

      Like banning gay marriage, allowing abortion is a civil rights violation
      Let’s ensure everyone get’s equal treatment, even babies in the womb..I mean what if women started aborting their babies because they knew he/she would be born gay?
      I’d consider that a hate crime.

    • Eponymous1

      The slaughter of 55 million Americans in 40 years isn’t of sufficient import?

      • Shootist

        Right. And? Have you a Constitutional Amendment ready for 2/3 of both houses and 3/5 of the States?

        • Either drop the subject or enact a federal constitutional amendment? Nice false choice you got there.

          • Shootist

            Pretty much. SC isn’t going to come to anyone’s aid, and Congress cannot, given Roe.

          • So your position is that the other branches of government simply have to cower in acquiescence to SCOTUS? Let me know how that works out for your against the “Corporate Welfare Surveillance State.”

          • Shootist

            no one can overrule the SC except the people in the form of a constitutional amendment.

          • Wrong. The Constitution gives each branch a coequal duty to uphold and apply the Constitution as best they understand it. To that end, Congress has numerous options short of a national amendment. It can actually fight on the various aspects of abortion Roe hasn’t specifically disenfranchised us on yet. It can pass a bill like HR 1091, the Life at Conception Act, which calls Roe’s bluff by seizing on its admission that “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” It can use its power under Art. III, Sec. 2 to limit the courts’ jurisdiction. It can impeach judges who abuse the Constitution. It can refuse to abide by the most blatantly unconstitutional rulings and submit it to the people to decide who’s being more faithful to the Constitution. And politicians can use their bully pulpits to move public opinion in the right direction.

          • Shootist

            no. you are wrong. the court has so ruled, 200 years ago. the sc is the sole arbiter. don’t like it? fine. Amend the founding document.

          • Hint: the fact that you’re only repeating the same simplistic one-liners over and over again, instead of mustering an informed response to what’s being explained to you, should be a wake-up call.

          • Shootist

            john marshall chief justice look it up.

          • I see we’ve reached the “incoherent babbling” phase of the discussion……

    • Griffonn

      You wish.

      • Shootist

        I have no such wish. Just a realist.

        • Griffonn

          I have no such wish. Just a realist ideologue.

          FIFY

          • Shootist

            yes. i am a libertarian conservative that doesn’t like corporate welfare, government surveillance of its citizens, TSA, DHS and an entire HOST of ills brought directly to my household by democrats and GOP-e alike.

          • Griffonn

            And apparently you don’t like representative government, either.

            You want us to turn SCOTUS into rule from on high.

          • Shootist

            what are you babbling about? sc is 1/3 of the government. and can tell the other 2/3 to pound sand. Nothing new, SC has been doing that since 1801

          • Griffonn

            Yes, and we have been overturning the Supreme Court ever since we realized they got slavery wrong.

          • Shootist

            no. we passed 3 constitutional amendments, not because the SC got Slavery wrong, but because the Constitution was wrong.

            You don’t like the political hand you’ve been dealt? Amend the Constitution, don’t start acting like Progressives.

          • Griffonn

            How do you know we won’t?

            You’re the one acting like a progressive, with your “resistance is futile, you will be assimilated” garbage.

          • Shootist

            I don’t. If I were a member of Congress or State Legislature, I’d vote for the measure. I’d vote for any number of measures. I am not in opposition to you, I just believe your wasting time, money and effort on something with little to no chance of succeeding.

          • The implication that the Constitution treats slavery as it does because the Framers just didn’t know any better is more Progressive than anything we’ve said here. They knew it was a massive violation of the Declaration of Independence’s principles, but their hands were tied by the pro-slavery votes necessary to ratify it. So they did as much as they could to put it on the path to extinction (providing for abolition of the slave trade in 1808, never referring to slaves as anything other than “persons,” only letting slave states count 3/5 of their slave populations toward House representation, proclaiming universal human equality & liberty). Certainly all those things did their part in the long war against slavery. It would be a oversimplification to predict slavery’s peaceful abolition in the absence of the Dred Scott ruling, but Dred Scott most certainly WAS “the SC getting Slavery wrong.”

            And speaking of slavery, the denial of blacks’ basic liberties, and then their full civil rights, survived in this country for a lot longer than the four decades Roe v. Wade’s been in effect. By your standard, slavery and segregation would have been surrendered to as “done deals” long before we finally got rid of them.

