TX SEN: Mikal Watts Talks Like A Republican When It Comes To A Woman’s Right To Choose
By Vince Leibowitz on Oct 1, 2007 in Uncategorized | | Sphere: Related Content |
U.S. Senate Candidate Mikal Watts (D-San Antonio) has come under fire before for his views on a woman’s right to choose. Just how anti-choice is Watts? He is so anti-choice that he sounds far more like a Republican than a Democrat on the issue.
Check this soundbite sent to us by a reader who attended a meeting of the University Democrats at UT Austin last month in which Watts is asked a pointed question about choice:
powered by ODEO
You’ll note that Watts says he only supports abortion in instances where it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. He says that is because of his “belief about when life begins.”
Ironically, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate could not have a more Republican talking point. Watts believes the exact same thing as a couple of right-wing Republican presidential candidates, like Duncan Hunter, who had this to say on a woman’s right to choose:
I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. [link]
And, how about Arkansas Republican Mike Huckabee:
I would love to see us have in this country what I helped lead in our state in Arkansas, and that’s a human life amendment to our state constitution, Amendment 65, that says that we believe life begins at conception, and that we ought to do everything in the world possible to protect it until its natural conclusion. [link]
And, John McCain:
”I do believe that life begins at conception,” said Senator McCain, the Arizona Republican. [link]
Watts’ views are also in lock-step with President George W. Bush:
At a press conference yesterday where the bulk of the questions centered around stem cells, Fleisher confirmed that he was asked by reporters Monday “when the President believed that life begins.” Fleisher did not respond immediately but sent an email to reporters later that day indicating that the President believed life beings “at conception.” [link]
There is an important distinction that should be drawn here. Nobody is “pro-abortion,” even if they do favor a woman’s right to choose. And, many Democrats hold religious or other beliefs similar to Watts and do, in fact, believe that life begins at conception. There is nothing wrong with holding that belief, but when a politician would allow their own personal belief to hamper the rights of American women, that is problematic.
Though Watts can’t seem to do so, many Democrats have been able to separate their personal beliefs from public policy. U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2004, is one who did:
But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper, “I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.”
Spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that although Kerry has often said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.
“I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist,” he continued in the interview. “We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.” The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters there. [link]
Not only does Watts hold a belief that’s contrary to the health and welfare of American Women, but he also uses Republican, religious-right code words to discuss his beliefs. The “life begins at conception” soundbite is very popular among Republicans and is specifically designed to send a message to everyone who hears it, notes the TAPPED blog at American Prospect:
“Life begins at conception” is code for the extremist anti-choice position that wants hormonal birth control pills, the morning after pill, and intrauterine devices to be outlawed as abortion-inducing agents, or “abortifacients.” All these methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. They prevent pregnancy, but not conception.
The Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate in Texas will very likely boil down to the issue of a woman’s right to choose. Clearly, it’s a significant difference between the two candidates. Rick Noriega, as a matter of fact, has a 100 percent pro-choice rating for several sessions. (See endnote at bottom of this post). Mikal Watts, on the other hand, is the exact opposite.
Would Watts’ beliefs mean that he would be prone to vote against abortion bills? Most likely. Do Watts’ beliefs mean he would be likely to vote against confirmation of pro-choice judicial nominees in favor of more conservative, anti-choice judges? Probably.
Texas may not be the most progressive state in America, and most Texans believe abortion is against their moral beliefs. However, a great many Texans also believe it should be a safe, legal alternative for women according to a 2007 Texas Lyceum Poll.
A 2004 Scripps-Howard/Texas Poll showed an even larger number than the Lyceum poll, believe the choice should be left entirely up to the woman:
A 2004 Scripps Howard Texas Poll found that 81% of Texans agree with the statement, “Abortion is a complex issue that is better left in the hands of a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God, rather than in the hands of politicians.”
Clearly, if Texas women (and Texas men, for that matter), want to see Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose protected, Mikal Watts isn’t the right choice. Why replace one anti-choice senator with another?
