Pages

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Mitch Daniels wants a "truce" on abortion

Pro-life leaders are not happy about a recent statement by Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, who is widely considered to be on the short list for the GOP presidential candidacy in 2012. The statement was made in an interview that the Weekly Standard published on Tuesday:
Daniels told the conservative publication the next president "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues."

"We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while," by casting social issues like abortion aside so the next president can focus on fixing the beleaguered economy.

Expecting a backlash if the remarks weren't explained further, Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack followed up with the governor. He asked Daniels if his remarks meant the next president shouldn't try to stop the abortion funding in the Obama health care law or put the Mexico City Policy back in place to stop international abortion funding.

Daniels said the United States faces a "genuine national emergency" concerning the economy, budget and national debt and that "maybe these things could be set aside for a while."
Can you imagine the mainstream media outcry that would have occurred if Daniels had proposed ignoring, say, human trafficking or domestic abuse? Social issues don't stop being important when the economy goes bad. Kristan Hawkins wrote an excellent response, which is worth reading in full. The central point:
Governor Daniels, you are correct when you say that we face a “genuine national emergency.” Our age group – the 18-25 year-olds, have had 1/3 of our generation aborted. 1/3 of our peers, our friends, our siblings, and our cousins are dead. It is now our children’s generation – our peers who are aborting their own children at the rate of 1.3 million per year. That, Governor Daniels, is a national emergency.
I agree wholeheartedly. I would also add that if pro-lifers were to shut up until the economy improves, it would give pro-abortion lawmakers a perverse incentive to delay economic recovery--discreetly and with plausible deniability, of course.

No comments: