Redstate

Read the post again.

Those who argue that Governor Reagan was pro-choice are using semantics.

I agree with what your saying however if I came out and said I'd sign a bill that would allow abortion in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother many here would call me pro-abortion. So in some sense, yes it is semantics.

“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck

It is semantics only for those who'd wish to call Ronald Reagan, "pro-choice." He cannot be called pro-abort in any substantive way.

There is a large segment of the Pro-life population that would view a law that allowed abortion for any reason as pro-choice. It depends on where on the spectrum of pro-life you are. I have no bones to pick with what your saying because I personally think their should be exception for rape, incest and the life of the mother in early pregnancy however there are many who do not.

“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck

By the mid-1970s, when Reagan became pro-life, he would arguably have vetoed the California abortion bill that he signed when he was governor. I wouldn't call it a "flip-flop" in the sense that "flip-flop" is used as a criticism.

But I do think it is correct to say that Reagan was not pro-life when he signed the California abortion bill and was pro-life beginning in the 1970s.

I don't think one can credibly argue that Reagan never changed his mind on abortion during his entire political career. I'm not going to say that Reagan was pro-abortion when he was govenor, because that gets into all kinds of arcane definitional issues as to what it means to be pro-choice and/or pro-abortion.

Reagan wouldn't have signed that bill when he was governor if he had known how the "health of the mother" clause was going to be interpreted.

“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

that I don't see the use in arguing whether Reagan was "pro-choice", "pro-abortion", or "less-than-pro-life". He signed the bill, realized the ramifications, and then became solidly pro-life.

I guess we can argue that the legal and moral issues associated with abortion weren't fully know at the time. I've also heard that he signed it because he was a relatively new governor. All these things could help explain what happened, but what we call him then isn't nearly as important as what we call him now.

"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain

Reagan did change his position; by 1980 he would not have supported that law. But it's also true that the law was narrowly written and nothing like the "pro-choice" position in the post-Roe era.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I agree. But it's not as if Ronald Reagan made money lobbying for pro abortion groups. All he did was sign one piece of legislation. Back in those days abortion wasn't the contentious issue it is today. And it's not as if Reagan ever lied about his past. He made no secret that he was once a registered democrat.

Back in those days abortion wasn't the contentious issue it is today.

People were totally cool with abortion back in the day.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I really can't believe Fred is considering running for POTUS. He's gotta have so much lucre stashed in overseas accounts from his pro-abortion lobbying days that he certainly doesn't need the money.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"truly" is the key word.

An eloquent post. I have attempted to explain my opposition to Roe many times, but you hit the nail on the head . For me it's less to do with the actual issue than it is with the way in which the victor was decided.

I'm pro-life, but I would feel no shame in defeat if I lost fairly to my fellow countrymen. The rub has always been that I believe I was cheated by a despot (the court) who dictated unfairly the outcome before the battle was joined.

I am admittedly old school, and the thought of differing rules on abortion by state do not bother me. If CA wants abortion on demand that's not my concern. I'll work to prevent abortion in my state and let my compatriots do the same in theirs.

I can accept defeat in one round, but to have the match decided by the referee and be ejected from the fight after the first round is intolerable.

Let the people be heard, and allow the states to decide. If you can form a national consensus and bring the battle to Washington then I can live with the outcome.

P.S. Living with the outcome does not mean I can not fight, it simply means you won this round and I need to regroup and convince more of my fellow citizens I am right. Ah Democracy!

"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.

And an exception for the "mental health of the mother" is now a red flag for those of us who oppose abortion. The psychiatrists which Reagan mentioned in the letter you transcribed could write up a permission slip if a girl will have a bad hair day after giving birth.

And your transcription allows Reagan himself to make the point that I was trying to make: He was never pro-choice and he never changed his mind on abortion.

It's always good to go back to the source, especially when it agrees with you. ;)

Let me make a comment just regarding process (fact-checking), so take it at face value. We have a quote from someone in 1979, while presumably planning a run for the Republican nomination with a pro-life position, referring to what he did and thought in 1967. While I'm NOT making any implication as to whether or not this statement was sincere, as a matter of fact-checking, such a quote, with that timing, is not by any means conclusive (in other words, IN GENERAL, such a quote could be revisionist in a politically convenient way). A contemporaneous quote, say in 1968, would be carry more weight.

It adds to the case that he was not a pro-abort in '67 as has been claimed by some.

