Ann Coulter and the GOP’s Abortion Problem

In her election-week column, conservative polemicist Ann Coulter gushed about what she viewed as Romney’s superlative candidacy, and the tragedy of his defeat:

Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. It’s less disheartening that a president who wrecked American health care, quadrupled gas prices, added $6 trillion to the national debt and gave us an 8 percent unemployment rate can squeak out re-election than that America will never have Romney as our president.

Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded. Blaming the candidate may be fun, but it’s delusional and won’t help us avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

“No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.

Now, I liked Romney more by the end of this presidential race than I ever thought I would, but I think most conservatives would agree that Romney was far from the “perfect” candidate. One of the principle reasons was his less-than-impressive record on life issues.

And apparently, according to Coulter’s view, that makes us part of the problem. Coulter takes issue with those conservative purists (like total pro-lifers) who just aren’t willing to compromise their principles to win.

Purist conservatives are like idiot hipsters who can’t like a band that’s popular. They believe that a group with any kind of a following can’t be a good band, just as show-off social conservatives consider it a mark of integrity that their candidates — Akin, Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell — take wildly unpopular positions and lose elections.

The cognitive dissonance of an intellectually dishonest position on abortion — one that allows for exceptions under certain circumstances — continues to create problems for true pro-life voters, as well as for the elected officials of the GOP.

There has been a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease going around when it comes to talking about the uncomfortable truths of abortion. Drawing distinctions about “legitimate rape” or failing to carefully articulate what is meant when saying that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something that God intended to happen” are human failures that distract us from the deeper issues in play: that the beginning of any new human life is always a positive good, even if the circumstances in which it came about was evil. That every human being deserves a chance to live, blossom, and flourish, even though their entrance into existence may come as the fruit of pain and suffering. That an innocent child should not be punished with death in an attempt to redress the crime perpetrated against its mother.

In other words: life is life, no matter how inconvenient, how challenging, how gut-wrenchingly tragic the circumstances. This is an issue that demands the utmost sensitivity, compassion, and care, but it is a reality we have to deal with as human beings in a fallen world. It can’t simply be swept under a rug, or dismissed as something too difficult to deal with in legislation. It’s too big of a truth to keep pretending it doesn’t exist.

But Coulter, it seems, doesn’t see it that way:

“No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.

[ … ]

The overwhelming majority of people — including me — are going to say the law shouldn’t force someone who has been raped to carry the child.”

This thinking is wrong. Dead wrong. It sounds almost exactly like Naomi Wolf’s infamous admission:

“War is legal: it is sometimes even necessary. Letting the dying die in peace is often legal and sometimes even necessary. Abortion should be legal; it is sometimes even necessary. Sometimes the mother must be able to decide that the fetus, in its full humanity, must die.”

So where does this leave us? Intellectuals on both the left and the right agreeing that an unborn child is a human life, but that we have the right to take that life if things have gotten dicey? Where does such moral excrescence lead us?

I think it’s fair to say that Ann Coulter is not, by the standards of most conservatives, a good ambassador for conservatism in general or the Republican Party itself. But do not be fooled – what Coulter has the audacity to say blatantly underlies what many in the party have formed policies to inherently express.

How do we get from where we are today to a culture of life if this is the legislative mentality we can expect from the Right? We have to demand more. To say that “Killing an innocent human life is always wrong, except when it isn’t” is simply unacceptable.


Categories:Featured Pro-Life

63 thoughts on “Ann Coulter and the GOP’s Abortion Problem

  1. Knotso F. Democrat says:

    Hey, I’m supporting Santorum,too. I’m even plannning on changing my voter registration so I can vote for him come the Republican primary in my state. I emphatically suggest other Democrats do the same.

    1. Steve Skojec says:

      Sadly, I have little doubt that will be an effective way to ensure another GOP defeat.

  2. Randall says:

    You are disgusting and perverted, Riotjock. How dare you drag this fine upstanding man’s name through the mud. CatholicVote administrators, please ban this anti-Catholic troll. Scottie as well. Look at the filth they are posting on here.

    1. Patrick says:

      I agree with you, Randall. This site has no room for degradation.

      1. kgbla says:

        You will not allow female priests. Now that is degrading.

        1. Steve Skojec says:

          We’ll allow female priests when nature allows male mothers. Deal?

          1. Mara says:

            Steve, so not allowing female Priests is based on nature? Just what part of nature are you referring to? Where in nature is the male superior to the female? Can a male in nature give birth? If not, why isn’t the female considered superior? I agree that much of Catholic doctrine is based on nature and that’s the problem? Nature doesn’t have not consciousness nor does it have a conscience. Nature is “might is right.” The most physically strong win. We, as human beings, can and have moved beyond the confines of nature. We can move beyond “might is right” and “males are superior to females.” It’s time for the Catholic Church to join the human race.

          2. Tony Love says:

            It isn’t about superiority, Mara, it is about Divine Revelation.

          3. Mara says:

            Nice pat answer that has no data to support it and therefore can’t be proven.

        2. Guest says:

          Kgbla, you are not God.

    2. What? I just want to see Santorum spread far and wide. How is that offensive?

    3. What? I just want to see Santorum spread far and wide. How is that offensive?

        1. I still don’t see a problem with making sure that Santorum is on every Catholics lips next election.

          1. Steve Skojec says:

            Because by Santorum, you don’t mean what riotjock links to above? If I had the administrative rights, I would have nuked your comments already. Stop being degrading. It just shows the intellectual vacuity of your positions.

    4. kgbla says:

      Banning somebody because they are anti-catholic ! Thats a good way to win a debate. If catholicism is going to survive, members should be more reasonable.

      1. Patrick says:

        You aren’t reasonable, Kgbla.

  3. Rob B. says:

    Once again, our political parties reveal their true nature. It isn’t about what is right and wrong; it’s about winning and sticking it to the other side. Most of all, it’s Rage masquerading as Righteousness

    This year, we had a choice between the party of Moloch and the party of Mammon. I voted Mammon in the vain hope that perhaps the rights of Catholics would not be violated in a Romney presidency (a hope that, frankly, seemed a lost cause). I certainly never expected him to do anything substantive about abortion.

    1. Jim Abel says:

      Perhaps you did about the best you could Rob B. I also voted for Romney, hoping that things would be better. I think that they would have been on many fronts.

    2. kgbla says:

      You are correct that it is not about what is right and what is wrong. It is about the people voting for the person they think will do the right things. This time around, it was Obama.

      1. Guest says:

        It must be about right and wrong, Kgbla.

  4. GREG SMITH says:

    Steve – My take is that Romney was the only “finalist” who was electable. However as I’vementioned before, his position on pro-life was “A’hm against abortion too!”

    While many are promoting Santorum in 2016, I don’t believe that he’ll be any more electable then than he was this year

    OTOH – Jon Huntsman has an absolutely solid pro-life record and is electable. Over the next 3 11/2 years I hope to convince AP/CV to endorse him should he run. – Pax, Greg

  5. Patrick says:

    I pray that there will never be any capitulation by the Republican Party. Indeed, human life is sacred. Any and every refusal to recognize the humanity of the preborn child will displease God and cement the continuing decay of our country.

    1. Randall says:

      Absolutely. It saddened me to see so many RINOs throw Akin and Mourdock under the bus just for defending life at all stages. They should be elevated for their views, not denigrated. I can’t believe Ann Coulter has fallen into the same line of thinking. At least Santorum gets it right 100% of the time. Santorum 2016!

    2. kgbla says:

      The Hispanic population is growing. If the replublicans do not make radical changes, they will loose again.

      1. Patrick says:

        It is not merely about elections, Kgbla.

  6. riotjock™ says:

    I think Naomi Wolf told you where to start. Start by taking the stance that killing innocent humans in war is not ever right. Start by saying that capital punishment is never morally right. That life is precious. Put all the energy into saving that murder’s life on death row as you do on eliminating a woman’s right to choose. The Bishops held a huge, expensive press conference in NY last year to protest all the abortions. Why were they silent on California’s attempt to eliminate the death penalty.

    People aren’t stupid. They see that you put no effort at all into ending wars or the death penalty, so your “life is precious” BS is just that. Complete BS.

    1. Soros Troll Alert says:

      Attention moderators, this Liberal Troll is left over from George Soros’s election time shenanigans. Apparently he is still receiving a paycheck to spew his venom on Catholic websites. It’s time to BAN him and his little friends – fun time is over for them and we are sick of putting up with their hatred.

      1. riotjock™ says:

        I’m not a troll. I’m an actual Catholic.

        1. Patrick says:

          I am sorry though, Riotjock, that you refused the opportunity to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation (please see the next thread).

      2. kgbla says:

        How very Catholic of you. And, by the way, negative comments are not “hatred”. Please stop exagerating.

        1. Guest says:

          Why are you here, Kgbla?

    2. Tony Love says:

      Riotjock, the killing of an innocent person is always reprehensible, whether by abortion or in war. Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have taught that although the Tradition has held to the liceity of capital punishment, today it is to be considered a last resort, in part due to the terrible disrespect shown human life. Hence, while we should not pursue capital punishment, it is not strictly analogous to abortion and the killing of an innocent person in war.

    3. Kat says:

      I believe the Catholic bishops in California were here:

      FYI: Just because the media doesn’t report on it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

      1. riotjock™ says:

        The Catholic Church didn’t spend one dime in California trying to save the lives of death row inmates. They spent $2 million dollars of church money trying to ban gay people from getting a marriage license at city hall. Which is more important? Saving a human life, or keeping gay people from getting a piece of paper from a city clerk?

        1. Patrick says:

          I’m surprised, Riotjock, that you would claim that marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper. That’s the same argument used by the liberals of the 1960s and 1970s who championed cohabitation. Remember? “I don’t need a piece of paper.” I am stunned that you, Riotjock, would employ this nearly five decades old argument in phrasing what homosexual “marriage” is. If your argument is true, then why would homosexuals seek a marriage license, which, as you claim, means nothing? I don’t understand your contention, Riotjock.

    4. Randall says:

      For some reason, the libtards are taking care of defending death row inmates (probably to save the lives of fellow ingrates and criminals at the expense of the taxpayer) which means we really aren’t needed on that front. On the other hand we are the only ones willing to defend the lives of the pre-born (while liberals gleefully attack them). That duty falls to us and we must devote 100% of our pro-life effort to it. We are the last line of defense. Take your bleeding heart elsewhere.

      1. riotjock™ says:

        Actually, eliminating the death penalty in California would save millions of dollars every year in needless appeals and costs. Housing and caring for inmates is quite a bit cheaper than spending money on the herd of high priced lawyers that we have to hire to get them put in the chair.

    5. Steve Skojec says:

      Naomi Wolf didn’t say that at all. She said, “War is legal: sometimes it is even necessary.”

      And for that matter, so is the death penalty. Are you seriously going to equate arbitrarily taking the life of a helpless baby with the state taking the life of a murderer after a judicial process?

      1. kgbla says:

        sometimes the judicial process convicts innocent people.

        1. Steve Skojec says:

          Sometimes. (And probably more often, people who should get the death penalty don’t.) But as the old maxim goes, abuse doesn’t negate use.

          I know a little bit about this issue from a personal perspective. In college, two of my friends were murdered, and capital punishment was on the table. In 2007, my mother-in-law was brutally murdered and left in the desert. I wrote about this at the time. If you want to know more about my thoughts on capital punishment, you can read it here:

        2. Tony Love says:

          Then work for true justice, Kgbla.

    6. Steve Skojec says:

      And let’s be intellectually serious about something else: many socially conservative Catholics — myself included — oppose unnecessary war. So don’t try to pin that on us.

      1. Rob says:

        Steve, while I will not debate your own views, you have got to be kidding when you say that socially conservative Catholics oppose unnecessary wars. Where, OH WHERE, were your voices as George Bush was launching his pre-emptive war?

        1. Guest says:

          Rob, I am a socially conservative Catholic who opposes unnecessary laws. Your generalization is unhelpful. Please stop.

        2. Steve Skojec says:

          My voice? It wasn’t there. I was just out of college and having grown up “conservative” in the 1980s, I was a default neo-con. I consumed a steady diet of talk radio and talking points.

          But the conservative, anti-war voices are out there. I found them in places like The New Oxford Review, Crisis Magazine, The American Conservative, Human Events, Taki’s Magazine, and elsewhere. I started paying attention to Pat Buchanan, whom so many people seemed not to take seriously – but he was making sense. These people changed my mind.

          Do I think they’re the majority? No. But I think they’re a growing contingent. And they are the people who go to the primaries for guys like Ron Paul. They’re not going away. Classical conservatism isn’t bellicose. Neither is Catholicism.

      2. kgbla says:

        Then why do most conservative Catholics vote for the sabre-rattler?

        1. Steve Skojec says:

          Simply put: because the guarantee of 1.5 million innocent lives taken every year outweighs the possibility of a much smaller number of innocent lives lost through collateral damage in war.

          That’s a pretty crappy decision to have to make, though.

          I wish liberals would join us in getting rid of abortion. They’d find us to be far stronger allies on war than they might expect.

        2. Jim Abel says:

          How would you know, Kgbla?

    7. Mara says:

      According to Catholic Doctrine, it’s apparent that the life and freedom of choice of those who have actually been born is less significant than a fetus who hasn’t taken his or her first breath on their own; a fetus that’s completely dependent on the pregnant woman for all of its needs; a fetus that’s in a complete parasitic state. This thinking implies that a parasite is more valuable than its host. If this were true, then life would not exist because parasites would kill off the hosts and then starve to death. Coulter is right. This country will never put laws in place forcing rape victims to give birth. That concept is completely abhorrent to Americans, not because Americans don’t get it but rather because they do. Freedom of choice is a fundamental right that occurs at birth and not before. Take it away and you destroy free will followed by the destruction of the human conscience followed by the destruction of human joy and we are back in the jungle with all the other animals. If you want to end abortions start by ending unwanted pregnancies. Do this by teaching parents how to bring up their children with high self-esteem.

      1. Guest says:

        I am afraid, Mara, that you misunderstand Catholic Doctrine. Life after birth is also precious. And your comment that a preborn child is a parasite doesn’t do justice to the marvel of God’s Creation as seem in that tiny infant.

    8. Anita says:

      The Church makes its position clear on both issues but because of the sheer number of abortions (60 million since 1973) – compared to the number of dealth penalty deaths (1300 since 1976) – the focus is on the more widespread murderous practice: abortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.