As you may have noticed in my first comparison post, I gave my own rating of each candidate, and ordered them by that rating. I also explained my personal perspective and how I arrived at this rating. This issue is a more difficult one for me to rate quite as cut and dry, but I will do my best to do so. First, let me explain why. I do believe that life begins at conception, and that to intervene to end that life (abortion) is murder. I also believe that, just as laws regarding murder are defined on the state, not the federal level, abortion laws should do the same. In that regard, a federal position on abortion is a difficult one to defend on either side from a legal and constitutional view, however, very understandable from a moral view. It is certainly preferable to err towards the side of life. That said, in my ranking of candidates, I will be focusing on the federal level, overall implications, and doing my best to remove the emotional aspect from what is a very emotional issue. It is very easy on an issue like this to focus in on the emotional, and in the case of life, certainly not wrong to do so, however, we must delve past the rhetoric and emotion to the facts and the substance of the issue.
Chris Keniston
From his platform, he makes it pretty clear that, constitutionally, abortion and other social issues do not fall within the constitutional authority of the president. I encourage you to read it for yourself, particularly the section relevant to social issues if this is a deciding factor for you. I will provide a few excerpts here to better show his position on the issue.
"Constitutionally, the President's only authority to make decisions about social issues occurs when laws affecting them are proposed by the United States Congress. Only then does a President have authority to veto that bill or authorize it into law. Once signed into law, a President then has authority to direct the Executive Departments and Agencies to enforce that new law."
"LGBT rights, abortion and other legitimate social issues are not specifically addressed by the Constitution. Therefore, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, all such matters are solely reserved for the People or the states to decide." (Emphasis added)
"For anyone deeply concerned about my personal positions on LGBT rights, abortion or any other divisive social issue... I have given you my vow as an elected representative. I will support and defend the Constitution and your personal Liberty. When I swear the Oath of Office upon the Bible, that oath will be a binding covenant between me, you and God. I expect that we will all hold me accountable to it." (Emphasis added)
"Personally, I am strongly opposed to abortion as a means of birth control. If anyone in my life were considering one, I would urge them to make any other decision and honor the life entrusted to them. But I would respect their decision. Because it's ultimately their decision to answer for. Additionally, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that abortion is a Constitutionally protected practice. Short of a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice, an infringement of Liberty that I would never support, it really doesn't matter how I feel about it personally. That said, I am vehemently opposed to Planned Parenthood providing abortions and selling fetal tissue, aborted fetuses and potentially terminating live births for profit without specifically informing the mothers of their activities. I cannot see those actions as anything but criminal, and grounds for complete termination of federal funding. The government should not provide funding for any such heinous "for profit" endeavor."So, basically, Keniston would oppose federal funding for abortion services such as Planned Parenthood, and would consider legislation on social issues such as abortion to be constitutionally a state and individual issue, not federal. He would support and appoint strict constitutionalist judges who would likely hold the same view. To better explain it, or my interpretation of it, he is a pro life candidate who believes it is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. I would say that on this issue, myself and Keniston hold nearly identical views. Solid A+
Gary Johnson
There's actually a fair amount of material here to choose from. We'll start with the statement on his campaign website:
"Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer. On a personal level, Gary Johnson believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. As Governor, he supported efforts to ban late-term abortions. However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being and that the government should not be in the business of second guessing these difficult decisions. Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to prosecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington, or anywhere else."In Johnson's case, we can also look at his positions as governor, and statements made in the past. A helpful resource here is ontheissues.
We see that when he ran in 2012, he felt it was a state and individual issue, and it seems that he has remained consistent there. We also see that he opposed federal funding for programs relating to abortion, such as Planned Parenthood or stem cell research. Again, still consistent. Also of note, as governor of New Mexico, he supported a ban on partial birth abortions, supported requiring parental notification and consent, and supported required counseling. Also of relevance, today addressing Liberty University, he was specifically asked about abortion, and his SCOTUS picks regarding same. I thought he gave a consistent answer, and regarding SCOTUS picks, he stated that Justice Thomas would be a fair example of the type of judge he would pick.The relevant section is at about the 30:00 mark.
From a purely pro life view, this type of libertarian constitutionalist approach is a good one, as it allows freedom on the state level to address issues without federal overreach. I think he has a respectable position on the issue, but could articulate it more clearly. He gets an A
Darrell Castle
From his platform:
"If you’ve ever made a statement that you will never vote for someone who is not pro-life, or who supports abortion, and if you are really serious about that statement, then you only have one choice in this election. I am the only candidate of any party that is 100% pro-life or even close to it. Unlike Hillary Clinton who recently said, “unborn persons have no constitutional rights”, I know that all “persons” have the right to life and both the 5th and 14th amendments confirm that position. I also know, as does Mrs. Clinton in the deep recesses of her heart, that those waiting in their mother’s womb to be born are in fact persons. There are many things that a Constitutional President could do about abortion but I will give you a couple.
1. Veto and refuse to spend every penny of funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
2. Recommend to Congress, and work to convince Congress, to take away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over such matters."The first promise is quite inline with other constitutional approaches listed here. The second one is a bit more unclear. While abortion, in a strict constitutional sense, is not a federal issue, I am not sure what he means regarding "taking away....jurisdiction" It is unclear if he would respect state decisions on the matter and the 10th amendment distinction between state and federal authority. I respect his firm stance on the humanity of the unborn, but he needs to clarify his position regarding where the constitutional authority on the issue is. He gets a B+
Evan McMullin
From his campaign website:
"Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity. From conception to death - and any time in between - life is precious and we have a responsibility to protect it. A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person - it undermines the dignity of mother and child alike. Americans can and should work together to increase support and resources to reduce unintended pregnancies and encourage adoption, even if they may have different opinions on abortion rights"One can take from this that he is pro-life, and believes life begins at conception. One can also surmise that he would end tax subsidy of abortion services such as Planned Parenthood. However, any further details he seems pretty vague on. The above quote is the entire section on life on his site. So, will he seek a federal ban? Will he work with states to meet his goals? He talks about Americans with differing views working together, this is a nice sentiment, but a vague one. I can't tell if he's being vague to try to attract pro life voters without pissing off pro choice voters, or what he's really aiming at here. It's all in all a typical Republican nod to "church" without really saying much at all. He gets a B.
Donald Trump.
Where to begin...Ok, there isn't a specific section regarding abortion on his campaign site. However, he has been all over the map on abortion. Pro choice, pro life, support Planned Parenthood, defund Planned Parenthood... He has, at least since he began actively running in 2015, remained semi consistent on removing taxpayer funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion services. But he can't seem to make a reliable stance on the issue as a whole, and it would seem to me that whatever side of this particular issue you may land on, he is an unknown as to what position he will decide is his final answer. Due to that unreliability, Trump gets a C-Jill Stein
Although she doesn't have a specific statement regarding abortion itself on her website, she does discuss healthcare as a right, and under this, she includes
"Allow full access to contraceptive and reproductive care."And
" Expand women's access to 'morning after' contraception by lifting the Obama Administration's ban."Looking over her past stances on the matter, she has pretty consistently kept this view, and supports federal funding of stem cell research.
While I admire her consistency and conviction, I have nothing in common with it from either a pro-life or a constitutional perspective. Her positions are a clear violation of the 10th amendment of the constitution. From this view, I would give her an F, however, due to the consistency of the issue and a "devil you know" mentality, she jumps up to a D-
Hillary Clinton
First, from her campaign site:
"Hillary is proud to have earned the endorsement of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She will always defend the essential health and reproductive care that Planned Parenthood provides for women."
"Women’s personal health decisions should be made by a woman, her family, and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor. Hillary will fight back against Republican attempts to restrict access to quality, affordable reproductive health care. She will defend access to affordable contraception, preventive care, and safe and legal abortion—not just in principle, but in practice."Her site also provides further detail on her position here. If we look over her past stances, she does seem somewhat consistent, although she seems to fluctuate between a moderate "safe, legal, rare" stance and an abortion on demand stance. Her voting record as Senator seems to reflect this. She does at point discuss constitutional rights of those seeking "reproductive care", however, seems to neglect those very rights when it comes to religious objections, or 10th amendment issues. Because of this, she solidly gets an F
No comments:
Post a Comment