Saturday, October 09, 2004

Bush and Dred Scott

Some of you may have been befuddled -- as I was -- when Bush started talking about Dred Scott in last night's debate. I had no idea why he brought it up, and he certainly didn't even understand what he was talking about.

Well, here is an explanation, from a blog called Paperwight's Fair Shot, that makes sense:
Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade

Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what Bush actually said:
If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make sure that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been comparing Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a constant drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war over abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast in the role of the abolitionists.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I am very religious maybe even more religious than the President, but I do not agree with his attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Just because he doesn't agree with it doesn't mean that is a bad thing. I don't agree with abortion but sometimes it is what has to be done. Even if it became illegal you know that people would find a way to have it done anyway. Having abortion clinics set up make it safe for women who are choosing to have one, would he rather women risk their lives in an unsafe room having an illegal abortion? If he is all about helping people and doing what is right, he should just leave it the way it is, and start working on other subjects that need his attention! - S. Keenan