What the defeat of Barbara Boxer would mean.
Though the dominant media will never dare concede it, the coming November 2010 election could be about much more than the Republicans taking back Congress; indeed, this vital election could produce the “year of the pro-life woman.” Such is the assertion of Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the excellent pro-life group, Susan B. Anthony List. Dannenfelser points to some major electoral showdowns pitting solidly pro-life Republican women against rabidly “pro-choice” Democratic incumbents. And if these pro-life women win, it may ultimately become the year of the unborn child.
Nowhere is the contrast starker than California, where pro-life Republican, Carly Fiorina, is set to challenge the Democratic incumbent, Senator Barbara Boxer.
To put it bluntly, Senator Boxer is fanatical on the abortion issue. Some day, when a more civilized America (hopefully) looks back in horror at the shameful abortion extremism of this era, perhaps similar to how we today shake our heads in disbelief over Dred Scott and Jim Crow, Barbara Boxer will be one of those names recognized for the moral ignominy of their position. Historians may well lead their accounts with an unforgettable episode from October 20, 1999, when Boxer squared off with her Senate colleague, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum.
At issue was a form of legal infanticide technically known as “partial-birth abortion.” In this “procedure,” the unborn child is only partially delivered from his or her mother. Enough of the body is left inside the mother to ensure the child is not fully delivered, so a surgical instrument can be rammed inside the base of the skull, allowing the contents of the brain to be methodically sucked out. The procedure is so grim that the New York Times wouldn’t run an ad representing it in mere cartoon form, the better to continue to shield the ugly truth from its progressive readership.
Naturally, pro-lifers — and, really, reasonable people of any stripe — wanted to ban this hideous form of infant killing. And quite unnaturally, Barbara Boxer was against a ban. And so, in October 1999, Senator Santorum took Senator Boxer to task. Almost facetiously, Santorum asked Boxer an absurd but necessary question: If, in the course of the abortion, the foot of the baby remained inside the mother — while the rest of the child was outside — “could that baby be killed?”
Perhaps, Santorum figured, he might trigger something, prompting the gentle-lady from California to revisit her position. But he didn’t get very far. As Boxer groped for a semi-suitable defense, Santorum pushed ahead, adjusting his question from the vantage of the fetus’s varying body parts, further revealing the hideous absurdity of Boxer’s stance. Sensing she had nowhere to go, Boxer appealed not to reason but emotion, snapping at her colleague, “I am not answering these questions,” and instructing Santorum that he was “losing his temper.”
But the exchange was not a total waste. Not only had Santorum more than made his point — not only for the politics of the moment but for posterity — but he eventually got Boxer to give a direct answer, one destined to be highlighted in those aforementioned historical accounts someday. Reaching for some common ground, Santorum asked Boxer if she agreed with him that “once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed?”
Ah, another ostensibly ridiculous question, but not in the mind of the California senator. “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born,” mused Boxer, “the baby belongs to your family and has rights.”
Alas, here was an arresting definition of human rights, offered by a U.S. senator from the nation’s largest state. Asked when a human has human rights, Barbara Boxer discerned a two-fold process: birth, followed by entrance into its family’s home. We can thank the voters of California for this.
Tragically, this is only one of many such episodes in Boxer’s career. (Click here for my April 2008 National Review piece, “Denial is a Senator from California.”) No matter: Boxer’s allies, particularly her acolytes in the abortion industry, want her returned to office badly. They are digging in for a death-match against Carly Fiorina this November, hastening back to the desiccated vineyards of the shadow of the Death Culture.
Even before the polls closed in California last month, clinching Fiorina’s victory in the Republican primary, the toilers prepared to reap their next harvest, with Boxer herself clearing the field, responding as if — indeed — life and death were at stake. On the Tuesday of the primary vote, Boxer told the Los Angeles Times (one of the nation’s most wretched newspapers when it comes to the abortion issue) that Fiorina “wants to make it [abortion] a crime, and that would mean women and doctors in jail. That is so out of touch with Californians.”
Boxer’s claim is an old red herring from the abortion lobby, and Fiorina didn’t let her get away with it, replying, “That’s a ridiculous statement.” Fiorina added a fundamental truth: “I happen to believe in the sanctity of life, but the great majority of Californians disagree with Barbara Boxer, who believes that taxpayers should be funding partial-birth abortion.”
Of course, California is a state where parents voted not to be informed of their teenage daughters’ decisions to abort their grandchildren. So, Boxer may be closer to Californians than Fiorina on many of these life-death questions, which is scary. That’s the culture that the likes of Boxer have helped create, which would make it all the more remarkable if the pro-life Fiorina managed to defeat Boxer in November.
And yet, that is a distinct possibility. Polls show that Boxer is more vulnerable than ever, and that the race is close.
Amid such desperation, Boxer’s backers from the Death Culture wasted no time swooping down upon Fiorina.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?