Ronald Reagan, a woman's right to choose, and two Fred Barnes columns
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Life Issues — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ronald Reagan was never pro-choice. That has here been established. And here. I have ordered Lou Cannon's Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power for further research, as I believe this to be fundamental to the political struggle for Life as it has existed in our country, and it could have an important bearing on the upcoming Presidential election campaign.
I've found two seemingly-conflicting statements from Fred Barnes on the matter,
The first is from a November 6, 2006 column called How a Cause was Born. In it, Barnes writes:
Read on . . .
The most telling example of conservative indifference to the abortion issue occurred in California. In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion.
I'll buy the early indifference argument, and history bears it out; remember, abortion was not the plague then that it has been post-Roe. The part that is untrue is Barnes's assertion that California's Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 "virtually decriminalized abortion." As we've noted early, it did not; rather, it was designed to allow for abortions only in specific cases where it had been deemed a medical necessity to preserve the life or health of the mother.
It seems that Barnes had researched the matter further when, in a September 1, 2006 column entitled Choosing Life, he wrote:
Let's begin with Reagan. In his first year as California governor in 1967, the legislature passed a bill to legalize "therapeutic" abortions. It was an issue Reagan hadn't thought much about and he was torn over whether to veto the measure. Many Republicans in legislature strongly urged him to sign the bill. And so did aides on his staff, including conservatives Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, who later followed Reagan to Washington. Reagan was assured it would result in only a handful of abortions.
His instinct was to veto the bill and the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles urged him to follow that course. But he signed it into law. Reagan was disturbed by his decision, however, and continued to think long and hard about abortion. The bill, according to Lou Cannon in Governor Reagan, "permitted more legal abortions in California than occurred in any other state before the advent of Roe v. Wade." Reagan's worst fear was realized.
The bill, however, did not "virtually decriminalize" abortion, as it supposedly allowing the procedure to occur only in certain medically defined circumstances. It was not a "pro-choice" bill by today's definitions. Governor Reagan did not by signing the measure defend a "woman's right to choose" to abort. He would have recoiled at the notion of abortion on demand, and in fact was taken aback that what he has signed allowed what it did.
What Fred Barnes wrote in his second column was important. I am interested in what Mr. Cannon had to say in his book, what his research informed him.
Rather, I want to try to clear Ronald Reagan's name as best I can from where I sit with what I can do.
If Ronald Reagan were to have signed that 1967 law today, he would have been attacked by the pro-abort crowd as a hate-filled opponent of a woman's right to choose. Period.
Ronald Reagan never favored abortion on demand. He never saw abortion as a right.
Read this from Planned Parenthood of California's Abbreviated History of Abortion Law in California. Remember, this the avid pro-abort crowd:
1872
California enacts criminal laws specific to abortion. Made abortion a crime, except if woman's is life endangered, punishable by one to five years in state prison -- law pertains to women (Penal Code 275) and physicians and others (Penal Code 274).1953
Section 34.5 added to Civil Code gives minors right to consent to treatment related to pregnancy.1957
Abortion law amended to make it a crime to solicit any woman to submit to any operation, or to use any means whatsoever, to procure a miscarriage (Penal Code 276).1967
California Therapeutic Abortion Act enacted. Allows a physicians' committee to approve abortions in cases where there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, and in cases of rape and incest. Requires all abortions to be performed in accredited hospitals. Prohibits abortions after 20 weeks gestation. Also, causes Penal Code sections on abortion to be amended to exempt abortions which are in compliance with this act.1969
California Supreme Court ruled that women have a fundamental right to choose abortion under the state Constitution. (People v. Belous (1969) 80 Cal 2d 354).1971
California Supreme Court ruled that a pregnant minor, regardless of her dependency, may give her own consent to an abortion without parental consent under Civil Code 34.5. (Ballard v. Anderson (1971) 4 Cal 3d 873).Amendment to California Therapeutic Abortion Act gives specified health personnel right to refuse to participate in abortions. Subsequent amendments give other employment and educational protection.
1972
California Supreme Court ruled the following portions of the California Therapeutic Abortion Act unconstitutional: the hospital committee approval requirement and the list of specific reasons for which abortions can be granted. (People v. Barksdale (1972) 8 Cal 3d 320).
Then Roe came along and informed as that abortion of demand was a Constitutional right. That is pro-choice, and Reagan recoiled in horror at that notion.
At this point, if I can be called "anti-Romney," it would be based only on what he has said about Ronald Reagan:
And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I'm following in some pretty good footsteps.
It's exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.
That is not the case.
The 1967 "Therapeutic Abortion Law" in California allowed abortions if the "health" of the pregnant woman might be "impaired". According to "Therapeutic Abortions in California", see http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1517904&blobtype=p..., abortions went from 5,030 in 1968, to 15,339 in 1969, to over 60,000 in 1970.
"In 1967, impairment of the mental health of the woman was given in 80 percent of the applications; by 1969, this reason accounted for over 93 percent of the applications".
"Health" of the woman in an abortion context is then, and now, a legally meaningless term, and intentionally so. It was a severe mistake for Ronald Reagan to accept that phraseology. In the event, the California Supreme Court quickly proceeded to declare unconstitutional the minimal restrictions effectively provided by the statute.
Reagan wasn't perfect and wasn't prescient and wasn't clairvoyant. That doesn't make him a supporter of a woman's right to choose to kill her baby.
Everyone has their own definition about what it means to be pro life and pro choice. That's why these discussions never end. People are just talking past each other.
You can have Gov. Gilmore for example who is in favor of first trimester abortions and calls himself pro life. You have Fred Thompson who says he would vote against the criminalization of abortions at the state level and calls himself pro life. And then you have those who believe that life begins at conception, like Gov. Huckabee, that are in favor of a national prohibition on abortions.
By Gov. Gilmore and Fred Thompson's definition Reagan was always pro life. By Huckabee's definition he was pro choice the moment he signed a bill allowing CHOICE in order to save a woman's life.
I don't speak for Fred Thompson, but my understanding is that he has opposed federal legislation on the matter of abortion, arguing that it should be a state matter. This has been twisted by some to mean that he is pro-abortion. He is not.
Somebody better tell Michael Reagan that he is besmirching his father's good name!
According to the Gipper's son:
"Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
The same is true of Rudy Giuliani. On every major issue, he is a solidly conservative and extraordinarily adept executive, but because he backs abortion and some form of gun control, America’s mayor — the hero of 9/11 and the man who did the impossible by cleaning up New York — is all but ruled out as a 2008 candidate.
Not one of the major candidates is free of some real or imagined flaw that offends some conservatives.
Ronald Reagan had one litmus test he applied to candidates. Were they Republicans? If they were he backed them all the way. He would let the party choose the candidate and he would support and vote for the candidate. He didn’t go sniffing around trying to find some flaw in their character or their past. Once nominated, they were his choice.
And nobody was more candid in admitting that he was anything but perfect than my Dad. He knew that like all men, he had his flaws and he spent a lifetime combating them. Had today’s GOP litmus test been seriously applied to him, he could not have passed the test.
If we want to win in 2008, Republicans had better wake up, and quit talking Ronald Reagan and start being like Ronald Reagan."
we've not discussed: His father's stance on abortion prior to becoming governor of California:
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism.
He's telling us that Ronald Reagan supported abortions prior to becoming a Republican. He's saying that when Ronald Reagan became a Republican, before he was governor, he was at that point pro-life. So he would have been pro-life when he became governor.
Mitt Romney, however, has questioned Ronald Reagan's "strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism."
I'm not sure how to check the President's stance on abortion when he was an FDR Democrat earlier in his life. According to his son, though, he was strongly pro-life when he signed the 1967 act.
As for your other highlighted portion, I am not comparing anyone to Ronald Reagan or holding Reagan as a standard which must be met; rather, I'm arguing that he was not pro-choice.
I agree with FrankNatoli's comments above regarding mental health. It is NOT the case, as Mark Kilmer claims, that California's ban would be prohibitive by today's standards. The reverse is actually true. It might have been prohibitive by standards of long ago (pre 1960's) that Reagan probably knew but not today. Indeed such a ban would easily survive all court challenges. Because any reason any woman ever has for any abortion is justifiable by mental health, the bill would be the equivalent of what we have today.
If one needs evidence that "mental health" could include all abortions, one need look no further than the American Psychological Association. I'll bet a lot of people today are unaware that the mainstream psychological community is really a left-wing support group; imagine how few knew in the 60's.
That said, I have pretty much come to the point where I realize this is all irrelevant in the coming Presidential election. Duncan Hunter is the ONLY primary candidate who has shown any credible commitment to actually do anything on the life issue, and it's clear he cannot and will not win. So all that is available for pro-life supporters is what the candidates will veto from a Congress that is sure to only have more Democrats. Thus far, most of them have been quite vague.
One could also justify unlimited abortion on physical health grounds. They can just show that the percentage of deaths from childbirth exceeds those from abortion.
Portions of the bill Reagan signed in 1972 did not survive court challenges.
From the Planned Parenthood bit I link in a reply above:
1972 - California Supreme Court ruled the following portions of the California Therapeutic Abortion Act unconstitutional: the hospital committee approval requirement and the list of specific reasons for which abortions can be granted. (People v. Barksdale (1972) 8 Cal 3d 320).
Was Reagan pro-choice? Was he avidly pro-choice? No and no, so this is a matter to consider for 2008. Of course, and can be removed by a correction, an explanation, and an apology. And then he can fire the aide who gave him the false information.
The judge, and perhaps those challenging the law, did not realize the liberal leanings of the psychological community either. Also, Doe v Bolton had not been issued at the time. It defined health as being anything and everything the "doctor" wanted it to be.
But whether a judge were to realize it or not, thanks to Doe v. Bolton, a ban with a health exception would not ban a single abortion.
I appreciate the thoughtful, and substantive, response. It's never a bad thing to examine our core beliefs and those of our leaders.
Not to jack the thread, but is there or can there be such a thing as a Pro-Choice Republican?
I believe that parents should have the CHOICE of public or private school education. I believe those parents should have vouchers, so that if if the public school in their area is failing to educate, they have the ability to take that voucher and place their children in a school that CAN educate them.
I believe that consenting adults should be allowed the CHOICE of sexual relations with whomever they CHOOSE. If, however, they CHOOSE to have unprotected sex, and as a result find themselves about to become parents, they should have the further CHOICE of keeping the child, or giving it up for adoption to a goOd and loving homE.
I'm sure that is not CHOICE enough for you...
Hear hear.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Wow, an articulate statement of your position on abortion....which has nothing to do with my question.
My question is not how do YOU feel about abortion. My question is, on the issue of abortion, "Is there room in the Republican Party for people who are Pro-Choice?"
as Republicans, but there is no room for candidates that support abortion, nor is there room on the official party platform for it.
So if one wants to be a Republican and be pro-fetal-homicide, that's their prerogative. Neither the party nor the candidates need to reflect that philosophy.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
This thread is old now and no one seems much interested in discussion, just posting their view on abortion. My questions were prompted not by my own personal opinion on that subject but by my concern over openness and inclusiveness in the Republican Party. The original post and many of the comments seek to go back and "clarify" what were once considered moderate Republican positions in a way that allows inclusion of Reagan and others in today's more conservative and less inclusive Party.
As we adopt issues like abortion with increasing zeal and fervor, we shut out those less passionate on those issues than ourselves. We become a more narrowly defined party, smaller in number and ultimately less effective in representing the ideals in which we believe.
The Republican Party was once defined by a set of broad ideals that included social conservatism, but wasn't limited to it. Social conservatism itself was once much more broadly defined. Allowing ourselves to become defined by individual issues serves to limit our focus, our appeal, and our effectiveness. While not diminishing the importance of any single issue, it must be the ideals that define the party.
Sorry, it's hard to find the interest to debate you seriously on this, given your chosen user name. That suggests a motive in your posting that is not conducive to a useful discussion.
If I want to slam my head into the brick wall by debating with a contrarian, I'll look up flyerhawk, Red State's resident contrarian.
line.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
and Gingrich eras. See also that the GOP was born as an anti slavery party, that alienated half the country.
Moderates don't win majorities.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
As far as I'm concerned, "don't ask, don't tell" on abortion is in force. That's as "inclusive" as it gets when it comes to murder of the unborn. You don't tell me you're an abortionist, I won't ask. If you want to believe in it in your own mind, so be it. But this is not the party of immorality - we'll let the Dems have the corner on that market. "Broad ideals" doesn't include the condoning of infanticide and other forms of immoral behavior.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I do not understand your dogged insistence on this semantic game. By today's standards, the law Reagan signed might be deemed as not very pro-choice. OTOH, I suspect that if Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee were to sign such a law against a background of abortion being illegal in their jurisdiction, you would pounding the table about how this forever disqualifies them from the presidency. And if the law would not be deemed "pro-choice" by today's standards, what was it considered in 1967? It was considered a very liberal law, at a time when abortion was illegal in most states. I've never been keen on applying today's morality to yesterday's issues, as when we are told that Lincoln was a racist (which, by today's standards, I suppose he was, but by the standards of the time...). The bill, in the context of 1967, was a liberal, pro-abortion bill.
And it seems to me, Mark, that your multiple postings on this topic reinforce that Reagan was indeed - at least by the standards being applied to Republican presidential contenders in 2008 - "pro-choice." He signed into law a bill that liberalized abortion rights in California. Explain to me how that would not be deemed "pro-choice" if a Governor were to do it today? Let's see - abortion was more restricted, and then the Governor signed a law making it less restrictive... - I can see that being described as pro-choice, can't you? Really? Of course, no one even used the word back then, so the whole debate has a surreal atmosphere to it.
It would be one thing to argue that people have overstated the extent of Reagan's "conversion" on the issue, and the nature of the law he signed. But you insist on much more: on painting an absolute picture - that Reagan was "in no way" pro-choice, that he "cannot" be considered ever to have been pro-choice, that he "never" was pro-choice. You offer us no nuance, only a demand for an absolute that I don't think you can carry. And given that, given the evidence you present, I have to conclude - if I have to do this with no nuance, that I've got to either say Reagan was "never in any way pro-choice" and that anything less is "pro-choice," I guess I'd have to conclude - based on what you've presented in all these posts - that he was pro-choice. I would prefer, though, to think of it all in more complex terms, that really take into account all the complexities of the issue.
Why does this matter so much to you? Is it your belief that no one can ever truly change his or her mind on this issue, and therefore we can never, ever trust Romney (let alone Rudy), but to make the argument hold it is vital that no one think that Reagan was in any way pro-choice? Is it your belief that if Reagan were at some point pro-choice, even if with deep reservations, even if uncertain if he was acting correctly, he is less of a figure, less of a president? Sometimes people in government have to decide. Sometimes they decide incorrectly. Sometimes they decide with grave doubts, but they still decide. Reagan decided to sign the bill.
So what is the issue here? I suspect it is just that you distrust Romney on the issue (why I don't know), and feel that he is using the Reagan example incorrectly. But even if (which I don't believe I would agree) Romney overstates Reagan's conversion, aren't you equally understating the matter?
Like I say, I've read all your posts on this. Now if it were me, I would think that the abortion debate is often too complex, and circumstances too changed, to really think that the only options are "pro-choice" and "pro-life." But my conclusion, just based on your articles, if I'd read nothing else would be this: Reagan was "pro-choice" as Governor. Why is this wrong? Why is it wrong to apply the label "pro-choice" to a governor who signed into law a bill liberalizing the right to an abortion? As I say, I'm not sure why this argument is so important to you, but I think, given that it is, you would help yourself with a bit more nuance.
Respectfully and with best thoughts,
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
Brad... To be pro-choice means that you favor abortion choice. The right of the woman to choose to abort her child if she wants to do so. Ronald Reagan favored nothing of the sort.
Why am I doing this? Because it has been cavalierly said that Ronald Reagan was "cavalierly pro-choice" when he was not, by any standard.
Do you, in your professional capacity, have access to the language of the 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act which Governor Reagan signed? A look at that and a comparison with what is allowed and what is proscribed today would be helpful. I have ordered the Lou Cannon book which is said to contain additional material.
Yes, I think this is very important, otherwise I would not be pursuing it.
I'm afraid I still don't get it...
... after all, given a choice between vetoing or signing a bill that would allow a woman, in certain circumstances in which it was previously prohibited, to terminate a pregnancy through abortion, Reagan chose to sign it. I'm not suggesting it wasn't a tough call for him, or that he didn't sign it with reservations, or that he may never have supported so broad a right as Roe would create, or that he didn't realize how many abortions would result from the bill he signed. But all that considered, he still chose to liberalize the state's abortion law. That sounds, to most people, as though Reagan believed, and at a minimum acted in a way consistent with the belief - again, maybe with great reservations and doubt - that at least in some circumstances previously prohibited, a woman has a right to abort her child if she chooses to do so. I just don't see how you spin that into the absolutist position you seem determined to adopt, and I still don't see why you consider it very important.
Now, we can quibble. The Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed required a physician committee to approve the abortion, and only allowed abortions in certain criteria - basically, the health, mental or physical, of the woman, plus rape and incest. You might say that since the docs had to approve it, the woman didn't have the right to choose. But that seems bizarre, since the physicians' committee only comes into play if the woman chooses to abort, and the law then made it possible for her "choice" to be honored by a physician in cases in which, before, it would have been illegal. Many restrictions, to be sure, but you can't, I think get around the fact that it liberalized the state's abortion law, and was very liberal for its time.
I'm not going to butt heads with you any more on this - I've stated my view and it's not required that we agree or try to bludgeon each other into submission. I respect your views and your passion on this, and it's your blog so feel free to have the last word. But regardless of how important you think it is, I would urge you to reconsider the type of language you have been using, accusing others not merely of being mistaken (which I'm not at all sure they are), but of "insulting" Reagan, of "slandering" him, and of "lying." Can you not see that such language may be over the top? That's Kos language - anyone who sees things differently is not merely in error, but "lying." None of it can help elect a pro-life president a year from now, or turn any states red a year from now.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
I don't have the full language of the Therapeutic Abortion Act but it is summarized and quoted in part in People v. Belous, http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/belous.htm, 458 P.2d 194. In addition to exceptions for rape and incest and mental and physical health of the mother, the law allowed minors to get abortions without parental consent.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
Actually, it's not about the right of the woman but the right of the "doctor." One can favor a woman's right to do whatever she wants but oppose doctors' rights to do whatever operations they want.
"By today's standards, the law Reagan signed might be deemed as not very pro-choice."
Quite correct. The 1967 California law contained an absolute ban on abortions after five months gestation. Any such law today would be declared as an "unreasonable burden" by pro-Roe judges.
"It was considered a very liberal law, at a time when abortion was illegal in most states."
Considered by whom to be "very liberal"? Obviously not by the California legislature and by the California governor. I suspect Reagan considered it to be a "reasonable" law and had no idea that the "health" exception effectively turned the act into abortion on demand. Remember, at the time, the country had never experienced 1.3 million abortions per year. I recall William Tecumseh Sherman was judged by many to be insane when he predicted ten of thousands of Civil War deaths. He was of course underestimating by an order of magnitude. So it was with abortion, to this day. Twice as many young Americans are killed each year in abortion mills as the aggregate American KIA in all the wars of the 20th century.
"It would be one thing to argue that people have overstated the extent of Reagan's 'conversion' on the issue"
Roe v Wade rendered "unconstitutional" all legislative and executive actions on the matter of abortion. In that sense, no conversion could be substantively demonstrated, except in the case of judicial appointments. Strikingly, his appointments of William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia [but also regrettably "Catholic" Anthony Kennedy] made the most substantive actions possible against abortion.
I don't like putting the mark of Cain on any man. Reagan made a serious mistake signing the 1967 law. I "believe" he came to understand that and did the best penance possible to make up for it. I'm willing to conclude the same for Romney and Thompson, the latter of whom has publicly stated that having children brought home what life in the womb really was. Giuliani, of course, is sticking to his pro-abortion views (his "personal" opposition to the practice is insulting).
Never is a long time.
I think Mitt can be forgiven.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
aside from this being your latest reason to poke at Romney, who cares?
Romney, it would seem, is at worst, being given sloppy data.
It is a factual statement that Ronald Reagan signed the first law legalizing abortion. Now a days, that would seem to get you marked as pro-choice, even if I don't think it necessarily should (i.e. now we can start a comment thread on how pro-life you have to be to be pro-life).
Romney is not that different from George H. W. Bush who did fine on life. Tell me again who you're supporting so I can pull out my list of reasons not to support any of these guys and respond with whatever corresponds to your candidate.
Oz
www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com