|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 | ||||||||
 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
18 July 2004
18 July 2004The Washington Post claims -- with little evidence -- that abortion is emerging as a potential deciding factor in elections across the country. One of only three examples the paper provides -- "former representative Tom Coburn, a Republican candidate for Senate in Oklahoma, has called for doctors who perform abortions to be sentenced to the death penalty" -- is indeed startling, but that's a digression in a story about a race where abortion definitely matters: The Republican primary for the Georgia's open Senate seat. On the right: Rep. Johnny Isakson, a "three exceptions man" (endangered mother, rape, and incest); and on the further right, Herman Cain, a fast-food millionaire aiming to become the first black senator from the deep South since Reconstruction. Cain calls himself a "one exception man," which means he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Post journo Manuel Roig-Franzia makes much of Cain's abortion-obsessed campaign, but there's something missing. Something big: the Why. As in, why is Cain opposed to abortion? The answer may seem obvious, but it isn't -- as any pro-life advocate can tell you, there are numerous religious reasons to oppose abortion, and also secular reasons, too. Is Cain religiously motivated? Is he a Catholic? An evangelical? Or is he a secularist who finds abortion ethically wrong? The Post profile doesn't give us even a hint. If abortion really is going to be a deciding factor in elections, shouldn't we know why candidates support choice or oppose legal abortions?
|
|
