Sunday, October 17, 2010

Scott Walker's Extremism

You will see in Scott Walker's Crossroads interview in Sunday's Journal Sentinel that he is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

Let that sink in.

Walker wants to be the state's chief policy-maker, and if he has his way, a 13-year-old girl raped by and impregnated will carry that child to term.

And you will note further in the interview - - I will reprint a part of the text below - - that he offers some words about poverty and children with absent parents, but objects to condom distribution in the schools (these are limited programs, and handled by nurses) - - so other than to say "in terms of" and offer platitudes throughout the discussion, he's got no plan or clue about the complex plight of Milwaukee households that can't live up to an Ozzie and Harriet standard.

That's extremism of belief, and in the outcomes for his victims - - through thoughtless default and flat-out, distorted ignorance.

And note also how he does his typical two-step (as he has done on issues from stimulus funding to stem cell research): Yes, he has a position on abortion that he knows will be controversial - -  but, hey, it really doesn't matter because of Roe v. Wade, etc, so he says.

Can you believe this guy? Does he really stand for anything except filtering everything through a rapid-fire electoral calculator?


How would you combat teen pregnancy?
I don't want the government taking the place of a parent . . .  and I don't think it should be done in the absence of a parent.
What if there isn't a parent or an active parent?
Well, that's a problem you've got to address. It's a problem far greater than birth control. . . . We've got a much bigger problem than whether or not condoms are being handed out in the schools. . . . We have to be supportive of the Department of Health Services in terms of working with the community, working with public health departments and others in trying to combat teen pregnancy.
But, again, I'm not going to do that by having the government supplant the role of the parents.
You oppose abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Why? How hard would you push for anti-abortion measures?
Well, I'm pro-life because I believe that's an unborn child. . . . (In debate on a fetal homicide bill years ago) I looked at the gallery of all the lawmakers there and I said, imagine, God forbid, . . . if my wife was hit in our mini-van . . . by a drunk driver. . . . and that caused us to lose our child. I looked out at my colleagues and said, would you send us a get-well card or would you send us a sympathy card. There was dead silence. . . . 
Now, per your question on what to push, we all know that's not what's going to be the debate in terms of the next governor. There's already a law on the books (on abortion) and there's already a decision that's far from being changed in terms of the Supreme Court, in terms of Roe v. Wade.
The more practical issues are simply, should taxpayer funds be used to provide abortion-related services? And I say, no, I don't believe they should.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

More ignorance from repugnant so-called small government clowns who think women should not be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions.