In the wake of the 2004 election, the last national election to produce a Republican majority, social conservatism was all the rage. President Bush’s electoral majority was comprised heavily of evangelicals and other socially conservative types, and social issues such as abortion, the judiciary, and gay marriage provided a far greater portion of the issues at the foundation of the GOP majority of the time than did spending or the size and scope of the federal government. Moreover, 2004 and 2005 were dream years for so-cons everywhere. A well-publicized exit-poll from 2004 suggested that a plurality of voters considered “moral values” to be the most important issue facing the nation. Stem cells and Terry Schiavo reignited national interest in life issues, while two wildly popular conservative jurists made their way to the Supreme Court. A world away, a conservative Cardinal was elevated to Pontiff, while here at home, majorities remained opposed to redefining marriage. Rick Santorum seemed a likely candidate for Senate Majority Leader someday, if not vice president.
But all of this collapsed when voters demonstrated their distinctly American distaste for statism of any strain and threw the bums out, so to speak, for cultural bossiness along with a bevy of other sins. Santorum’s collapse in centrist Pennsylvania was representative of the nation’s refusal to entertain a Christian Democrat version of the GOP. The Northeast cleaned house of Republican elected officials, because of spending and Iraq and corruption and incompetence of course, but also because of the increasing feeling that Northeastern Republicans were quislings of a Bible Belt GOP.
The Bush Coalition, like a broken mirror, can never and will never be put back together again. But as the last year has shown, it doesn’t have to be in order for Republicans to win elections. The McDonnell, Christie, and Brown victories along the east coast suggest that a new Republican majority is forming around small government, economic growth, and security. Bob McDonnell, the most socially conservative of the bunch, ran on economic issues, not social ones. And that coalition is quite different from the culturally conservative save-the-world crew that voted Republican in 2004. As such, what role will social conservatives play in a GOP built on the planks of economics and security?
I think that social conservatives will find a small government party quite amenable when it comes to many if not most of their key issues. Freedom of religion is an ideal shared by small government types and so-cons. Small government also requires a judiciary that maintains its proper, constitutional role, something that is probably more important to so-cons than any other issue. And the privatization of areas of the economy currently controlled by government, such as school choice, will give so-cons more of an ability to decide how to raise their children. And support for Israel, a key ally in the Middle East, will be a necessary component for a party focused on security and on defending America’s interests. These are issues which will allow so-cons to feel right at home in a small government, security-heavy version of the Republican Party, which I think is the version that we are headed towards as we enter the coming decade.
What so-cons have to be careful of, or, should I say, what the GOP elite has to be careful of is attempting to reach out to so-cons with half-hearted, red meat rhetoric of the last decade that won’t really make any headway among so-cons at the grassroots and that will actually turn off the small government types that will be at the base of the new GOP majority. Calls for government to police the culture or interfere with the private lives of individuals will seem statist to a coalition that wants first and foremost individual autonomy, and that already has made peace with the social conservatives on the issues most important to them. Moral hectoring or talk about the “real America,” almost always coming from the Beltway elite in an attempt to pander to so-cons, will get the Republican Party nowhere as we move forward.
One fine example of this can be found at the right-wing site Hot Air, which I enjoy reading and whose readership seems pretty representative of today’s conservatism. Contributor Ed Morrissey, whom I more often than not agree with, apparently sees the need to prove his so-con creds with a piece about the restaurant Hooters that could easily have been penned by the most humorless feminazi. What I find most entertaining though are the comments from the site’s readers, who by and large either defend Hooters, or who don’t see what all the fuss is about. This is from a site, mind you, where ObamaCare was gutted early and often by the site’s readership this past year, and where Sarah Palin has innumerable fans based on the commentary that posts on the Alaskan generate.
I think what “Cap’n Ed” and other conservative pundits and talking heads are going to learn over the next couple of election cycles is that moral tut-tutting is not what the coming Republican majority is all about. Freedom is what it’s about, with security as an essential pre-condition to the maintenance of freedom. Socially conservative causes are consistent with this movement to the extent that they are also causes in support of maintaining or expanding freedom and security. This is a coalition that hates collectivism, loves Sarah Palin, and in the case of both guns and Hooters, statists of all sorts will have to pry both from their cold, dead…well, you know.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Dave,
Normally your pieces are top drawer, and I enjoy reading your views of political currents and the fortunes of the party, but it is obvious to me that you don’t understand social conservatives any more than I understand Swahili, and when you look at the future of the party, you see…….. you.
First off, abortion is the #1 issue of SoCons, and yet it gets no mention in your article, even though you repeatedly refer to SoCons getting their top priorities. I can only assume that such dismissive and contemptuous phrases as “statist” are “interefering in private lives,” are oblique references to protecting the unborn.
The trouble with your analysis is that you can’t possible tell SoCons that they’re getting their most important issues when you try to dismissively sweep abortion under the rug. Furthermore, America is actually getting more pro-life, and an emerging majority does not see protecting innocent life as “interefering in private lives” or as something grown ups don’t talk about in polite company. Those under 30 are far more pro-life than their elder siblings or parents were at the same age, and will only get more pro-life as they age.
Pro-life is the #1 SoCon issue, and is becoming even more of a winning issue than it has ever been. So you’re wrong on those two counts. I’m not saying it should be the #1 issue of a Presidential nominee, but it is certainly a position that the vast majority of Republicans around the country should sincerely embrace, if they want to win.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Governing coalitions are based on consensus threat assessments. Right now, the biggest threats out there are runaway indebtedness that threatens to cripple our economy for a generation, and intractable unemployment. The government, in it’s time-honored role as parasite, is in danger of killing off the organism (the private sector of the economy) that it’s been so voraciously feeding on lo, these many years.
The SoCon in me thinks that if we can keep the economy from deep-sixing there will be time, hopefully, to save ourselves from cultural Babylon. Even the international threats take a back seat to bringing down the sheer size of Leviathan sufficiently to ensure survival.
There is a sense, even among the most politically naive, that it’s time to panic—even enough to turn the government over to us right-wing loons. It should be ample enough for us to form a victorious coalition, giving us political hegemony for 4 to 6 years.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
It seems to me you always copy the memes of Washington insiders and inside the beltway thinking. Maybe you live in DC so this is what you hear. Those people lost the majority in 06-08. There was a Rasmussen poll where Republican insiders and the rank and file were far apart in their thinking. At least Alex has original ideas and thoughts.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
People have been heralding the fall of Social Conservatisim – or at least a diminished position for it – for decades. It hasn’t happened, and its not going to happen. Any decrease in the visibility or power of soCons is a reflection of their success, not their failures – Gay Marriage is now illegal in 90% of states, with only a few liberal holdouts on the issue, and the abortion issue moves so slowly that its hard to get a judge of any real movement either way except when Supreme Court nominations come up.
Yes, there is less focus on social issues right now, because people will always pick their own personal financial and economic well-being over other issues. Give it a year or two, once the eocnomy has started to recover, and more than enough focus will shift back to that issue set to keep it important for decades to come.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
#4: You have no sense of historical perspective.
SoCons have LOST most every battle they have fought — and they now admit they were wrong on most of them, as well.
I’m talking about legalization of gay adoption, sodomy, contraception, pornography, interracial marriage, integration, women’s suffrage.
The only issue you have going for you historically is abortion, and you’ll never succeed in limiting it in the early weeks.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
And sometime this decade you’ll find some new minority to direct your bigotry toward, since women, blacks, gays, are now off-limits.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
“What so-cons have to be careful of, or, should I say, what the GOP elite has to be careful of is attempting to reach out to so-cons with half-hearted, red meat rhetoric of the last decade that won’t really make any headway among so-cons at the grassroots and that will actually turn off the small government types that will be at the base of the new GOP majority. Calls for government to police the culture or interfere with the private lives of individuals will seem statist to a coalition that wants first and foremost individual autonomy, and that already has made peace with the social conservatives on the issues most important to them.”
________________________
YES, very well stated.