          • Shootist

            read the frickin’ Constitution, Slavery is spelled out.

          • I have. You, meanwhile, seem to have only skimmed it at best.

          • Shootist

            the Constitution allows slavery because that was the only way to unite the 13 colonies. don’t twist my words.

          • Which is what I said, genius. Not bothering to even read the comments you’re responding to doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in your grasp of the Constitution.

          • It’s always curious to see self-proclaimed libertarians who apparently think the basic liberty of unborn human beings not to be killed doesn’t matter all that much, as well as conservatives who fail to see the importance of conserving marriage as a societal pillar.

          • Shootist

            only because it is a done deal (SC has ruled) and a wedge issue designed by the Establishment, so that they can keep your eye off the ball.

          • Yes, because why else would anybody care about the mass killing of our own young? It must be orchestrated by the Establishment boogeyman!

          • Shootist

            yawn. old tired arguments are just that. old. tired.

          • Sneer about what you can’t refute. Gotta love libertarians.

          • john lind

            Please don’t lump us all together. There are lots of us (libertarians) who understand that abortion is a heinous violation of the non aggression principle, and that government has an absolute duty to protect prenatal life from aggression.

            Anectotally, I also think that pro life libertarians are more likely to find the so called rape/incest exception much more abhorrent than our conservative bretheren.

          • Cynical_Meliorist

            Or ghouls. Don’t forget ghouls. That term is going around now too. If there are boogeymen, there must also be ghouls. :)

    • What they said. And gay marriage a done deal? The facts don’t fit your wishful thinking: http://www.michaelmedved.com/column/new-figures-show-gay-marriage-tidal-wave-trickle/

      • Shootist

        SC isn’t going to unmarry the thousands who have had gay nuptials. To think so is wishful at best, self destructive at worse.

        Better to try and work with the liberals, libertarians and conservatives against the Establishment and the Corporate Welfare Surveillance Stare.

        • Never said anything about that. Besides, that’d probably run up against an ex post facto issue anyway. Still doesn’t mean redefining marriage for everyone else is in any way a “done deal.”

          I’m sorry the rest of the conservative movement is interested in principles and causes beyond your own pet issues, but the world doesn’t revolve around you and your personal priorities.

          • Shootist

            no it doesn’t. but as the right continues to fail at the ballot box and the corporate welfare surveillance state continues to take its toll on our liberties . . . remember.

          • There’s no good reason to conclude social issues are the reason conservatives fail at the ballot box. See the Cuccinelli article I linked in the main post and the Medved column I gave you. Same-sex marriage only ascends when the pro side is the only one visibly making the argument. Republican cowardice often creates its own self-fulfilling prophecies.

  • PJ4

    He’s a feminist… of course he does.

    Oh man… I’m so glad I’m not married to to a feminist.

    • Nordog6561

      Me too.

    • Nordog6561

      Years ago I almost married a pro-choice woman.

      Then one day it struck me like a thunderbolt that a man must be insane to marry a woman who insists she has the unfettered right to kill his children.

      • PJ4

        Wow!
        Talk about dodging a bullet!

  • Basset_Hound

    I’m shocked….SHOCKED…

    That the Dallas Cowboys beat Seattle on their home turf and are now 5-1.

    That Scott Walker turned into such a gutless lapdog to the establishment toadies….not so much

  • Ally

    This is really unfair. Scott Walker’s ad is exactly what I would expect from a pro-life politician running for office right now. It defeats the “War on Women” talking points by explaining how pro-life legislation – you know, those laws that have been dramatically reducing abortions across the country lately? – is common-sense and helps keep women, as well as their babies, safer. It clearly states that he will continue to support abortion regulations of the sort that Planned Parenthood and abortion supporters have been furiously opposing. That’s excellent. Those laws are the ones making a difference, unlike the Personhood amendments that you blame Cory Gardner for backing away from. Attempt to pass those amendments are a massive waste of money that could otherwise be used to actually save babies from abortion. Those amendments are illegal. They just are. Even if they were passed, they wouldn’t make it past a single judge. I’m extremely pro-life, but abolishing abortion in one fell swoop like that will not work – and in fact isn’t even legal. The only way we should be spending money is to save babies with boots on the ground, to pass legislation like the sort that Scott Walker is talking about, and to elect pro-life politicians so that eventually we will have a different makeup in the Supreme Court and Roe will be overturned. Until then, Personhood amendments are a waste of energy, and it doesn’t help to be so ideological as to be completely impractical. I’d also like to point out that while the author has bashed Mr. Gardner for supporting OTC birth control as well, the fact is that that is an excellent policy. I am Catholic, and I don’t support birth control. However, unlike abortion, there is no compelling reason to ever make it illegal. Republicans do well to support OTC birth control, to hopefully take all the wind out of the “War on Women” sails, to get elected, and to begin to dismantle big abortion. The Church, instead of bashing good policies like this, should instead work to teach its parishioners about the harmfulness of birth control so that Catholics stop buying it. I will never buy or take any, but there is no reason to make it illegal.

    • It defeats the “War on Women” talking points by explaining how pro-life legislation – you know, those laws that have been dramatically reducing abortions across the country lately? – is common-sense and helps keep women, as well as their babies, safer.

      Really? It “defeats” the talking points by conceding that it’s “ending a pregnancy” rather than killing a baby, that “leav[ing] the final decision to a woman and her doctor” is a good thing, and that “reasonable people” can support abortion-on-demand and oppose the bill? Walker didn’t defeat squat in this ad; he granted those talking points legitimacy!

      It clearly states that he will continue to support abortion regulations of the sort that Planned Parenthood and abortion supporters have been furiously opposing.

      What’s not so excellent is that (a) he didn’t go on offensive against Burke and PP for opposing those regulations — “reasonable people can disagree on this issue”; and (b) as I allude to in the article, Walker also abandoned two separate pieces of incrementalist pro-life legislation.

      Those laws are the ones making a difference, unlike the Personhood amendments that you blame Cory Gardner for backing away from.

      It would have been one thing if Gardner had said “I’m changing my mind because I think there’s a better pro-life strategy” and went on to actually fight for that strategy. But he didn’t. He dropped it by conceding to hysterical claims that it would ban everybody’s birth control, and has been scrambling to change the subject from abortion entirely ever since. Have you watched any of the interviews he’s given on this subject? He’s so shamelessly weaselly in them it makes you want to pull your hair out.

      Those amendments are illegal. They just are.

      Unjustly blocked by activist judges shamelessly abusive the Constitution is not the same as “illegal.”

      abolishing abortion in one fell swoop like that will not work – and in fact isn’t even legal.

      Nobody’s talking about abolishing it in one fell swoop.

      to pass legislation like the sort that Scott Walker is talking about

      But that’s just it: he’s not talking about it. He’s repeatedly made clear that the pro-life cause isn’t one of his major priorities, he’s changed the subject away from abortion by lamely claiming the Supreme Court settled it and even that Wisconsin women he talks to don’t care about abortion (!), and ever since the recall, he’s even told state GOP leaders he doesn’t want legislation on hot-button issues sent to his desk.

      to elect pro-life politicians so that eventually we will have a different makeup in the Supreme Court and Roe will be overturned.

      I see no reason to believe a sniveling worm like Gardner would be of much use in a fight to block a pro-abortion judicial nominee.

      it doesn’t help to be so ideological as to be completely impractical.

      I’m all for practical. I’m all for making sure the perfect doesn’t become the enemy of the good. But politicians abandoning incrementalist pro-life laws they have the votes to pass and running away from the subject every chance they get is a lot more severe than “imperfect.”

      I’d also like to point out that while the author has bashed Mr. Gardner for supporting OTC birth control as well, the fact is that that is an excellent policy. I am Catholic, and I don’t support birth control. However, unlike abortion, there is no compelling reason to ever make it illegal.

      I’m not opposed to making birth control generally OTC. But if you had bothered to check the link, you’d see my objection is that Gardner doesn’t distinguish between BC that prevents conception and BC that kills embryos. That’s a more than compelling reason, and the fact that Gardner ignores it suggests he’s interested not in fighting back against the War on Women, but hiding from it.

      • john lind

        “It would have been one thing if Gardner had said “I’m changing my mind because I think there’s a better pro-life strategy” and went on to actually fight for that strategy.”

        That’s the problem I have with Republicans who introduce pro life legislation that contains the rape/incest exception. They often seem to stop short of stating that the exception is a strategic, incremental move with the longer-term goal being to stop abortion in cases or rape/incest also.

        There is an implicit message that seems to say that “killing a baby conceived through rape/incest is a lesser evil than allowing the baby to live.”

        It’s not a lesser evil. It’s an unjust endorsement of legalized murder.

    • Basset_Hound

      “Republicans do well to support OTC birth control, to hopefully take all the wind out of the “War on Women” sails, to get elected, and to begin to dismantle big abortion.”

      Why? These are not ibuprofen type drugs or vitamins. These medications alter a woman’s body chemistry and MUST be taken to monitor for side effects and for drug interactions.

      • Griffonn

        Because you must do whatever The Left wants, otherwise they might criticize or ridicule?

        • Basset_Hound

          Or threaten or insult or throw fulminating hissy fits.

  • Josh Craddock

    Calvin, thank you for this very important article. It’s time for the pro-life movement to critically examine candidates who claim to be pro-life, but are really just electioneering. No more cover for do-nothing candidates. Just because a candidate is a Republican does NOT mean he/she is pro-life or will take a stand against abortion.

  • 4lifeandfreedom

    Scott Walker is in with the PC crowd, evidently. Our candidate for 2nd District Congressman in ME, Bruce Poliquin stated in a debate that he is “pro-life, except in cases of rape, incest and to save a life.” What a betrayal to this voter, to whom he had said he was a pro-life Catholic who believes that it is a child from the moment of conception and that he was pro-life, period!” Well, he also has a pro-abortion consultant, I believe, so was not careful by who surrounded him.
    Betrayal beyond comprehension for me.

    • Jim

      1. Walker is Baptist, his father is a baptist minister.
      2. Walker is always been pro-life.
      3. Abortion should not be an issue in state elections.

  • Jim

    Why are you all surprised that Walker is pro-life, he father is a Baptist Minister!!
    Abortion law is a Federal law! States, governors etc. cannot make laws banning abortions.
    The liberals are using abortion as a political issue in order to get the women’s vote.
    I don’t care whether a person is Pro-life or Pro-choice for my opinion it is nobody’s business.
    Walker has lowered my property taxes eliminated state tax on HSA accounts (Health savings Accounts) which saved me a lot of money.

  • Joel Brind

    I just found this article today, and it makes me regret my donation to Live Action for 2014. You would do well to study your Gospels, as I’m sure Scott Walker has done his whole life. In particular, you might consider Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” So when a reporter tries to snare him on record as trying to make abortion illegal in Wisconsin, Walker is wise enough to point out that that question is indeed irrelevant in the context of running for Governor, because SOTUS did indeed make it so politically. Do you seriously think he should have taken the bait? Perhaps he should have spoken of “legitimate rape”?

    • So one column by one contributor critical of one candidate is enough for you to dismiss a whole organization? We’re not here to carry water for any candidate, but we do have to critically analyze all of them — and as documented above, Walker has let pro-lifers down more than a couple times.

      He’s a leader. Leaders don’t jump at the first opportunity to change the subject, but take every opportunity to make the case for what’s important. The right thing to do when asked isn’t to pass the buck onto the courts. Instead he should have said, “I don’t have the power to make abortion illegal, but of course it should be, and the Supreme Court decision taking that decision away from the people and the elected branches of government was an unconstitutional and un-American disgrace.”

      “Legitimate rape” is a straw man. Nobody thinks he should have said anything of the kind, but c’mon. There’s a wide range of possible answers between that and just changing the subject. Like this, for instance: http://liveactionnews.org/behold-the-anti-akin-njs-jeff-bell-turns-the-tables-on-cory-booker-over-hard-case-abortions/

      • Joel Brind

        Your “f’rinstance” makes my case: Senator Bell lost in a landslide. Of course, that was predictable for many reasons. And it makes for a good platform to raise such issues in detail when one has no chance of winning the seat, but is rather using the campaign as a platform to educate the public.

        In Walker’s re-election campaign, to answer like Bell did would have turned him into a loser upon the instant. But he neither took the bait and fell into the trap, nor said he anything untrue.

