One reason ostensibly pro-life Republican presidents haven’t been able to do anything about abortion

15 Jan

(In addition to the fact that the party establishment is solidly pro-abortion, that is.)

Their pro-abortion wives:

As Ronald Reagan prepared to deliver the 1987 State of the Union address, his wife, Nancy, reportedly told his advisers, “I don’t give a damn about the pro-lifers,” and demanded that any mention of abortion be removed from the speech. Nancy, who rarely intervened in political matters, got her way, and the speech focused on international affairs, education, and ongoing congressional wrangling over the budget process.

President Reagan, of course, was a vocal abortion opponent; indeed, he was probably the most pro-life president the United States has ever had. But Nancy supported abortion. Although she mostly kept mum in public while first lady, she has since said on several occasions that while she is personally pro-life, “I believe in a woman’s choice.” She has also been an outspoken proponent of embryonic stem cell research.


It would be refreshing to have a Republican presidential nominee—and a president—whose spouse holds deeply pro-life views. Both George H.W. Bush’s wife, Barbara, and George W. Bush’s wife, Laura, support abortion, although they mostly kept their views to themselves during their husbands’ presidencies.

One exception occurred when President George H.W. Bush ran for reelection in 1992. That year, Republicans had written a very strong pro-life platform that Barbara Bush undercut, telling the media she thought the issue had no place in the platform.

She said abortion was “a personal thing” and that “the personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions.” Barbara’s comments came at a bad time for her husband, who was having trouble retaining conservative support then.

Laura Bush stayed silent about abortion during her husband’s presidency. But many suspected she disagreed with her husband’s pro-life views. This was later confirmed in her memoir, “Spoken From the Heart,” in which she wrote, “While cherishing life, I have always believed that abortion is a private decision, and there, no one can walk in anyone else’s shoes.”

And so, hen-pecked, ostensibly ‘pro-life’ presidents have followed their wives’ lead, and done nothing substantive to end abortion while in office, just lip-service, nothing more, really…

The same is true of various Republican candidates in recent years:

Similarly, in 2008, Cindy McCain told Katie Couric that while she is pro-life she supports exceptions for rape and incest and didn’t believe Roe v Wade should be overturned.

1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, was known as a pro-life senator. But she supported federal funding of abortion in certain cases and said abortion should not be a litmus test for judicial appointments.

Then there’s the last prospective Republican first lady, Ann Romney. Alhough pro-life, she seemed uncomfortable talking about the dignity of human life. There were also questions about her having donated $150 to Planned Parenthood in 1994, back when Mitt himself supported abortion.

Now, the author of the piece, Gary Bauer (former presidential candidate, well-known so-con and Zionist lobbyist), is excited because the wives of Rubio and Cruz are pro-lifers. I guess that is indeed a pleasant change. But knowing how pro-choice the party establishment is, and how Republicans have done squat to change things when they’ve had both the presidency and the House, I doubt that will matter much, assuming that either Rubio or Cruz even win the nomination.

Anyway, getting back to the presidents whose wives disagreed fundamentally with them on the issue, does anyone honestly believe that any contemporary American president whose wife is pro-abortion is going to be able to stand up to her and enact measures she would disagree with? None these days have the balls to do so.


21 responses to “One reason ostensibly pro-life Republican presidents haven’t been able to do anything about abortion

  1. infowarrior1

    January 15, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Covert Matriarchy it looks like.

  2. Will S.

    January 15, 2016 at 10:22 pm


  3. feeriker

    January 17, 2016 at 3:08 am

    Anyway, getting back to the presidents whose wives disagreed fundamentally with them on the issue, does anyone honestly believe that any contemporary American president whose wife is pro-abortion is going to be able to stand up to her and enact measures she would disagree with? None these days have the balls to do so.

    An even more important question is: what makes anyone think these Rethuglican presidents were really pro-life, and not just paying it lip service in order to pander to the GOP’s grasroots base?

    I find it VERY difficult to believe that any man who is sincerely pro-life would have knowingly married a woman with pro-abortion or pro-choice leanings. If he UNWITTINGLY married such a woman, then it proves he is careless and irresponsible, not having taken the trouble to vet his wife properly. Much more likely, however, is that he either agrees with her on the pro-abortion/pro-choice issue and is thus a deceitful liar, or he just doesn’t really care about the issue one way or another, but will play the pro-life card in order to get and stay elected. Both are equally likely true.

  4. ballista74

    January 17, 2016 at 5:32 am

    Covert Matriarchy it looks like.

    Indeed. More simply put, this is tradcon feminism at work. The real rulers of the world for the last 300-400 years have been women and this illustrates the mechanism of their rule. In short, “patriarchy” or the idea that men rule anything is a complete and total deception actively fostered by women and the men themselves.

