A Senate Primary That Hinges On Choice?
Vince Leibowitz | Jun 14, 2007 | Comments 7 |
This could make for an interesting Democratic Primary next March:
The traditional partisan fight over abortion rights may shift from the general election to the Democratic U.S. Senate primary next year as an anti-abortion candidate with millions of dollars in his wallet enters the race to challenge incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
Millionaire San Antonio trial lawyer Mikal Watts, who has created the early political buzz by forming an exploratory committee, told the San Antonio Express-News he is opposed to abortion in most cases.
So, what is Watt’s position?
“I personally have the view: I hold the pro-life position with three exceptions: one for rape, one for incest, one for the life of the mother,” Watts said. “But I don’t claim to the Republican position of slippery slopes that you have to eliminate incredibly important medical research into Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s because of the slippery slope argument on stem cells.”
First, that’s actually two different arguments there. Combining stem cell research with abortion is, in fact, a Republican tactic to villify stem cell research.
Second, Watts’ “three exceptions” are essentially the same as most Republicans, making him, essentially, anti-choice.
In the past, the National Abortion Rights Action League has given Noriega an approval rating of more than 90 percent, and he voted against parental notification legislation.
What about other possible contenders? The SAExN had a lot to say about John Sharp, but since he’s probably not running, let’s see what they had to say about Noriega, Radnofsky, and Reichstadt:
In the past, the National Abortion Rights Action League has given Noriega an approval rating of more than 90 percent, and he voted against parental notification legislation.
Noriega is a colonel in the National Guard and served in Afghanistan. He said that made him a firm believer in women’s rights.
“When I was in Afghanistan, I saw women walking around in burqas the whole time I was there,” Noriega said. “I saw a whole country that believed it should tell women what to do.”
Noriega said judges to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be confirmed if they have preconceived notions that Roe should be overturned.
“My position is, it’s not government’s role to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies,” Noriega said.
Houston lawyer Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the party’s 2006 senatorial nominee, supports protecting Roe vs. Wade. But she has said she can favor policies such as adequate women’s health care that can reduce the number of abortions. Radnofsky is looking at running for attorney general in 2010, but is not ruling out another run for Senate next year.
Radnofsky said abortion can be a “divisive” issue but that there is enough “common ground” for a candidate who is opposed to abortion to win the primary if their position on the issue is not extreme.
Dallas lawyer Emil Reichstadt also is looking at running for Senate. He said he is “pro-choice” and would have to look at abortion legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court individually before deciding how to vote.
Interesting. Either way, Watts will probably be the only anti-choice candidate in the field.
Related posts:
- Craddick’s Future Hinges On March 4 Primary
- Future Of Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Hinges On Texas Supreme Court Case
- CD 22: Choice Of Gramm, Cornyn For DeLay’s Seat Makes Filing Official
- TX-SEN: Watts’ FEC Filings Show Big Money, Interesting Staff Choice
- Anti-Choice Group Running Ads In Dallas Market, Targeting Texas As Potential Swing State
Filed Under: 2008 Texas Elections
I think the issue of a litmus test is important to note:
The article says:
As a senator, Watts said, he would not judge judicial nominees based on their support for or opposition to Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
“I’m not going to apply a litmus test to any nominee to the United States Supreme Court,” Watts said. “I don’t get to make the choice as to who the nominee is. But if I’m voting, there is not going to be a litmus test on that issue in any way, shape, form or fashion.”
Will someone please tell me why we need another anti-choice candidate in this race? The “litmus test” talking point is red herring. It is a nice Republican issue framing tool (in this case used by a “D”) to take our attention away from the constitutional issue. It’s like saying “I won’t use a litmus test on whether a judicial nominee supports the one man/one vote concept.” You either support this constituionally protected right or you are trying to dismantle it.
So its either you are with us or with the terrorists? Nice position there.
You say: “You either support this constituionally (sic) protected right or you are trying to dismantle it.” So, you can’t have a nuanced approach to this complicated issue? If someone doesn’t parrot your position 100%, then they are automatically working against you.
Makes no sense to me.
I know for sure that Watts would be a better Senator than Cornyn. Since Watts is the only challenger to have formally done anything for this race, I guess the only options are Watts or Cornyn. Even with all the speculation of possible future entrants in this race, Watts is the only one I see that can beat the sitting senator.
ok watts said he is anti-abortion.He did not say he was anti-choice. I am personally anti -abortion. My person ,my body.But to me prochoice doesn’t mean i would want to choose for others it means i want them to choose for themselves. Can we coin a new phrase? Self-choice?
I like it and since females are the only ones who give birth
more power to us.
nuts101: Watts said he only supported allowing abortion on three counts: rape, life of the mother, and incest. That *is* anti-choice. He’d be pro-choice if he didn’t support those restrictions. He is clearly anti-abortion and anti-choice. We’re all anti-abortion, he’s anti-choice. Your argument does not fly.
Mickey Brown Eyes: Sorry, but no litmus test versus his position on abortion doesn’t make him any better. The litmus test goes to confirmation of federal judges; he’d vote for dismantling Roe v. Wade on the senate floor, however, in terms of legislation.
No, Vince – go back and read what he said:
“I personally have the view: I hold the pro-life position with three exceptions…”
This didn’t indicate anything about how he would legislate. It just stated his opinion.
I don’t know Watts, and haven’t had the opportunity to interview him yet, but I would want to ask the question directly regarding how he would vote on the issue.
I personally do not think it is incongruent to have personal beliefs that are at odds with one’s policy decisions.
Example: I’m a non-smoker. I’m against smoking, and I hate tobacco companies. I do not think it would be wise, or a good use of government to ban tobacco. I think one could come up with a ton of examples where personal freedom trumps my opinion about how things ought to be.
For now, unless proven otherwise by less ambiguous statements, I think we have to give Watts the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but make sure that he clarifies it.
I think the worst you could say at this point is that his stated position is internally inconsistent.
I agree all candidates need to be asked questions and asked to clarify them again and again.however i feel who ever interviews him needs to ask a lot of different type of questions about how he would vote. On the war , on legislation on abortion, on immigration. After all is that why we elect them to go to washington. To vote.