Politics

Sen. Kay Hutchinson: abortion too “personal, religious-based” to build a party on

For the past week, the right to life’s enemies have had a blast exploiting the Todd Akin affair to depict the Republican Party as extreme and insensitive, but the truth is that GOP gaffes on abortion are just as likely to be so pathetically conciliatory that they offend conservatives rather than liberals.

Over the weekend, retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas had this to say about where abortion belongs in the Republican pecking order:

“Mothers and daughters can disagree on abortion, and we shouldn’t put a party around an issue that is so personal and also, religious-based,” the retiring Republican senator said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think we need to say, ‘Here are our principles, and we welcome you as a Republican. We can disagree on any number of issues, but if you want to be a Republican, we welcome you.”

[…]

Despite what the platform says, Hutchison said abortion rights supporters feel welcome in the GOP. “A lot of people think the party platform is something that is rigid,” she said. “It’s not really.”

Hutchinson, who has a strong yet imperfect pro-life record, really ought to know better. The killing of another human being is not “personal” any more than Mr. Smith shooting Mr. Jones is a personal matter in which the government has no interest. Likewise, the sanctity of unborn life is “religious” only to the same extent that religious reasons make your or my life sacred; that we and the unborn are equally alive and human is a matter of cold, hard science, and the equality of all humans’ natural rights is a philosophical truth which dates back to the Enlightenment and formed the Declaration of Independence’s backbone.

If one misunderstands that, then one cannot help but misunderstand how a political party should prioritize abortion. It’s true that abortion per se shouldn’t be the center or foundation of a party – but the principles that make abortion wrong should. The equal worth of all human beings and their unalienable rights to their own lives, liberties, and property must be the basis of any just political organization, and it’s from those premises that pro-life conclusions about abortion flow.

A sound liberty platform isn’t uniquely fixated on abortion. Quite the opposite, in fact: it seeks to remind America that abortion isn’t unique from other assaults on human rights; it reminds us to restore the right to life’s place among all the other rights society already protects. Any history-minded Republican should understand this especially well, considering that the GOP was founded to do the exact same thing with slavery.

Granted, abortion is far from the only issue facing America, and coalition-building is a complicated art. It’s legitimate for Republicans to find authentic areas of common ground between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, but that’s a far cry from bending over backwards to court those who violate their party’s deepest principles.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Sparky

    Hey Calvin – hear that sucking sound? That’s Republican Party realizing the extreme Christian Right is no-longer an asset…

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      1.) “Extreme Christian Right” is not an accurate term for social conservatism.
      2.) Polling data and electoral history both show the conservative positions on life and marriage are still significant assets.
      3.) Murder will always be murder, regardless of how it polls.

  • Pingback: Sen. Kay Hutchinson: Abortion Too “Personal, Religious-Based” to Build a Party On

  • Pingback: Sen. Kay Hutchinson: Abortion Too “Personal, Religious-Based” to Build a Party … – Live Action News

  • P.D.

    that cold hard science link you provide appears to be more like propaganda than science… perhaps you don’t know the difference?

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Truly spoken like someone who didn’t even read what he’s complaining about.

      • P.D.

        sorry, i guess i just assumed when you said science you meant there were experiments, hypotheses and that the scientific method was used (you know, real science?). i didn’t know that by “cold, hard science” you meant a bunch of peoples’ opinions promoted on a propaganda website…my mistake. or was it yours?

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Wow. Your entire strategy seems to hinge on hoping that nobody reads what you’re falsely describing…..in any event, thank you for demonstrating the dangerous anti-intellectualism that animates so much of the pro-choice movement.

          • P.D.

            not my fault you can’t recognize propaganda when it’s staring you straight in the face…

          • P.D.

            oops, didn’t mean to double post (triple post now). sorry.

          • P.D.

            anti-intellectualism eh? you can’t even recognize propaganda when it’s staring you in the face. being a political science major apparently doesn’t give you the ability to know what science is…

  • Bastard of Young

    “the equality of all humans’ natural rights is a philosophical truth which dates back to the Enlightenment and formed the Declaration of Independence’s backbone.”

    If this is an argument against abortion, then wouldn’t it logically follow that I, as a human, should be able to use anybody’s body in whatever way I need in order to keep myself alive?

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      No. That’s asinine.

      • P.D.

        as is peddling propaganda as cold hard science (while pretending to hate demagoguery)