  5. Will S.

    January 17, 2016 at 9:12 am

    @ feeriker: Exactly! If they truly had been pro-life, they’d have done something, surely.

    @ ballista74: Indeed.

  6. Sanne

    January 17, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Until late 19th century women in the West had no political rights. They hardly can be held responsible for the shenanigans of male politicians. Also if American men are such spineless cowards it’s hardly women’s fault. A man who can’t command his own household is certainly unsuitable to run the nation.

  7. feeriker

    January 17, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Exactly! If they truly had been pro-life, they’d have done something, surely.

    And don’t forget how quick they are to proclaim themselves “Christians,” especially while campaigning for office, even though once elected they do everything possible to distance themselves from anything having to do with Christianity lest tbey offend the wrong people (now that they’ve been elected they don’t need those evanjellyfish rubes anymore who were their grassroots base and whom the played like Stradivarius violins).

    Something to ask yourself next time some sleazeball politico claims to be a “Christian:” would a true Christ-follower be seaking temporal power at all costs? THAT is the true test.

  8. Will S.

    January 17, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    @ Sanne: I fault the men for, if they truly were / are pro-life, for (a) marrying pro-abortion women in the first place and (b) for subsequently allowing themselves to be influenced. Though I certainly do fault pro-abortion women for being pro-abortion, of course, and for manipulating their men-folk accordingly.

    If men are spineless cowards, the fault is a combination of their own and that of the wider society in which they live, for having encouraged such dispositions. The society in which they live being composed of both men and women, both therefore being partly responsible.

    @ feeriker: Indeed.

  9. Sanne

    January 17, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    I see your point! Yet if Western men would collectively change their attitudes women would follow. Look, I read Dutch sites discussing current sexual attacks in Europe and the commenters who are 99% men keep saying the problem is that the attackers don’t understand female equality. If only we could learn them that women nowadays have jobs they wouldn’t be so naughty. Most Western men find it best that women aren’t their responsibility any more.

  10. Sanne

    January 17, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    And those are right-wing sites…

  11. Will S.

    January 17, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    Oh, no doubt, if men would collectively change, women would follow. That’s one reason we here stand athwart history, yelling, “Go back!” rather than Buckley’s ineffectual “Stop!”, and why we be reactionaries rather than conservatives, who end up conserving nothing other than progressive changes. 🙂

  12. Will S.

    January 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    Conservatives are mostly useless; just because a website is right-wing doesn’t mean it’s worth a damn.

  13. feeriker

    January 18, 2016 at 12:27 am

    Most Western men find it best that women aren’t their responsibility any more.

    Which is just the way most western women want it (“be careful what you wish for …”)

    Fried ice, and all that.

  14. Sanne

    January 18, 2016 at 3:14 am

    Feeriker, men were supposed to be guardians of the women. If your child is throwing tantrums demanding to eat ice cream the whole day long, would you humour him? In the 19th century MEN were starting revolutions in Europe, to fight, among other things, for female equality. This whole fraternite stuff was not invented by women. One of the first things they did after the French Revolution was to introduce easy divorce, which they had to abolish later as it created such a chaos in society. Also, haven’t you noticed all these modern feminists women had one thing in common? I presume you are American? How comes this particular group got such a power in your country?

  15. Sanne

    January 18, 2016 at 4:44 am

    Will, we don’t have conservatives as in the USA. We have right liberal and left liberal/socialists. At least, right wing sites write about this problem instead of ignoring it.

  16. Will S.

    January 18, 2016 at 9:02 am

    That’s good.

  17. infowarrior1

    January 20, 2016 at 5:58 am


    ”right-wing site”

    They therefore are a rear-guard action to make the leftward push palatable.

  18. Will S.

    January 31, 2016 at 12:18 am

    So, some fembot tried to post a comment here some days / a week back or so; she contended that the reason why such politicians went for pro-abortion women was because they were more willing to do oral and anal.

    Bullshit. If anything, a pro-abortion type is going to not want to screw as much, period, since that would imply submission to a man’s will, and thus, it doesn’t matter if they’re ostensibly more willing to try more things, since in practice, they won’t, really.

    And, besides, isn’t a pro-abortion type more likely to engage in regular sex, since she doesn’t fear the consequence of pregnancy? I’d imagine that, as regards Protestants, pro-life women are more likely to experiment with other kinds of sex; as regards Catholics, as we’ve discussed here in the past, as long as any acts end in regular PIV sex, doesn’t matter how it starts, so such acts aren’t actually completely off-limits to devout Catholics. (I presume the same applies to Orthodox.)

    So, yeah. Stupid bint. Wrong, as progs always are.

  19. Will S.

    January 31, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Which is part of the reason why I never let them comment, of course.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s