Thursday Sep 04, 2008

Koch's Comments: The right to abortion

Posted by Ed Koch
Comments: 72
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

For those interested, I will be making my choice for president public next week.  The candidates, we now know, are Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the Democrats and John McCain and Sarah Palin for the Republicans. My choice will be made next week, so nothing I write here should be perceived as an endorsement of either ticket.

The newly announced vice presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, is at this point the only unknown personality. If McCain wins the election on November 4th, his choice of Palin will be praised as a stroke of genius. However, if he loses, he will be viewed as a dope who shot himself in the foot by selecting Palin and assured his own defeat.

Palin has so far come across as an extraordinary woman whose political experience includes serving as a mayor of an Alaska town and governor of Alaska. She is a reformer who has proven to be a tough negotiator with Big Oil, pushing for both more taxes on oil companies and more drilling. Her husband is a member of the steel workers union and her son has joined the US Army. She is an opponent of the right to choose an abortion, including in cases of incest and rape, and she is a hunter.

McCain selected Palin from a short list that included Mitt Romney, Joe Lieberman and several Republican governors. He clearly thought she added to the strength of his ticket by dealing with the age issue in the event he might meet misfortune and require replacement, as well as the gender issue by putting a woman on a national ticket which the Democrats and their leader, Barack Obama, chose not to do.

Over the Labor Day weekend, I asked many people, including many women and men who are self-described progressive Democrats whether those who are unhappy or even angry that Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries and then rejected her as his vice presidential candidate, would cross party lines to show their dissatisfaction and support the Republican ticket. The answer, without exception, was a resounding no. Not one woman and not one self-identified progressive male told me they would cross over to the Republican ticket because of this or any other issue. My unrefined poll took place in a assisted living residence that I was visiting. Be assured that I was not there to test the facilities.

I have read in the press that there is one large group of women and men who are enthralled by Palin's support of the right-to-life movement demonstrated by her qualified support of the Republican platform on the issue of abortion which reads, "....we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life." I believe that both Palin and McCain support an exception to protect the life of the mother.

Palin's position on abortion will likely add to the evangelical turnout. Obama's position on the Democratic ticket will undoubtedly cause a far greater turnout of minorities than usual, particularly of African-Americans, and the Republicans hope to offset that additional turnout by the evangelicals inspired by Sarah Palin's presence on the ticket. We shall soon know.

The Constitutional right of abortion is dependent on the US Supreme Court which continues to support that right by a 5 to 4 vote in decision after decision. The Supreme Court membership is aging, and at least two vacancies are expected to be filled in the next presidential term. That one-vote majority can become a majority supporting the end of the right to an abortion in the first and second trimesters. Abortion in the third trimester has already been limited by Supreme Court decision.

I predict that the outcome of the presidential election will depend not on the economy, not on the Iraq war, not on the price of gasoline or the issue of national health insurance, but on the issue of the right to abortion. The next president will make the appointments to the US Supreme Court. John McCain has pledged to appoint Justices who support the right-to-life concept. Barack Obama has made clear he will only appoint Justices who will protect the right of choice for those choosing an abortion.

Several commentators have raised the question of whether the right-to-life organizations and supporters of the decision of the 17-year-old daughter of Governor Palin to have her child would have rallied to the defense of Chelsea Clinton had she become pregnant while living with her parents at the White House and not yet married. On Labor Day, Jeff Greenfield on CBS-TV posed the following question: "The one question that occurs to me is if 17-year-old Chelsea Clinton had become pregnant while living in the White House, would the reaction on the part of the Family Research Council and other very conservative Republicans been the same? Maybe it would have been, but it's a question worth asking."

The answer, I believe, would have been dependent on her decision - whether to abort or carry to term. If the decision were similar to that of Governor Palin's daughter, I believe supporters of the right to life would have cheered, especially if marriage would have followed. Had the decision been to abort, denunciations would have emanated from those same forces. 