Are there quotes from Reagan in 1968 or '69 or '70? Surely if the law were being abused in ways he did not foresee in 1967 he must have expressed that feeling many years prior to running for president. If you have any such quotes (1967-1970), that would be more persuasive than a 1979 quote or even a 1975-6 quote amid his first run for the nomination.

I chose this quote because it was the fullest account of the matter I know of in Reagan's own words, but you're absolutely right to note its distance in time from the events themselves and its proximity to the 1980 elections. Furthermore, this letter is clearly written to somebody who wants a response along these lines, all the more reason to be skeptical.

A more contemporaneous account of his understanding of events, and one in a form not so inherently biased as a personal letter to a supporter, would be most helpful, but I know of no such account. Reagan didn't start keeping a diary until he became President, his other correspondence on the issue is ambiguous, and there was little political reason to address this issue directly, since there was nothing he could do to alter the situation—due first to the large pro-choice majority in the California legislature, and then to the courts removing the matter from the hands of politicians. Also, the partisan politics of abortion were in flux throughout the 60's and 70's, since, although even then it tended to be conservatives against abortion and liberals in favor, two of the most significant demographic groups most opposed to abortion, Catholics and evangelical Southerners, had traditionally voted Democrat and were only in the latter case starting to show the slightest signs that they might realign. With all this unsettled, all the more reason for Reagan to keep quiet about it as a rule, though he (and Ford!) supported an amendment to reverse Roe v. Wade in the 1976 campaign.

In fact, Reagan does does glide over certain relevant bits of the story in this letter—not, I think, because he is trying to mislead, but merely because there would have been no reason to mention them in this context. Most significantly, one might assume from a casual reading of this letter that the possibility of there being loopholes in the law was entirely a surprise to him, but contemporaneous evidence indicates that he was highly aware of the possibility, and that much of his "study and... soul searching" on the subject was devoted to the contemplation of this very possibility.

However, I still think that Reagan's account above is largely consistent with the facts, and certainly more consistent than the interpretation that he both knew of the relevant loopholes and approved of them (which is what it would take to make the 1967 version of Reagan pro-choice in any meaningful way).

First, there is the attested fact that he delayed signing the law for a troubling (to his advisors) length of time. This bill was one of the first major issues of his first year in elective office, and it seems that his advisors were pressuring him to act more quickly on the matter, lest he gain a reputation for indecisiveness. Also, while the bill was sponsored by a Democrat, the orientation of the parties on abortion was far more confused than it is today, as noted above. Much of Reagan's base of support, and many of his advisors, were pro-choice, WASPy country club Republican-types, and much of the pro-life side of the debate was made up of ethnic, Catholic Democrats. So with all these political reasons for signing the bill, and if he were pro-choice at the time, why on earth would he delay signing it and publicly agonize over the decision?

Further, Lou Cannon's interpretation of these events, which seems to be the basis of most of the punditry on this matter, hinges almost entirely on the argument that his later protestations of ignorance regarding the consequences of the bill must be insincere because a statement issued by his office explicitly recognized that the doctors involved would have "some discretion" in their decisions. But this is unconvincing for three reasons: 1.) It is not at all clear that the wording is that of Reagan himself rather that a staffer. 2.) It says "some discretion" rather than "a great deal of discretion" or anything similar, which would be far more in line with what actually happened. And 3.) there is no indication that the discretion referred to was the discretion to expand the abortion license; rather, it seems quite likely, all things considered, that this discretion was mentioned in order to assure pro-life doctors—who, after all, could have had no idea when they decided to become doctors that they might be called upon to perform abortions or give their consent to them in any way—that the law would not force them to do so. And of course we still have the question of why, if he intended this discretion to be used for the expansion of the abortion license, would he have struggled with the decision at all, since he could easily have asked for a more liberal law if he had wished.

Also, it should be noted that, while Reagan waffled quite a lot on the bill as it went through the process, he was quite consistent on one point: that he would never sign it if it allowed abortions for the reason of the deformity of the child. The bill initially introduced in California was the result of an effort on the part of pro-abortion groups to pass identically worded bills in many states. All these bills contained a provision allowing abortions for reason of fetal deformity, and all the states that had passed them into law retained this provision, except California. All the other provisions of these bills only legalized abortions under circumstances where the rights of the mother were in direct and severe conflict with her child's right to life. Only under the circumstance of fetal deformity was there no conceivable right at stake on the mother's part. Reagan's refusal even to consider such a provision can only indicate that he recognized the unborn child as a rights-bearing entity, and all other evidence, including the very text of the law, would suggest that, even as he signed the law, he believed that the rights of the unborn child could only be overridden under very severe circumstances. Which is to say that he was pro-life as we understand the term today, and that his later account is entirely plausible.

I confess, though, that this account is largely from memory. I was wondering about it a few weeks ago while I was near a library, and I decided to look these things up in the old-fashioned way. But I'm not there now, so it's quite possible I've made some errors in my account here, though I'm quite confident of the general argument. And my apologies for the inordinate length of this comment, but I hope this information has served to clarify the matter.

Thanks for a superb comment. Very well structured argument.

My only quibble is this:
A more contemporaneous account of his understanding of events, and one in a form not so inherently biased as a personal letter to a supporter, would be most helpful, but I know of no such account. Reagan didn't start keeping a diary until he became President, his other correspondence on the issue is ambiguous, and there was little political reason to address this issue directly, since there was nothing he could do to alter the situation.

If Reagan were indeed shocked and outraged at how the law was being abused, wouldn't we expect contemporaneous statements from him to that effect, even if he thought changing the law were not politically achievable?

What I've dug up with a little Googling. If anyone has Lou Cannon's Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power (2003), it would be helpful if you could quote specifically from it re: what Fred Barnes cites below. Same for Cannon's Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum (2001) re: the Wikipedia citation (pages 50, 51).

Fred Barnes in WSJ 2003.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004264
"Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Mr. Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he'd never have done so if he'd been more experienced in office. It was 'the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation,' Mr. Cannon writes in his new book, 'Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.' "

Note that Barnes is citing Lou Cannon, who wrote in a much earlier (1991) book:
"Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Abortion.htm

From Wikipedia
"Early in 1967, the national debate on abortion was beginning. Democratic California state senator Anthony Beilenson introduced the "Therapeutic Abortion Act," in an effort to reduce the number of "back-room abortions" performed in California.[35] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[36] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, most because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[36] Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed. After he recognized what he called the "consequences" of the bill, he announced that he was pro-life.[36]"
35. Cannon, Lou (2001), p. 50
36. Cannon, Lou (2001), p. 51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Governor_of_California.2C_196...

From Jackson K. Putnam in publication called California History (I know nothing beyond the below regarding Putnam)
Jackson K. Putnam is Professor Emeritus of History at California State University, Fullerton. Professor Putnam received his Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is also author of Old-Age Politics in California and Modern California Politics.
"In 1967 the abortion issue aroused the governor's enormous discomfort. At the time, his greatest disadvantage was that no right-wing, left-wing positions had emerged to guide him. Surprising to recall, most non-Catholic conservative Republicans were in favor of abortion liberalization, as were many liberals in the California legislature. The Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, for example, authored by liberal Democrat Anthony Beilenson, passed with five republican votes out of seven in the crucial Senate Judiciary Committee. (18) Reagan signaled that he would accept his party leaders' desires on the subject if the bill passed the legislature, but when it did so he went through agonies of indecision before finally signing it into law. Within a few years, especially after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 strongly supporting California's act, the right-wing nationwide had swung overwhelmingly into the anti-abortion camp. Reagan, of course, did too, and he became effusive ever after in his mea culpas for having signed the legislation."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5816845/Governor-Reagan-a-reappr...

From Marc Ambinder:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705u/reagan-republicans/2

Counter-point to the above: http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/reagan_and_abortion.php (NOTE: link to LA Times article did not work and my quick search on LA Times site using keywords did not yield relevant results)

The question of my earlier comment still holds: Wouldn't we expect contemporaneous public comments if he were shocked and outraged at how the law was being abused?

One wouldn't be surprised to find such a comment under these circumstances, but I think that to expect it would be to set the bar too high, for there are other factors to consider:

1.) If there was nothing to be done about the situation, then there would be no reason to make such a statement publicly, in a way that would be preserved for us to examine. It would do no good, and it might create a political controversy that would interfere with other priorities of the moment. Rather, any such statement would likely have been made privately, and it would only have been preserved for us if his interlocutor happened to have recorded it on his own account. (Note, by the way, that the first opportunity he would have had to do anything about the situation, after 1967, was in his 1976 campaign for President. He was clearly pro-life at that point.)

2.) There are other plausible emotional reactions to the sequence of events than shock and outrage, even from a pro-life perspective. One of these would be pessimistic resignation, and such a reaction would, I think, more likely lead someone not to comment on it at all than to complain about it in any forum.

3.) The sequence of events would make it unclear to anyone who had not examined the data closely and objectively what, precisely, was the cause of the great increase in the number of abortions in California in the late 60's and early 70's. As Mark noted in the original post, the California Supreme Court overturned some parts of the law as early as 1969, so the law as Reagan signed it was only in effect for a single calendar year, 1968. And even then its effects were probably not quite what they would have been in future years, since much of that year was probably taken up by putting the legally-mandated procedures into place. (The abortion rate in 1968 was, I think, higher than previous years, for obvious reasons, but far lower than in subsequent years.)

It would be very easy, therefore, to believe that most of the rise in the abortion rate from 1969 on was the result not of the law Reagan signed but of the California Supreme Court ruling, if one were inclined to do so. I think that the law probably would have had a very broad effect even without the ruling, and that would seem to be the view that Reagan held while writing the letter above.

However, there is indirect evidence to suggest that Reagan held the alternate view in the early 70's. If I recall correctly, in the few instances he mentions this law in his correspondence of this period (the ambiguous ones I think I mentioned above), he speaks of the limits the law purported to impose as if it actually did impose them in a meaningful way. I don't think he mentioned the courts explicitly, but I think that the way he speaks of the situation can only mean that he, at that time, held the courts rather than the law responsible for the subsequent situation, and only later came to believe that the law itself was flawed.

This progression would fit well with the changes in other aspects of his abortion position. Through the early 70's, he seems to have been comfortable with the existence of health exceptions to a general abortion ban, and, though I'm not sure, I believe that the amendment language he supported in 1976 merely overturned Roe and returned the matter to the states, thereby allowing the states to enact laws possibly in line with what he signed in 1967. By 1979-80, though, he was speaking of the law itself, or the application thereof, as being the source of the problem, and his 1980 position was to support the version of the Human Life Amendment that granted equal protection rights to the unborn, with the life-of-the-mother exception alone (as is the current position of the GOP platform). All this would be very consistent with a growing belief on Reagan's part that fault of the situation lay not in the courts or in the doctors for intentionally misinterpreting the law, but rather in the structure of the law itself

Maybe, at least. Any serious account of this matter would probably require some documents that are hard to get hold of, but this might be a fruitful working hypothesis.

Thanks, by the way, for your kind words and for your helpful and healthy skepticism. I'm enjoying this exchange.

(Also, I now see that you've been busy while I was writing this. I look forward to chewing over this new information later, but I should be doing other things at the moment.)

Thanks for more good thoughts/info. I have to say, though, that I'm not persuaded by #1 and #2. If we are asking if Reagan thought what was happening was a moral outrage -- perhaps even akin to murder -- I would find it hard believe (or excuse, if true) that he said little or nothing publicly based on a presumption that there was absolutely nothing he could do to reduce the number of abortions he considered inappropriate and in conflict with the intent of the law (that there was ZERO chance of modifying the law AT ALL; that he could not influence the decisions of ANY physicians who had the discretion in question or ANY women; etc.). Such an extreme presumption would not seem rational, and irrational pessimism and resignation does not seem to fit the Reagan we knew (even long before his presidency).

So it seems we either haven't gotten all the facts yet or perhaps his feelings on the matter at the time were not as strong as some contend or perhaps not as strong as he may have claimed in retrospect, or perhaps he never made such a claim and merely expressed stronger feelings years later that were either completely genuine or partly political calculation. Just possibilities. I'd need more info to have a strong sense one way or another which is the most likely.

You've illustrated with personal example a very unfortunate truth.

But remember, whether or not that killing will deny you eternal salvation, it is wrong.

My best to you and to your daughter.

and I do, God gives you the choice of doing wrong. The difference, and it is a big one, is in knowing that you are doing wrong, accepting the consequences of that wrongdoing, and hoping, praying, working for whatever redemption, forgiveness, or salvation your particular Faith offers you.

In Vino Veritas

for someone to bring up "free will" known to me as "free agency". Being 100% anti-abortion I believe it should be illegal but do we as a society treat it the same as murder? Should it carry the death penalty? I wonder what responsibility God puts on us to stop it and how much "free will" should be allowed to take place?

Actually, if you believe abortion in the U.S. is mass murder, the moral equivalent of Auschwitz, why stop at seeking the death penalty? Wouldn't you take it upon yourself to kill the guards at Auschwitz and stop the murders yourself if you could? PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT advocating violence or anything illegal. I'm just asking a philisophical question.

if someone on the street was calling for help because I have.
I also know I wouldn't take out an abortionist. These seem to be in conflict, seeing I think abortion is killing. I have always wondered if I will be held accountable in some way for not doing more or if its none of my business. More likely the latter.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "if you could." If anyone could, they would have stopped abortion a long time ago. Implicitly, it would mean that it was legal for individuals to use whatever means they wished to stop abortions from taking place. In the United States, the current police force would stop anyone from doing anything. Thus, no one "could."

We had a pretty good idea of what was going on in Nazi Germany, as did much of Western Europe. Many in Germany did know. Some resisted.

But it is impossible and foolish to equate the slaughter of babies in the United States to the unique evil which was the Nazi Holocaust. There was no choice involved in that.

The Jews and others did not choose to be exterminated, but...

neither have the millions of unborn children that have been murdered in the name of "choice.

Neither had a "choice" in the matter. If not for Roe v. Wade, the abortionists would (and should) be subjected to the same fate as Mengele and the other Nazi murderers.

Probably not. As indicated in this whole blog posting, states were legalizing abortion. Abortion would have likely expanded to a lot more states had it not been for Roe. Besides, where it was illegal, the punishment was not quite that harsh.

A death penalty, IMO, would really only be justified in the majority of second trimester abortions due to the addition of usually needless pain and cruelty.

While the two are not equivalent, it has nothing to do with choice since the children being killed have no choice. It has to do with the degree and duration of pain and suffering on the part of the Jews and those who knew them. Abortion at most involves an hour or two of physical torture for a child that no one else knows or will miss. The Holocaust inflicted far more suffering and pain (physical and emotional) for a much longer time, even a lifetime for some.

Menlo, Mark, Cowboy,

OK, let me switch to an even closer analogy, albeit hypothetical. If every year millions of mothers were taking their newborn babies to "clinics" where infanticide specialists killed them, and for some reason it were legal, would you take direct action, violent if necessary, to do anything you could, individually or in a group, to save as many babies as you could, or would you just seek to change the law via the political process over many years while the slaughter continued?

If one considers all embryos and fetuses to be just as much persons as a newborn baby, I would think that one's answer to the question above would apply to abortion clinics, to abortion practitioners and to the women.

Again, I'm NOT advocating violence or anything illegal. But there does seem to be an inconsistency of principle here, at least in the case of some people, though I'm not presuming that of anyone in this thread.

You don't seem to understand that no action could be taken. It is physically impossible. Abortionists and abortion facilities are too secured. Any attempt to stop it would be blocked before it happened.

And of course a lot of people (maybe even most) would not have the bravery to go that far if born people were being killed. In such a case as that, some may be too weak or scared, and others may find it against their religion or belief system. A lot of people could not or would not even fight in wars, and they would not engage in illegal activity to fight unjust genocide or killing (of the born) in one's own country.

The latter part of your answer touches on the heart of my question, which is really what is RIGHT (moral, just), rather than what people WOULD do. But even in the latter part of your answer you refer to others. What do YOU think would be right?

And to say it's impossible is a cop out. Assume saving some lives is possible just for the sake of argument (hypothetically, even if you question it), to get at the moral principle.

under any circumstance; I believe it to be a moral wrong. There are, however, the circumstances under which the civil World has concluded that it is justified, and I believe that most of those justifications have social utility. It is between the soldier and God. It is between the parents of the 14 year old girl and God. It is between the man fearful for the life of his wife and children and God. Civil society has chosen not to make that judgement.

In Vino Veritas

murder one, special circumstances. And put the needle in their arm. And stop off at KFC on the way home for some popcorn chicken, no mashed potatoes.

I would not prosecute a woman for her first abortion. Second one, I would prosecute her for murder two.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Great posting. When society becomes ever more fractured and confused, always look toward life.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

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 have a diary on this in the archives, but let me sum it up for you. Governor Reagan signed the law he signed before Roe showed the world what abortion on demand really looks like, and drew the clear dividing line between pro-life and pro-abortion forces in this country.

Not that the law he signed implemented abortion on demand anyway, not that it was a liberal law by today's standards, in which teenagers getting abortion on demand without their parents finding out is the gold standard for liberal abortion laws.

He never supported abortion on demand, and he even published a book outlining his opposition to abortion on demand during his first term as President. To me that goes beyond pandering and into the realm of advocacy.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters