Democratic Party
Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs. [2008 Democratic Party Platform, SectionIII]
Republican Party
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, 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.
We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.
Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the nonconsensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best
possible value. [2008 Republican Party Platform]Constitution Party
Sanctity of Life
The Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:
“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution “to ourselves and our Posterity“. Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.
To that end, the Constitution of these United States was ordained and established for “ourselves and our posterity.” Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.
We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.
No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government – legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.
In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government – legislative, executive, and judicial.
We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.
Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.
In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.
Finally, we also oppose all government “legalization” of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. [2008 Constitution Party Platform]
Libertarian Party
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. [2008 Libertarian Party Platform]
Green Party
Reproductive Rights
f. Women’s rights must be protected and expanded to guarantee each woman’s right as a full participant in society, free from sexual harassment, job discrimination or interference in the intensely personal choice about whether to have a child.
g. Women’s right to control their bodies is nonnegotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available. The “morning after” pill must be affordable and easily accessible without a prescription, together with a government-sponsored public relations campaign to educate women about this form of contraception. Clinics must be accessible and must offer advice on contraception and the means for contraception; consultation about abortion and the performance of abortions, and; abortion regardless of age or marital status.
h. We endorse women’s right to use contraception and, when they choose, to have an abortion. This right cannot be limited to women’s age or marital status. Contraception and abortion must be included in all health insurance policies in the U.S., and any state government must be able to legally offer these services free of charge to women at the poverty level. Public health agencies operating abroad should be allowed to offer family planning, contraception, and abortion in all countries that ask for those services. We oppose our government’s habit of cutting family planning funds when those funds go to agencies in foreign countries that give out contraceptive devices, offer advice on abortion, and perform abortions.
i. We encourage women and men to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is the inalienable right and duty of every woman to learn about her body and to be aware of the phases of her menstrual cycle, and it is the duty for every man to be aware of the functions and health of his and his partner’s bodies. This information is necessary for self determination, to make informed decisions, and to prevent unintended consequences. Unplanned conception takes control away from individuals and makes them subject to external controls. The “morning-after” pill and option of a safe and legal abortion need to remain available. [2008 Green Party Platform]
42 Comments
Comments are closed.
pf: Candidates don’t get a lot of attention span from most voters, especially long shot candidates.
me: Yes, but unthoughtful, extremist positions also don’t get the “right” kind of attention, either.
Crisp soundbites of nuanced, thoughtful positions are not easy to do, but I I believe they can be done.
L – I agree on both your points. However, while I agree that wording means little, what it said can make a difference. The issue with the current plank is, indeed, wording – but if I take a bio exam where spelling doesn’t count and I write “cat” for “dog” I can’t claim it as a spelling error.
Candidates don’t get a lot of attention span from most voters, especially long shot candidates. Issues they emphasize should be pretty simple and easy to explain. If it takes more than fifteen seconds to explain what your position is on any given issue, please emphasize something else.
PF, I like to see L candidates pressing the case for thoughtful, reasonable lessarchy. Yes, in any one campaign, what a candidate campaigns on probably is of little-to-no consequence.
So, yes, abortion is not a good differentiator for Ls IF the issue is positioned as a moral issue in which one side is good and the other is evil. Instead, if Ls were inviting people to think about that issue, and most issues, from a more elevated perspective, it might be interesting to see if that resonated. Abortion is not black and white, as the platform suggests. Suggesting first that there is respect for both of the polar positions would be a start.
Since Ls are generally getting single-digit results, the swings would be tiny, anyway.
By that standard it would not matter whatsoever what any LP candidate says about any issue.
If that’s true, you are in a very small minority. In fact, “rabid” would be a better description than “tepid” for most people’s views on abortion.
I don’t believe that is true. There are certainly many people for whom it is a make or break issue, on either side, but added together I don’t believe they are anywhere close to a majority. Most people are tepid or lukewarm or confused or somewhere in the middle on this issue just as on others. But, you don’t gain much from them either by making it a top issue, so your larger point is still correct.
