[
A few weeks ago I posted a similar diary, but it wasn't written well and I didn't make my point clearly. Dick Durbin's comment on Meet the Press this morning inspired me to have another go at it.]
This morning on Meet the Press, Sen. Dick Durbin, while speaking about nomination hearings for Judge John Roberts was asked about his personal shift on abortion issues. As a Congressman he was pro-life, but now is pro-choice, and says that if a potential SCOTUS Justice wanted to overturn Roe, that would indicate he or she was outside the political mainstream. Here is what the Senior Senator from Illinois said about his change in position:
more below the fold
I can tell you I came to Congress not having seen what I think is the important part of this debate and not understanding, if you will, really what was behind it. You know, it's a struggle for me. It still is. I'm opposed to abortion. If any woman in my family said she was seeking abortion, I'd go out of my way to try to dissuade them from making that decision. But I was really discouraged when I came to Washington to find that the opponents of abortion were also opponents of family planning. This didn't make any sense to me. And I was also discouraged by the fact that they were absolute, no exceptions for rape and incest, the most extraordinary medical situations. And I finally came to the conclusion that we really have to try to honor the Roe vs. Wade thinking, that there are certain times in the life of a woman that she needs to make that decision with her doctor, with her family and with her conscience and that the government shouldn't be intruding. It's true that my position changed, but as Abraham Lincoln said when they accused him of changing his position, "I'd rather be right some of the time than wrong all the time."
Hopefully we'll be hearing Bob Casey Jr. with a similarly nuanced position on reproductive rights in his inevitable campaign against Rick Santorum. Casey is pro-life. So was his father, a former Pennsylvania Governor whose name will forever be linked to the Supreme Court case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which upheld Roe v. Wade.
Casey has pretty much been anointed the PA Democratic Senate candidate since all the other potential high-profile candidates backed out to give him a clear run. Chuck Pennacchio, an unknown progressive, will provide him with token prmary opposition.
I hope Casey articulates his position in a way similar to Durbin, not only because I think it is the right stance for someone who is morally opposed to abortion, but can respect the rightof women to make their own choice on the matter, but also because it is the politically smart position.
The majority of people in this country are pro-choice. The majority of Pennsylvanians are pro-choice. More importantly, the area that will decide this election, Suburban Philadelphia is full of Republican leaning, but socially progressive swing voters. Casey needs to appeal to these voters, and he also needs to get the party activists on board to donate their time and money. If he doesn't publicly qualify his pro-life views this may be hard.
Also if Casey chooses to mirror Durbin's policy shift it would stand in contrast to an instance of inconsistency in Santorum's career.
Santorum will have to explain why he repeatedly voted for limiting the result of malpractice suits to $250,000, even though he supported and testified for his wife in her attempt to win $500,000 in a malpractice case. She ended up being awarded $350,000.
This example of inconsistency is illustrious of many in the Republican Party. They believe something is very important in principle, but trivial when applied to them. Santorum is a fierce advocate when it comes to tort reform and he wants to set a $250,000 cap on settlements to put a leash on frivolous and excessive lawsuits. But in his mind that conviction doesn't undermine his family's choice to pursue a large settlement.
Democrats in general and Casey in particular need to pounce on this. We are the party of personal choice and privacy when it comes to issues like reproductive rights, medicinal marijuana, marriage rights for all people. Republicans are the party that wants to set limits on what people are able to do, and then defy those limits in cases that apply to them.