Wyoming Vote Tracker

Some folks can’t believe that I, a strong pro-lifer, am giving my support to Cynthia Lummis. Well believe it. I was made aware of her stance on the abortion issue in the first part of March. It was explained to me, I contemplated, thought about, and considered it, compared it to what I believe, and at some time down the road said I can give my support knowing this much. It’s not exactly where I am, but there is some compatibility in our beliefs.

No doubt that many have perused the Lummis 2008 website and wondered why there was nothing about the social issues posted, and then probably wondered why I was supporting her. In case you haven’t been there in a while, let me quote for you a recently added section to the issues page:

I believe that the family is the center and cornerstone of American life. I was blessed to grow up in a home with a mother and father, sisters and brother, guided by faith in God and involved in activities that pulled our family together. I am a twice-blessed person: my husband, daughter and I have enjoyed even in this challenging era for families, a happy and complete family life.

That is why I believe strongly in family values, and the moral guidance provided by faith and family. Family values are the province of the family, not of the federal government. Further, the social and moral values of this very diverse nation are best reflected and protected at the state level, not the federal level.

In the Congress, I would vote in a manner that would protect families and state governments from Washington’s interference in issues that are the province of families and states. I would further support the confirmation of judges who understand that judges may not make law, but rather are confined to the important role of interpreting laws made by others.

I would work to protect from repeal the ban on partial birth abortion, which is in my view a reprehensible practice that is, at best, unbecoming of a civilized society. Further, I would vote to protect for state legislatures the right to make policy on issues such as marriage, adoption, abortion and education.

That is from the Family Issues section of the Issues page. When I saw it posted, I sent an e-mail expressing my appreciation for it being posted. And I can hear you all now: But Scott, she only wants Partial Birth Abortions banned!

Now hold on; that’s not what she said. She said she wants to protect the ban on Partial Birth Abortions. I agree with her that it is reprehensible. I just happen to think that abortion as a whole is reprehensible. I’m not a big fan of the “you can’t legislate morality” line because any legislation that governs what people can and cannot do creates a moral issue.  What she sees as a Federal issue on the family issues is that the Federal government has overstepped its bounds. On that, she is absolutely right. One particular segment of the government that has played a large role in this overstepping is the Judicial Branch.

Since we’re talking about abortion, let’s stick with it. Jan. 22, 1973. The Supreme Court said that abortion was a right to privacy issue. Outside of the moral compass, fine and well, until a state decides they want to have certain restrictions on abortions (parental consent for minors, circumstances of the pregnancy, residency, etc…), maybe even go for a total ban. Too bad, because the Federal government, via the Supreme Court playing Legislative Branch, declared it a woman’s right to privacy. Thus was born the “abortion on demand” mindset. I can do whatever I want with whoever I want, and the consequences don’t matter because it’s my right! Says who? The Supreme Court, so there!!! And the Founder’s roll in their graves again, cringing the thought that a citizen thinks a government institution gave her a right. O, for the days of acknowledging God’s role in society!

People seem to misunderstand that if the government giveth, the government can taketh. That is why the Founders didn’t codify the idea of the Government granting particular rights, the basics being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They viewed rights, even the existence of a nation, as coming from God. Because the rights were from God, the government best not be taking them.

Recently, Cynthia Lummis was interviewed by Planet Jackson Hole, along with fellow Republicans Bill Winney and Mark Gordon (insert throat clearing sound here), and Democrat Gary Trauner. When asked about abortion, here’s what the four had to say:

Planet Jackson Hole: What role, if any, do you believe state and/or federal government should have in deciding women’s level of access to abortion? How does your stance relate to your ideals of big vs. small government?

Gordon: Wyoming has addressed this issue, choosing to keep government out of people’s lives. I believe in a limited government, not an obtrusive one. Moreover, government cannot legislate good sense, morality, or wisdom. Government should not play a significant role in such intensely personal, spiritual and practical concerns.

Lummis: I believe that abortion is a sin against God, but I do not need the federal government to tell me that. I believe that each state should determine its own laws regarding such issues as abortion, adoption, marriage, education policy, and tort reform, not by judicial mandate, but through its legislature or ballot propositions.

Trauner: I respect the heartfelt views on both sides of this contentious issue. However, anyone who has ever had to make an agonizing medical decision for himself or a loved one knows the last thing they want is for the government to tell them what to do. Terry Schiavo comes to mind. Frankly, I do not believe government has a role in our private lives, including difficult decisions regarding birth, death or anything in between.

Winney: I believe abortion is wrong. Still, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. I do not believe abortions should be publicly funded. I don’t believe that a position opposing abortion has anything to do with the “ideals” of big vs. small government. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the land. It is incumbent upon us, under present law, to strive to eliminate abortions through education.

The four are not that far apart on this issue. Int he interest of fairness and full disclosure (not necessarily equal time), candidate Dan Zwonitzer has a statement regarding abortion on his website as well:

In overturning Roe v. Wade, giving each state the duty to protect human life.

Again, not all that different on the basic stance (which is all that can be compared given that he didn’t have a part in the Planet Jackson Hole interview. So, here’s why I am fine with the position taken by Cynthia Lummis and am fine in supporting her. The Federal Government erred on the issue. To effectively take care of the errant policy, it needs to be undone on the Federal level. For this situation, the best place for that to happen is in the branch it took place in, in this case, the Judicial.

2 Comments »