Ripple effects are not the same as dominos. There’s no clear chain of one effects leading directly to another. Rather, think of it as a pool of water that has clusters of rocks thrown into it disturbing the surface. Any point on the surface will have ripple effects to some extent, but they all intersect each other, so they don’t just come from one rock.
I agree with langa about not making it a lead issue either way.
L, yes, it is sometimes a deal breaker. There’s probably some numbers on this, but my guess is no more than 30% of the electorate are pro-life or -choice to the deal breaker extent.
I am tepid in that I can see and respect the pro-life position. And I am OK with several restrictions on abortions, e.g., late term.
You are probably right that L candidates are not going to distinguish themselves on the issue. Since Ls are generally getting single-digit results, the swings would be tiny, anyway.
I’m tepidly pro-choice.
If that’s true, you are in a very small minority. In fact, “rabid” would be a better description than “tepid” for most people’s views on abortion. Actually, for a lot of people, finding out that they disagree with a particular candidate on abortion is an absolute “deal breaker” issue for them.
Plus, as I said, libertarians are unlikely to win over many converts by trumpeting their views on abortion. If someone disagrees with libertarians on other issues, they are unlikely to care what the candidate has to say on abortion. For example, a conservative who was planning to vote Republican (or Constitution Party) is unlikely to decide to vote LP just because the candidate is against abortion. Same thing (in reverse of course) for a progressive who would otherwise vote for the Democrats (or the Greens). Nor is someone who wasn’t planning to vote at all likely to change their mind because they find out that the LP candidate agrees with them on abortion. If the issue is that important to them, they would probably vote for one of the other parties. There’s just really very little to be gained from making abortion one of your big issues.
Langa, why? If “Langa” were a L candidate, and s/he took a “strong” pro-life position, I might still vote for him or her, even though I’m tepidly pro-choice. I’d look at the totality of Langa-as-candidate.
PF, ripple effects, huh? Have you mapped out the dominos and how they’ve fallen? Declaration of Independence > Spanish American War > The Roosevelts > Vietnam > Gold Standard ends > Janet Reno > McVeigh’s mind snaps?
Or are you just kidding, playing the dogmatist for fun?
Back on topic here, as a practical matter, I don’t think it’s very important exactly how the plank on abortion is worded, as no wording will ever please everyone, or even close to everyone.
What is important is how individual LP candidates handle the abortion issue. For example, I am personally strongly pro-life, but I have no problem supporting LP candidates who are strongly pro-choice, as long as it’s not a central issue in their campaign. If a pro-choice LP candidate were to make abortion one of their main talking points, I would have a hard time supporting that candidate. Similarly, I would imagine that most pro-choice libertarians would have a hard time supporting a pro-life LP candidate who made opposition to abortion one of their main issues.
So, I would advise most LP candidates to steer clear of the issue as much as possible. After all, you’re working with a very small base to begin with; why go out of your way to alienate a significant portion of that base, especially when doing so is unlikely to gain you any additional support? If you are asked about the issue, feel free to give your own personal opinion, but be sure to mention that the party allows for diversity of opinion, and then steer the conversation back to more constructive, less divisive topics. I see no need to bring up the platform at all.
Jim Jones’ modus operandi was actually strikingly similar to that of most politicians.
No, those are ripple effects of regime lawlessness.
And Poly Law examples might be: McVeigh, Jim Jones, etc.
Yes, for example with Eric Garner on Staten Island, Michael Brown in Ferguson, etc.
Metaphysically, I’m with ya. The eternal Tao just is. It’d be an example of spontaneous order.
On a tangible level, unfortunately, we can see and codify the state’s rule of law.
It exists despite, not because of, the state’s miscarriage of justice.
It seems you probably have it mixed up in this case as to which one is the ship and which one is the ocean.
pf: The fact that regime law also exists does not mean other forms of law don’t also function.
me: The REAL question is whether POLY law could exist if there wasn’t a baseline peacekeeping institution maintaining domestic tranquility. No evidence of it in the modern era.
PF, yes, a ship in the middle of the ocean can make ripples for a bit. But the ocean remains.
Polycentric law happens all the time. It’s not theoretical. The fact that regime law also exists does not mean other forms of law don’t also function.
pf, while there WAS something like polycentric law in primitive times, and PERHAPS something like polycentric law COULD happen, it is not in the cards that I’m seeing on the table at this time or any time soon.
Yes, Pods are no longer Pods when states wither away. Also not on the table.
Picking and choosing jure de jour sounds kinda neat in the abstract. But if Individual A is opposed to abortion (polylaw A) until she is 7 months pregnant and then changes her mind and chooses abortion on demand (polycentric law B), that might be a wonderful construct on some level. I’m just not sure I’d want to call that a “rule of law,” however.
RC,
Pods are for archists, remember? If some people want to voluntarily organize pods where 100% of them decide to submit to some authority of their choosing that is OK, as long as they don’t make anyone else comply due to some imagined “social contract” and anyone is free to leave at any time. I envision these archy pods being fairly small, otherwise they start to become a sort of state once children start being raised there, and leaving becomes a big deal, especially if everyone choose to live in one such pod or another – although I don’t believe everyone, or most people, will.
As for what I was talking it does not require pods at all, only individuals and, if they wish, families.
And there is law in a stateless society, it’s just that it is polycentric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
AC – Fair points. Given the two options, I’d really rather have no plank at all than one that I can’t figure out – if I can’t understand it, I can’t defend it. It’s a camel – you know, a horse written by committee? It’s a pro-choice plank trying not to look like one. Anyone not familiar with it would need to read it 4 times to figure out what it says. At least it’s short, though.
If the party is mixed enough that there’s no reason to drive off the pro-life crowd – and I have no reason to think otherwise – why do we need an abortion plank?
more…
In a sense, there is no “law” in statelessness, just “behavior.”
PF, yup, in a stateless world of adjacent Nonarchy Pods, anything goes in each Pod, true.
That would be the same thing as having it be legal once you get to the individual level. Unless of course you want it to be mandatory. I was hoping I would not have to explain that 🙂
Yes, PF, I can see it now: 101 Main St, abortion 100% prohibited. 103 Main St, 8 months, 3 week term abortion are a-OK.
A compelling vision for some. Me? Not so much….
“Some old threads never die!”
I’m thrilled to see my article from 2008 finally get some discussion. I wish more old articles got revived this way 🙂
“I don’t think leaving it to the states makes a lot of sense”
Only as a first step to devolving it to counties, towns, neighborhoods, blocks, and down to the household and individual level. Oh wait…
Some old threads never die!
Strikes me that abortion is a complicated issue, one where agreeing to disagree seems the most sensible position.
A fetus is certainly a potential human being. WHEN the fetus deserves protection is an interesting question, and oddly enough I think the Roe formulation seems about right to me, even though I believe the Supremes overreached on that decision.
I don’t think leaving it to the states makes a lot of sense, since this is a rather major question of when life deserves protection, one of national import. On the other hand, I don’t oppose leaving it to the states if that maximizes domestic tranquility.
Hysteria on the question seems contra-indicated.
Jill and Andy Craig have the best points here so far IMO.
And there’s nothing inherently racist or reactionary about decentralization, even though in some cases it has been used by some such elements, there are also many cases in US and world history and policy where it has been used on behalf of liberty. Jill mentions marijuana policy; ironically marriage equality is another example where states have led the way in the face of DOMA, although George says in a negative way that it’s about whether lesbians and gay people should be allowed to marry. Prior to some states saying that the answer is yes, it was no nationwide and at the federal level. We may now be approaching the point where states rights will cut the other way on this issue, but lest we forget, quite a few people would have been denied the legal right to marry that they already have used if it weren’t for states rights.
And I agree, the platform should only defend provisions of the constitution by way of defending an entrenched libertarian policy. We can talk about respect for the rule of law, and following the constitution as it is until it is changed, but we should never defend something as a policy matter in the platform just because it’s in the constitution. The income tax and Federal postal delivery is in the constitution, too, after all.
I think we can and will support efforts to use the state government against the Federal government to protect individual freedom, while we also can and will support the Federal government using its power against the state governments to do the same. We don’t support states rights, but we do support arrangements and counter-balances that restrain government power by dividing it against itself. In other words, it’s not states vs. federal government across the board, it’s a matter of which one is one the more pro-freedom side of any given question.