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |  Dave, Thursday Sep 04, 2008
Ed, you should consider the implications of Palin's belief's further. As a New Yorker, I can't imagine raising a severely ill child on what my two income household earns. I also can't imagine using the state's resources to raise the child, as they are barely sufficient for healthy children. These arguments go beyond the religious, but also must be considered. I simply don't have the resources to give to a child with such special needs. Maybe Palin does, but she can't force her ideals upon me, which is what she aims to do.
2  |  Stacey, Odesa, Sunday Sep 07, 2008
There are more pressing problems in USA, than the right to abortion. It is sad, that americans would choose their next president on the basis of this issue.
3  |  Judy, nyc, Sunday Sep 07, 2008
we should not be joining the frenzy of the anti-palin media mob considering how dangerous obama. sunday online nytimes features a big front page picture of gaza "youth" and an article to convey that these fanatical miscreants are just like us. obama's ties to muslims, including backer khalid mansour who funds the isna, and its president ingrid mattleson, an islamic fascist whose website calls for the murder of jews, is also tied to the fanatic muslim brotherhood. jew hater ingrid was an invited speaker at the democratic convention. a life long democratic voter, i vote mccain-palin.
4  |  Elliot Eisenberg, Ann Arbor, Sunday Sep 07, 2008
Your premise has some merit, but is faulty. True, many Americans have strong feelings about abortion. However, the comparison of tax policies (Obama's would cripple the economy), national defense (gutting the military as Europeans have done vs maintaining it), foreign affairs (facing up to Iran, Russia, Venezuela vs meeting unconditionally with their leaders), and education (school unions vs school choice) are also important. It is unlikely that the 90% of blacks who will vote for Obama care one way or another re his views on abortion.
5  |  Pete Eriksen, Monday Sep 08, 2008
Ed Koch should note what EFRAT said about "the decision of the 17-year-old daughter of Governor Palin to have her child ".. http://www.efrat.org.il/en/page_sub.asp?topic2_id=483&topic_id=308 "EFRAT commends Bristol for her brave decision. Although it may not be easy for her, Bristol is making the right choice for herself and for her unborn child."
6  |  Brian, Bangkok, Monday Sep 08, 2008
For an industrialized nation, America sure has a funny way of choosing policy. You'd think science and reason would dictate national policy, not unfounded religious (reps) and personal whims (dems). If you put the abortion question up against science and reason you'd get only one answer - same goes for America's wars, her energy policy, education, crime, etc. Since America is so irrational and uneducated when choosing 'policy' I believe this article and its entire premise is irrelevant.
7  |  David Katcoff, Jericho, Vt, Monday Sep 08, 2008
Why are so many Christians so passionate against abortion, when in fact there is nothing in the Bible which refers to abortion? Perhaps it's because:the Christian Bible is the story of a mortal woman who gives birth to a deity, who is then unjustly killed. Thus, in an allegorical sense, abortion is a kind of crucifixtion. It helps if Jews can understand why Christians feel the way they do, while Chritians respect the civil liberties of others.
8  |  Mitchell Kaplan, Pittsburgh, PA, Monday Sep 08, 2008
You're right, Mayor Koch: The abortion issue will be determinative for many voters -- particularly liberal women and fundamentalist Christians. However, your statement about former Hillary supporters is not consistent with my experience. I worked hard for Hillary during the primary, in several states. What I witnessed about the way Obama and the Democratic Party handled this primary -- from the Texas caucuses to the Rules Committee meeting, via innumerable injustices -- was infuriating. I and many others like me find it very difficult to support the Democratic ticket this time around.
9  |  Renny, Israel, Monday Sep 08, 2008
I just read your blog Mr. Koch and I cannot believe that in the 21st century the right to life still exists. Not to allow abortion when rape or incest is the cause is disgraceful and I hope that people in America will go and vote, more than 50% this time as it is crucial that judges sitting in the High Court will respect people's right to choose. Anything else is dictatorship and not democracy.
10  |  charles soper, Monday Sep 08, 2008