        Now, re: my statement about your organization in response to your column: Your column was not just critical, it was vicious in its attacks on Walker. If you would be constructive in your criticism, you would not call people on our side “hacks” and “weasels”.

        In fact, take a hint from the last paragraph of your response to my comment. That was valid criticism, devoid of invective. One big trouble we prolifers have in winning elections is beating up on each other during the primary so that we are too wounded to win the general election.

        As Bill O’Reilly would say, you need to wise up!

        • No it doesn’t. Nobody thought Bell had much of a chance to begin with, for reasons entirely unrelated to abortion. I’m not saying a pro-life candidate has to discuss rape exceptions, or even campaign on a no-exceptions position, but Bell’s answer is an example of how much better those who do could make the case.

          As for my tone, you and I apparently have very different definitions of “vicious.” All the questions I pose are raised by Walker’s own record, which shows not an isolated incident or two, but a pattern.

          Too often pro-lifers let politicians get away with paying us a little lip service then being AWOL when it really counts. If we’re going to actually move the ball forward, we need to stop being water carriers for mediocrity.

          • Joel Brind

            That’s funny: Your objection to Walker was precisely his failure to pay lip service to the pro-life position. Instead, he justified–without making the standard pro-life arguments–his support for the pro-life legislation that could or did reach his desk as Governor. “When it really counts” is when the ball really can be moved forward, and Walker has done that. And btw, if you care to google Walker, you’ll find the following re: his position on abortion: “Walker has stated that he is “100% pro-life” and that he believes life should be protected from conception to natural death.[45] He opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.”
            So you see, Walker does not hide what he believes, but he is wise enough to follow yet another famous admonition from our Lord: (Mathhew 7:6) “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
            From everything I have seen and heard, Walker is the real pro-life Christian deal. I suggest you pay even closer attention to him: You may learn a lot from him.

          • Did you read the whole article? It’s about more than lip service. It’s about both the fact that his public statements on the campaign trail were absolutely useless and counterproductive to the pro-life cause AND the fact that on two of his most recent opportunities to “really move the ball forward” — the votes on AB216 and AB217 that GOP leaders abandoned, even though they had the votes to pass — Walker has not done that. He flat-out said he didn’t care about those bills.

            Also, don’t mistake the fact that I’m not starry-eyed over him for ignorance. I’m a Wisconsinite. I’ve been paying close attention to him since he was Milwaukee county executive. I grew up taking for granted that he was the gold standard for WI conservatives, and was thrilled when he became governor. When he took on the unions, I started dreaming of President Walker as much as anyone.

            But that’s when the rest of the country seems to have stopped paying attention. I didn’t. It’s clear that his experience with the Act 10 battle changed his approach to leadership for the worse. He said it himself: “We’re not going to do things that are going to bring 80,000 or 100,000 people into the Capitol.” Milquetoast has been his watchword ever since. For more, see:

            http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/winning-re-election-doesnt-mean-scott-walker-is-ready-for-2016/
            http://patriotupdate.com/articles/unintimidated-walker-conservatives-dont-know/
            http://liveactionnews.org/are-wisconsin-gop-leaders-chickening-out-on-pro-life-laws-too/
            http://liveactionnews.org/wisconsin-governments-pro-life-leadership-deficit-continues-to-worsen/

          • Joel Brind

            Thanks for those links, Calvin: Now there is some substantive criticism devoid of invective. From reading all these articles, it seems that these key pieces of pro-life legislation in WI were promised to be brought up again this year. Were they? Since Walker’s forces (assuming he’s in sync with the WI Senate majority) have promised that, it would be useful–if these bills are still in the proverbial twilight zone–to caution Walker that his chances of winning the GOP Presidential nomination would be surely put in jeopardy by failure to get these bills passed now: The dissatisfaction of WI pro-lifers would surely get to national pro-life leaders pretty fast and likely upset his apple cart.

            The other aspect of Walker’s actions that need to be watched carefully, in my view, follows from the political adage “Personnel is policy”. It is not a good idea to have, for example, someone who is not pro-life in charge of anything that bears on the implementation of pro-life policy. It brings to mind the fact that Kermit Gosnell’s gruesome human slaughterhouse was allowed to flourish illegally in Philadelphia for years, with the PA Health authorities continuously looking the other way, pro-death Governor Tom Ridge being at the top.