Your overall theme is fairly consistent with Ronald Reagan’s “ecumenical” approach to conservatism which leaned toward libertarian conservatism. Freedom was his organizing principle. Much of this is eloquently discussed in the Epilogue chapter of Craig Shirley’s new book about Reagan’s 1980 campaign, entitled Rendezvous with Destiny.
Regarding judicial appointments, I don’t think they should be considered a “so-con” issue as much as a Constitutional or legal issue. A conservative, or “strict-constructionist” or “original intent” view of the Constitution and law cuts across all political issues. Business, property rights, economic, national security, as well as social. So I would argue that the Court appointments are much more than just “so-con” issues.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Metro,
Do you ever contribute anything of substance to the debate on social issues, or will you forever toss out your “protecting the unborn is just banning interracial marriage” straw men? Your absurd analogies are completely anachronistic and non-sequitor.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
5/6: are you serious? The most important issue for so-libs is quite clearly gay marriage, and it’s lost damn near everywhere it’s faced a voting public. Mind you, I expect this will flip _eventually_, but it’s gonna be fifty to sixty years. Abortion? If Roe were repealed tomorrow abortion would be totally banned in probably fifteen to twenty states fairly quickly. Religion in the public square? Most people outside the cosmopolitan progressive lunatic fringe either positively support it or frankly could care less; again, assuming it faces the voting public you’ll see religion in the public square most places. Your analysis reflects your own cosmo biases far more than reality.
As to the OP: the single biggest issue for social conservatives is–and has been for decades–abortion. The single biggest desire of most so-cons in this respect is–and has been for decades–to have Roe V. Wade repealed so that the fifty state electorates can individually decide their abortion policy (they of course hope to persuade these states to make abortion illegal). Given this, the idea that so-cons and small government types are different is ludicrous. Most of the things so-cons deplore (family breakdown for example) are at least tangentially caused by government welfare programs. The problem has never been with small-government libertarians, but libertines who want the government to essentially protect their vice of choice. Having courts over-ride public opinion on gay marriage, or over-ride and supercede the democratic process completely on abortion, isn’t in the best interests of small government, but it is essentially the current policy prescription of most so-libs. At bottom, what so-libs want is social engineering, which is bad for small government and traditional values alike. I don’t see the distinction here.
One additional note: Santorum lost to a supposedly pro-life, pro-gun, devout Catholic who, in his run for governor in 2002, advocated a law to repeal abortion in the second and third trimester. The fact that Casey has proven utterly and completely worthless on these issues in his senate term does not invalidate that they were his stated positions. Santorum became too visibly associated with conservatism at a time when it was near it’s nadir, popularity wise, and ran head-first into the Casey name. It is my deep and sincere hope that someone demolishes Bobby “empty suit” Casey in 12 and does the senate a favor.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
#8: Did you even read what I wrote? I specifically put abortion in another category.
#9: You people were out to kill civil unions 10 year ago, and now it’s accepted they’ll exist in most states. Gay marriage is happening at lightening speed, historically speaking, even if it’s only legal in a handful of states so far
February 16th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
9 is right. I originally thought gay marriage was inevitable. But when it went down to defeat in ME, and the state legislatures in NY and NJ couldn’t approve it, I think gay marriage is now down the road 10-15 years at the earliest in the more liberal states. Only activist judges could change that.
As to abortion, the mood of the country is moving in the pro-life direction. Gen X/Y are as pro-life as the greatest generation, which is good news. Still, there’s a big difference between the states. OR voted down parental notification while MS/ID would probably ban it altogether. The results in SD were a fluke because the state Right to life mishandle the amendment. The best pro-lifers can hope for is Roe overturned. And then a national ban on second and third trimester abortions, so CA/NY don’t become abortion capitals.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
MWS, what’s ridiculous is to deny those issues WERE the issues of the SoCon movement. We could trace it back by leaders and their statements.
Who the hell do you think were those bigots? Social liberals? Social liberals were fighting you Neanderthals on all those issues.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
U.S. Abortion Statistics
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
February 16th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
#13–that mirrors probably national opinion. There’d be clear consensus on banning second and third trimester abortion. Most European country’s ban abortion after the 12 week. I can see a bill like that going through congress with Republican majorities. Then let conservative states ban abortion if they want and let NY/CA have it on demand, with no real regulations, up to the 12th week. I think that’s how it’ll end up until there’s a sea change in one direction or another.
Gay marriage is probably likely in many big, liberal states, but it’ll be decades and not years.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
countries
February 16th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Yes, it’s happening at “lighting speed” through means that conservatives, whether they are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage, should oppose.
If it is getting shot down in Maine, the fourth least religious state in the union behind Alaska, New Hampshire, and Vermont, it’s not going anywhere without activist judges.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
even under its own supporters’ standards, Gay Marriage is at the back of a fairly long line of people denied state-sanctioned unions.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Dave G,
While you are right that social conservatives are working alongside small government conservatives, your analysis has several majors holes in it and your conclusion is wrong. I understand that your personal attitude is one of opposition to socially conservative principles so it is easy to see why your analysis of the future of the GOP is incorrect.
First, Bob McDonnell is not simply the most socially conservative member of a moderate clan. McDonnell was the go to guy for social conservatives when he was in the Virginia House of Delegates. He graduated from Regent University and even now is fighting for social conservative causes such as charter schools. He also mentioned his social conservatism during the 2009 campaign in around 3/4 of the state, he obviously watched his message in heavily liberal Arlington and other D.C. urban areas. However, even in urban Richmond, social conservatism is not a minus, but a plus. He did have several bread and butter issues that he made the outward centerpieces, because he wisely wanted to send the message that he was in touch with the economic struggles of the people.
Having said all of that, traditional values positions are on the rise in America at large. Polling indicates that since Obama assumed office, more Americans identify with the socially conservative positions. The young generation is overwhelmingly pro-life, and the results of the ballot initiative in Maine indicate that they are beginning to move in the direction of traditional marriage as well. Why do you think that the media tried so hard to destroy Carrie Prejean? She was young and opposed gay marriage, that fact destroyed their narrative.
The moral issues are very pertinent to today’s discussions, even if they do not garner the headlines. The larger media structure understands that social “progressiveness” is losing with the American people at large, which is why the stories on the “culture wars” suddenly disappeared after Kerry suffered a stinging defeat in 2004.
Lastly, I want to take on your implication that the Federal Marriage Amendment and federal regulations on abortion are somehow statist ideals. The institution of marriage is already defined, it was defined before human government ever existed. The most ancient records that we can find indicate that marriage between one man and one woman was already in existence before the earliest recorded human government. The Federal Marriage Amendment bars the United States government from redefining an institution that government should only have the right to validate in the first place. That is inherently a small government position. Don’t claim to be a small government conservative if you are going to support government recognition of gay marriage, it has no right to do so under the Constitution as is written. As for abortion, according to Jefferson and Co. the purpose of government is to secure life, liberty, and property, government has the responsibility to protect the innocent, that is one of the reasons that we have law, a true small government conservative would support the government protecting the liberties of the people it serves.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party still has a small handful of people who are “progressive.” These progressive Republicans are saying many of the same things that Dave G has said in his post, and they are the same Republicans who led us into this mess in the first place. The TEA Parties are coming together as a coalition and that coalition includes some of the moral absolutes that conservative thought embraces. A pro-life and pro-family narrative has been emerging with a new message behind the principle. So far, it seems to be resonating with the American people.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Quinnipiac National Poll
January 14, 2010
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1413
Pew Research Survey on Same-Sex Marriage
October 9, 2009
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1375/gay-marriage-civil-unions-opinion
February 16th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
#18 — “Don’t claim to be a small government conservative if you are going to support government recognition of gay marriage, it has no right to do so under the Constitution as is written.”
Where does the US Constitution say anything about marriage one way or another?
____________________
“These progressive Republicans are saying many of the same things that Dave G has said in his post, and they are the same Republicans who led us into this mess in the first place. The TEA Parties are coming together as a coalition and that coalition includes some of the moral absolutes that conservative thought embraces.”
There you go again
You continue to imply that anyone who does not support YOUR brand of hard-line religious conservatism is some kind of “liberal progressive.” Have you ever read the writings of the Founding Fathers of the US? If not, you should; if you have already, better read them again! 
February 16th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Chris L.,
Interesting that you bring up the founding fathers, George Washington did not allow homosexual officers in his army, he kicked out an officer for said offense. Jefferson sponsored legislation against homosexuality while in the Virginia legislature. You are correct that the Constitution does not address marriage specifically, and the Federal government has only the right to validate the already existing definition of marriage, not any of the redefinitions that are out there.
Furthermore, there are people who are not religious at all who agree with my contention that the government should both protect life, liberty, and property and also that the government has no right to redefine the institution of marriage. Instead of ranting against my “hard-line” beliefs, please explain how authorizing government arbitrarily decide who lives and dies, as well as authorizing them to redefine the institution marriage, is not liberal progressive thought.
Aron,
There are other polls out there that show opposite conclusions. We have to look at the anecdotal evidence and in the real world of consequences we are seeing a conservative shift.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Oh, one other point re #18′s statement , “…and they are the same Republicans who led us into this mess in the first place.”
Who are these Republicans who led us into this mess? George W. Bush? Tom DeLay? Karl Rove? They were the power-elite of the GOP from 2000-2006; got any other candidates? Seems to me that what DaveG is suggesting in his post here is the antidote for the W Rove, DeLay & Associates disastrous political strategery.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Chris L.
That “disastrous political strategy” was used the last time that we won a Presidential election, remember back in 2004. That was also the same strategy used in ’88, ’84, ‘and ’80. It is hilarious to see folks suggest that Reagan was some sort of moderate, as Jon Avalon described him. The Republicans who are suggesting this cure are the same Republican establishment people who were running the party during the disastrous ’06 and ’08 cycles. McCain was the moderate dream candidate, and he lost. The TEA Parties are resonating with the American people and progressive Republicanism is going down the same abyss as progressive liberalism.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Metro,
1. “Social Conservatism” has taken on many forms over the milennia. The concept was in no way monolithic in its prescriptions. You, for instance, never want to include the Catholic Church’s teachings on racial equality and justice, because it doesn’t fit with the monolithic characature you want to create for SoCons. Yet most of the world accepts the Catholic Church as an archetype of social conservatism. You want to cherry pick conservative institutions and individuals, and ignore the rest so that you can pretend that “Bull Conner = SoCons.”
There were many millions of SoCons who were against slavery and segregation, for very conservative reasons. I have pointed this out to you many times.
2. Even if there were one socially conservative position on all those issues- as you wrongly suggest- it does not logically follow that “if social coservatives were wrong then, they must be wrong now.”
By that logic, I could suggest that Social Liberals must be wrong, because the anti-clerics like yourself were wrong in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the French Revolution.
See how that works?
February 16th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
If you have current polling data to substantiate your assertion, please provide it.
Meanwhile, here’s another recent poll that corroborates the findings from Quinnipiac:
Pew Research Survey on Abortion
October 1, 2009
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/549.pdf
February 16th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Aron,
Please. We’ve been over your cherry picked data about a thousand times. Could you please just link back to the last discussion you and I had on this, so I don’t have to dig it all up again and basically write all the same things yet again?
February 16th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Matt,
I am NOT cherry-picking anything. Read Steven Osborne’s contention to which I responded.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
#21 – I will repeat my suggestion that you consider the writings of the Founding Fathers regarding what they considered to be the proper framework of government and the relationship of the state to the individual. Start with the Federalist Papers.
You state: “…the Federal government has only the right to validate the already existing definition of marriage, not any of the redefinitions that are out there.” Question: A number of states once prohibited inter-racial marriage. When those states changed their laws so as to permit inter-racial marriage, was the Federal government not able to recognize those changed State laws?
Btw, why don’t you provide all of us on here the citations re Washington and Jefferson and homosexuality? It should be interesting and enlightening.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
#23 – The Rove strategy was most definitely not used in 1980 and 1984. The Reagan strategy was about addition and expanding the coalition of support; not about subtraction and shrinkage.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Re the the 1980 campaign, I suggest reading Craig Shirley’s new book “Rendezvous with Destiny.” The epilogue chapter is particularly good in that it offers some thoughts about the then and the now.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
#25–still very close in terms of the age group. Here are two more from Marist.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4446.html
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/01/28/Marist-Poll-56-percent-against-abortion/UPI-79971264662086/
Younger folks have the same attitudes on abortion as the greatest generation, which means they’re more likely to oppose abortion than baby boomers. The polls are all over the place, but the movement in the pro-life direction is unmistakable. I thought gay marriage would become more of a reality before Roe was overturned; now I’m not quite so sure.
February 16th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
On public morality:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
February 16th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Social conservatism doesn’t die, it only changes its form. Before, it was contraception, pornography, integration, sodomy, interracial marriage — as Metro pointed out — today it’s the gays, tomorrow — the transsexuals..?
February 16th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Young people are seeing abortion as not a social issues but a human rights issues. Young people are generally pro-”live and let live” which means…don’t tells gays they can’t marry and don’t tell unborn children they can’t live.
The stupidest thing that the GOP can do is make a fake outreach to so-cons but also the GOP needs to not bash so-cons.
Also so-cons are more fiscally conservative than non-so-cons so there is a huge overlap among so-cons and fiscons. The GOP gets in trouble when it starts talking up socon stuff as a political ploy. The socons feel used and the non-socons get turned off.
That said, there are a lot of Dems I know here in CA who are socons but fiscal moderates and historically Dems. These people can be won with the right approach and educated on the fiscal issues to make them 100% conservative.
February 16th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Live and let live means you live your life as you see fit, and you let others live their lives as they see fit.
If a woman doesn’t want to have an abortion, that’s her right. But, she doesn’t have the right to stop a woman from deciding differently.
And, of course, it’s a human rights issue — women’s rights, specifically. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that; as only 18% believe abortion should always be illegal.
Even a majority of Republicans in the Live Free or Die State say abortion should be always/mostly legal, with just 15% saying it should never be legal.
You know where the Libertarian Party stands on abortion?
February 16th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
34 – Didn’t Aron just post two polls that showed that young people generally are not pro-life?
February 16th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
#32 – I note that the history of attitudes toward homosexuals in the military that you cite from the website Wall Builders says nothing about the role of the German General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben who was principal consultant to George Washington in the organization and training of the Revolutionary Army. Better check out von Steuben’s biography in detail. [I only raise this point because you brought up the subject of Washington in your comment #21]. Re your comment about Jefferson in same, it would appear according to this Wall Builder history, that Jefferson was a moderate on the issue—maybe not a “progressive”, but a moderate nonetheless
February 16th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Aron,
“Live and let live means you live your life as you see fit, and you let others live their lives as they see fit.”
Can you think of any circumstance where an unborn child’s right to live would trump a mother’s right to kill?
February 16th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
In most circumstances, from ~24 weeks’ gestation onward; when a developing child could reasonably sustain life outside the womb.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
“when a developing child could reasonably sustain life outside the womb.”
That point has consistently moved forward over time. Unless you are going to call for delivering the babies instead, you’re just dealing with hypothticals, a poor basis for determining who gets to live and who doesn’t.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
And the law should reflect that as scientific/medical advances are made. However, no child has ever survived outside the womb before 22 weeks’ gestation. And there’s only between a 10% and 40% chance of survival at 23 weeks.
I support the reining in of Roe, to be in line with British law, which allows women to have abortions through the 24th week of a pregnancy.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:33 am
Metro has replaced analysis with wishful thinking. The poster apparently thinks that large losses by social conservatives (and there have been some, along with many wins, as well) means they will go away but he or she never suggests for a moment that smaller government conservatives will go away because even Republicans have made the government bigger and bigger and bigger.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:48 am
I am still waiting for the advocates of homosexual “marriage” to tell us why they discriminate against bisexuals. Shouldn’t bisexuals be allowed to marry at least two people they love? (I speak as a mad man!)