The right to abortion is the right to kill an unborn child, with feet and hands, acoustic and tactile sensitivity and movement from weeks following conception. It's a disgrace for Renny to distract attention from the 99% of cases of social inconvience that lead to terminations, when very few are due to rape or incest. Around 20-25% of pregnancies in the US and the UK end in killing. One of the reasons why people of faith reject abortions is the repeated references in the Prophets to the unborn (Jeremiah, Tehilim and Zechariah esp). It is almost a repetition of the sacrifices to Molech.
11  |  CT Sherwin, Monday Sep 08, 2008
Ed: As always, you never answered anything. Abortion destroys life--over 40,000,000 since the 1970's in the US alone. You can't reconcile that by a hypothetical question about what that moron Clinton would have done if his daughter became pregnant. What if Monika Lewinski would have become pregnant? Palin's daughter and her boyfriend were "engaged" and have been for over 9 months; I agree, they are young, but it is the norm in the frontier of AK to pair-up young. As to Monika? She would have kept the child because of her faith. Jews do not kill Jews, or should not. Shalom.
12  |  Joel, Virginia, Monday Sep 08, 2008
I was appalled at another's suggestion that income is the determinant used to judge which lives are worth protecting. How meager does one's income have to become before other family members look a little less viable? Are bubbie and zeyda safe if Dad gets a cut in salary? I hate playing the Nazi card, but the idea that a special needs child is expendable if keeping it means foregoing the new car reminds me that the Nazis found cause to kill the Jews, then gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped. When one life is devalued it decreases the value of all lives. How sad when wealth becomes our G-d
13  |  james hazan U.K, Monday Sep 08, 2008
I would not be too concerned about Palin and abortion.Before choosing her, McCain MUST have spoken to her about the subject,he is a consumate politician and knows the disaster befalling the U.S.,if the subject is wrongly tampered with.At the very most make use of the English system. 1The patient is counselled.2.One Dr or psychiatrist agree. 3.The patient can see one of them without the parents,in short ,choose the one you need...capishe? Mr Koch should worry more about Obama."Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel" he flipped plopped 24 hours later and "Always loved Jews."
14  |  Steve Teicher - Florida, Monday Sep 08, 2008
I think you have a good point. Note that Mayor Palin also tried to restrict what was in the public library. Also, I have a close friend who worked with pregnant women. Sometimes an abortion of one or more fetuses in a multiple birth situation did preserve life, but could not be proposed in a "Right to Life" state.
15  |  David,milwaukee, Monday Sep 08, 2008
The main determining factor is the safety of the Nation----------All; other issues are very important but that is my main concern. cab anyone doubt who is better prepared to leadthe nation.
16  |  Joel, Pennsylvania, Monday Sep 08, 2008
Too often the abortion or right to life is used as a front point but the issue is much larger - a society that supports life or one that doesn't. That includes families,death penalty, value of homes, value of elders etc. When you look at all the ills in the world, perhaps the very people who were put on earth by God to help those issues were aborted. We don't have polio today not because God cured it but becuase Jonas Salk was not aborted. Valuing life ties us all together in all its forms. It is in fact the big issues for society. Surely we can allow it for rape, health and limit it otherwise
17  |  Saul - Israel, Monday Sep 08, 2008
When the world is more wise, aborting the life of an unborn child for the sake of economic and lifestyle convenience (as opposed to health necessity) will be regarded by the general public with the same abhorrence as slavery and imprisonment for political dissidence. In the same way that people today are still baffled by the banal support for evil of a majority of the "civilized" citizens of Germany during WWII, hopefully soon we'll all wonder in astonishment how anyone could ever think of themselves as "ethical" while supporting indiscriminate killing of those who are truly innocent.
18  |  Joel, Monday Sep 08, 2008
To the Honorable Mayor Koch, I have respected your insight even when I have disagreed but a certain premise in your article needs clarification. While Roe v Wade guarantees a right to an abortion, the 1973 decision does place limits. Conversely, overturning the decision would not make abortion illegal. Legalized abortion existed pre-Roe v. Wade. Some pro-Choice legal scholars believe that Roe was bad constitutional law and should be overturned on that basis. I wonder whether -with reckless driving, murders and abortion on demand etc.- we have cheapened life by becoming insensitive to it.