Romney's going to take a hit on this one, but I think he's right to stand where he is. According to Fox, he's decided NOT to sign a Susan B. Anthony list pledge. You'd think that would be odd for him, since he's already got a reputation as a waffler on the abortion issue. Conservatives are having a hard time believing his late conversion to purity on the issue (he maintains he's always been privately pro-life, but because of a family situation decided not to oppose the pro-choice camp), and make no mistake, the Conservatives which require strict purity on this matter are numerous enough to decide his nomination. But this organization, named after the famously pro-life suffragette, is pushing more than purity, it's pushing pro-activity on a scale a president should never tie himself down to.
Now to a pro-life supporter like me, the pledge sounds reasonable enough when it comes to appointing Originalist judges with a philosophy of judicial restraint, and even when it asks for promotion of legislation to remove tax-payer funding for abortion (which is already the law, if I'm not mistaken, but because money is a fungible commodity, accounting methods can get around any current abortion pay-wall), but when it requires the president to restrict himself voluntarily to choosing a purely pro-life cabinet, I think it goes too far.
Under the same principle that the First Amendment addresses, I think it's wrong-headed methodology to require a litmus test on beliefs before service in tee government can be allowed. Of course, I'd like everyone to agree with me that elective abortion is a surgery that should never be performed, but agreement has to be earned by persuasion, by logic, by the free exercise of conscience. This pledge would amount to government force on a matter of thought. Now this is not to say a president shouldn't surround himself with like-minded people, because unity of purpose is necessary in an administration, but I think opinions on abortion are enough of a matter of personal conscience that they should never rise to the level of the sina qua non of government service. Now in the Health and Human Services department, opinions on abortion become germane, but I would expect any other cabinet member to do the best job possible in their position no matter what their abortion feelings are, and then to back the president up in his legislative initiatives even if they don't match the secretary's personal feelings. Can we not expect that kind of professionalism from the highest levels of our government?
In any case, if the Democrats were to sign pledges requiring a president to choose only pro-choice cabinet members, I think the Conservative movement as a whole would cry foul.
Now to a pro-life supporter like me, the pledge sounds reasonable enough when it comes to appointing Originalist judges with a philosophy of judicial restraint, and even when it asks for promotion of legislation to remove tax-payer funding for abortion (which is already the law, if I'm not mistaken, but because money is a fungible commodity, accounting methods can get around any current abortion pay-wall), but when it requires the president to restrict himself voluntarily to choosing a purely pro-life cabinet, I think it goes too far.
Under the same principle that the First Amendment addresses, I think it's wrong-headed methodology to require a litmus test on beliefs before service in tee government can be allowed. Of course, I'd like everyone to agree with me that elective abortion is a surgery that should never be performed, but agreement has to be earned by persuasion, by logic, by the free exercise of conscience. This pledge would amount to government force on a matter of thought. Now this is not to say a president shouldn't surround himself with like-minded people, because unity of purpose is necessary in an administration, but I think opinions on abortion are enough of a matter of personal conscience that they should never rise to the level of the sina qua non of government service. Now in the Health and Human Services department, opinions on abortion become germane, but I would expect any other cabinet member to do the best job possible in their position no matter what their abortion feelings are, and then to back the president up in his legislative initiatives even if they don't match the secretary's personal feelings. Can we not expect that kind of professionalism from the highest levels of our government?
In any case, if the Democrats were to sign pledges requiring a president to choose only pro-choice cabinet members, I think the Conservative movement as a whole would cry foul.
Comments