Timothy Birdnow

Here is a piece at Western Journalism about how the GOOP is making a huge mistake in their handling of abortion in Missouri.

The author here is wrong; Missouri is not a "deep red state" but rather a pink state with the GOP holding a supermajority. That is not because Missourians are ultra conservative (though many of us are) but because the state Democrats are so over-the-top and leaderless they haven't been able to offer any reason for Missourians to vote for them.

But the state GOP is RINO, not conservative, and while we have some great guys from here like Josh Hawley or Eric Schmidt we are also the state that gave America John Danforth and Roy Blunt. And we elected Claire McCaskill TWICE. I would also point out Corey Bush was from Missouri and she was a squad member.

Missourians recently approved a constitutional amendment enshring abortion and the state GOP, in a moment of backbone, wants to annul that vote.

Voters approved the amendment 51.6% to 48.4%.

The state legislature has introduced House Joint Resolution 73, which seeks to put abortion back on the ballot.

The House Republicans left in the weasel clauses, omitting "fetal anomalies" and exempting rape and incsts.

I get the author's complaint; he sees abortion (as do I) as murder plain and simple, and argues this will enshrien abortion into the Constitution. I get his problem here. But it is fruitless to tilt at windmills and overturning abortion in the state without those exemptions is impossible, meaning many more children will die simply because some people are determined to stand on principle and cut off their own noses to spite their faces.

A huge part of why Missourians voted for the amendment enshrining abortion into the constitituion in the first place was because the state GOP had been discussing banning abortion with no exceptions. Polls show clearly Missourians want certain situations exempted.

He doesn't like that and I get it. But if we can repeal abortion first, we can update the constitution later and eliminate the loopholes. But there is nothing to be gained by obstinacy.

Missouri Right to Life favors the bill, which should tell us it's the best we can do. They are not compromisers. (My mother was big in Missouri Right to Life when I was a kid, by the way.)

The author of this piece doesn't understand that the amendment that made abortion the law of the land passed by narrow margins in a wave election for the GOP, and going into an off-year election will likely fail as voters traditionally favor the party out of power - and their policies. It would be a much harder fight to get this out than to stop it last time. If we couldn't stop it during a wave of conservatism, how do we roll it back without that wave?

I get his viewpoint and largely share it; I'm not known as a great compromiser. I believe that we should LEAD, that in leading people will follow. The GOP for decades has not wanted to lead, but merely wetted a finger and poked it in the air. I've long argued for boldness in politics, that you get people on board by bold colors and not pastels. But this is an instance where I think slow and steady wins the race. I've disagreed with many Conservatives over this idea we should eliminate abortion quickly and decisively because I am pretty certain this will only lead to a backlash. The abortionists had 52 years to win the hearts and minds of Americans; we should at least be willing to take a few years to win them back. I know children are dying, but losing out on restrictions because we go for the whole enchilada will only lead to more children dying needlessly. It's rather like Zelensky being unwilling to negotiate a settlement in Ukraine; he could wind up president of an empty country. Obstinacy can be quite foolish sometimes.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.