I think an accurate description of where the L.P. is on abortion would be something like “Functionally pro-choice with a substantial pro-life minority, nominating candidates from both, with the vast majority of Libertarians preferring to focus on other issues.”
The current platform might not be artfully worded or very compelling, but it reflects this reality. Any attempt to change it would cause more stupid outrage and infighting that it’s worth. I make no bones about being pro-choice, but there are too many good libertarians who take the opposite position for us to be running them off. And nobody is going to say anything new on the substance of the debate, so why dig it back up and re-hash it now?
And if someone out there wants a more hard-line anti-abortion policy, then there’s always the Crazy Party. Or the GOP, which is where the vast majority of anti-abortion political activity will continue to be concentrated.
I’m unhappy with our current plank because I have to strain to understand it. I’m unhappy with the one suggested above because we are libertarians, not Constitutionalists. I do like the humor factor of putting Michael’s proposed plank in, but I oppose its substance and, ultimately, credibility is more important. I don’t like the Democrat plank because of the economic statements and the bit about reducing the need for abortions. I like the idea of the Green plank, minus a couple things, but it’s just too long.
There is a split in the party on this issue, as shown in our current bizarre plank. In the face of that, one option is to just leave it out. I would strongly oppose a pro-life plank, but many would strongly oppose a clear pro-choice plank. On the other hand, it seems worth addressing. My preference is for a pro-choice plank. If I were writing it, I’d suggest something like:
Reproductive Rights
Women’s rights must be protected and expanded to guarantee each woman’s right as a full participant in society, free from sexual harassment and interference in the intensely personal choice about whether to have a child.
Women’s right to control their bodies is nonnegotiable. It is essential that the option of a safe, legal abortion remains available. The “morning after” pill must be easily accessible without a prescription, and should all medications. Clinics must be accessible and must offer abortions regardless of age or marital status, as dictated by market needs.
The choice to carry a child to term or to receive an abortion is intensely personal. Therefore, no laws should require the involvement of any individuals other than the woman whose body is impacted. We oppose parental consent and notification laws, and laws mandating the consent or notification of the biological father.
This isn’t perfect, it’s just a quick rough draft.
George, I’ve heard that argument before, and I can’t agree with it. The movement currently called nullification in most cases, is one of the last remaining tools we have to have to take control away from the federal government, which they never should have had in the first place. An example is the number of states who are loosening marijuana laws. The federal government should never have involved themselves in such an issue.
I see your point that this tool can also be used for negative and exclusionary reasons, but many things with the potential for good also have potentional for bad.
And what type of overly burdensome apparatus of compulsory force underscored by violence shall we create to have the authority to protect this alleged right to life of the fetus?
One that has the power to take you against your will, by force, strap you down to a gurney, hold you at gunpoint and wait for you to give birth so that you will not have the opportunity to commit suicide to end the pregnancy?
We got rid of that racist states rights nonsense a long time ago, and good libertarians should not be trying to bring it back on the abortion issue. States rights is about whether women should be allow to have have abortions, married couples should be allowed to buy contraceptives, African-Americans should be allowed to attend schools or vote, gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, and wives should be allowed to own property. It is an evil and reactionary depraved Republican Party doctrine, and is the opposite of Liberty, which is that our Bill of Rights have been imposed on all America by the long-overdue 14th Amendment.
Completely useless
I say, F**K what you all say, let the mother choose, if it’s and extreme case of rape, then an abortion should be allowed, but if the mother is a slut and f**ks anything that walks then she should suffer, AKA letting the baby suffer too…
Here’s what the LP platform on abortion should be:
All Libertarians are against the initiation of force, and believe that where the state has declared for itself a territorial monopoly on the provision of justice, it is the state’s duty to defend life, liberty, and property. Libertarians, however, disagree as to whether abortion is the initiation of force, and whether a fetus/unborn child is an individual with rights. What is not a matter for debate among Libertarians, however, is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the matter of abortion, whatsoever. Under the Constitution, abortion is delegated to the states and the people, and thus both Roe v. Wade and the partial-birth abortion ban should be overturned.