END NOTE: Although Project Vote Smart lists Noriega with straight 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice Texas except for the 78th session, the rating for the 78th Texas Legislature should also be 100 percent. NARAL Pro-Choice Texas has, however, corrected Rep. Noriega’s rating for that session to be a 100 percent as one of the votes being counted as a negative was in fact an absence. NARAL Pro-Choice Texas has corrected this and it should be reflected at Project Vote Smart soon.
Popularity: 40% [?]
Do you know that you can 
DShankTU | Oct 1, 2007 | Reply
Vince,
I think this post was not only unfair, but generally unhelpful to the debate that the “netroots” said it wanted when it drafted Noriega in the first place. I don’t think you can boil down the phrase, “life begins at conception” to a Republican talking point. It’s simply a clear statement of his belief. It is the premise on which Watts bases his pro-life/anti-choice stance. You can’t have a policy position aimed at protecting the rights of something you don’t believe is human life. I think it clouds the issue to try and group a clear statement of belief with other, intentionally less clear Republican talking points (i.e. “death tax”).
Also, as a decendant of a long tradition of yellow dog Texas democrats, I find it offensive that you think being pro-life automatically disqualifies someone from being a good Democrat. As a resident of East Texas (also the origin of my Texas roots and the location of my family’s Jacksonville lakehouse), I would think that you more than anyone would realize how important it is to allow for a diversity of opinion within our big tent party. Now I realize that Watts is running statewide and abortion is an importnat issue to many Texas Democrats. However, I believe the debate would be better served to have an honest policy discussion about the candidate’s different positions rather than simply finding similarities between Watts and several Republicans. Also, your disengenuous attempt to scare Democrats into thinking that electing Watts will overturn Roe v. Wade is ridiculous. Watts has already said that he won’t ask require any litmus tests in approving judicial appointments. I couldn’t agree more.
I understand that you and Matt and Kuff and everyone else in the netroots is behind Noriega. However, I think it’s important for you guys to realize that your blogs serve more important purposes than jsut being an outlet for Noriega’s campaign. People count on ya’ll to have the journalistic integrity that the mass media often lacks. I understand blogs are basically opinion pieces, but that doesn’t mean you can’t prsent your opinions and objections in a reasonable and productive way.
In short, don’t give me a list of quotes that affirm the well known fact that most Republicans are pro-life/anti-choice so that you can make the proposition that Watts is no better than Duncan Hunter. If you want to have a discussion about abortion, let’s have one about abortion without all the tired campaign attack talking points. If you allow you and th eother netroots allow these blgos to fall to far into a medium for hand picked candidates to release their talking points, I beleive you will become the pointless echo chamber than many say you already are.
And just to let you know, I am not affiliated with any candidate in any race. I am a student, so don’t dismiss my comments as those of a Watts operative.
Vince Leibowitz | Oct 1, 2007 | Reply
DShankTU Noted:
I reply:
I think you’re wrong on all counts. The very words “life begins at conception” have, in fact, become a Republican talking point. That’s why people use the phrase, “life begins at conception,” instead of “life begins at fertilization,” or “life begins at fecundation,” or “life begins at syngamy,” or “life begins with the fusion of gametes to form a new organism.” The very word “conception” is a code-word for the Religious Right.
That it is “the premise on which Watts bases his pro-life/anti-choice stance” is also very accurate but shows just how politically opportunistic he is. First of all, you’re defending Watts and admit he’s anti-choice. Second, Watts allegedly commissioned a poll to determine whether or not to be “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” Many, many Democrats are able to merge the fact that they are personally pro-life with a pro-choice political platform because they are able to separate their own beliefs from what is best for the American public. An anti-choice regime is not what’s best for the American public. Of course, the vast majority of the American public doesn’t set their beliefs on complex issues like abortion based on what type of candidate (according to a poll they commissioned) will beat an incumbent United States Senator.
The claim that this type of post is “generally unhelpful to the debate that the “netroots,” is bogus. This is exactly the kind of thing the netroots should start debate on: someone’s positions and why they hold them.
You also noted:
I reply:
I’ve never said that being pro-life disqualifies Watts from being a “good Democrat.” There are many good pro-life Democrats. However, in a race where a candidate, if elected, will be voting to confirm judges who will determine whether a woman’s right to choose continues to exist in this country, even though a pro-life Democrat may still be a “good Democrat,” they are, in fact, a bad choice for the position.
There is no question that diverse opinions are welcome within the party. The question, however, is whether or not even those individuals who hold some beliefs that are more in line with Watts’ actually want to see the rights of their friends and neighbors taken away. Polls have show, time and time again, that regardless of an individual’s feeling about abortion, they don’t want politicians taking that right away from them.
You also noted:
I reply:
The fact is that an honest policy debate is very much what we’re engaging in here. We’ve looked at the candidate’s different positions and also happened to point out that one candidate’s positions were more in line with Republicans than the majority of individuals in his own Party.
You note:
Every politician, every president, every senate candidate, always pledges they won’t require any “litmus tests.” And, they always do. To believe the “no litmus test” line of any candidate is just to be naive.
The fact is that electing anti-choice Democrats, just like electing anti-choice Republicans, endangers Roe v. Wade. Why? Because enough anti-choice senators can result in pro-choice nominees not getting passed through the senate and presidents being forced to send through anti-choice nominees or nominees who are lukewarm on the issue.
Yes, the election of a senator right here in Texas could further endanger Roe v. Wade.
You also noted:
For someone who claims to not be a Watts troll or operative, you certainly seem to have inside knowledge and even personally know some of the Texas bloggers (and even have some knowledge of discussions between bloggers, which is, in and of itself, quite interesting…). As for your high-minded lecture on journalistic integrity, thanks, but I’m familiar with the concept. Capitol Annex has broken more major stories this year than, quite possibly, any other blog in Texas.
DShankTU | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
First, I would argue that conception is probably the term most widely understood to describe human fertilization. Any religious undertones associated with the word, I believe are totally lost on most people. The fact that many republicans simply state “I believe life begins at conception” as their entire rationale for having a pro-life/anti-choice stance, while incomplete, doesn’t mean that Watt’s usage is just as incomplete. In the quote you provide in your post, Watts uses his belief that life begins as conception as the justification for extending rights to an unborn fetus.
You may say that all pro-life/anti-choice politicians are simply trying to force their beliefs on others, and that everyone else deserves to make their own choice. However, that argument fails to address the most important facet of the pro-life/anti-choice argument; that human life = “a person” under the constitution and that person has rights that are abridged when a woman chooses to kill that person for whatever reason. For someone who believes life begins at conception and that human life is the defining characteristic of “a person,” a woman’s liberty in choosing whether or not to have an abortion comes into conflict with the unborn fetus’s liberty to live. As we all know, our freedom to act stops where the exercise of the freedom restricts the freedom of another. The question for a person who believes in these things then becomes, which outcome damages a more fundamental liberty? Pro-life/anti-choice proponents like Watts claim that when the mother’s life is not at stake, or when she became pregnant absent physical or other types of coercion, then the fetus’s right to live outweighs the mother’s right to kill that fetus. This is usually justified with the observation that after a mother gives birth she may legally give that child away and return to a childless life. Is pregnancy financially and emotionally costly? Yes, it can be. But do those incidental costs justify destroying human life, some would say no.
Furthermore, the belief that life begins at conception (or fertilization) does not have to be based in religious belief. I believe life begins at conception based purely on the scientific fact that a fetus is life, it is human life, and it has its own genetic code (DNA) clearly distinguishable from its parents.
Now there are many arguments that counter this view, and many of them are just as valid. There’s the strict utilitarian argument that humans overproduce at it is (Freakonomics probably takes this the furthest). There’s the argument that as long as women demand abortions they will continue, and if prohibited they will become much more dangerous for women. Also a good argument. I guess my entire point is that I believe these are the arguments that people of your particular view should promote in order to demonstrate why you think Watts would be worse for the state than Noriega. That’s what I meant when I said a substantial policy discussion. But you instead wanted to show how Republican Watts was. Your argument boiled down to anti-choice=Republican, Watts=anti-choice, ergo Watts = Republican. Though you didn’t say it explicitly, the use of this logic implies that to be pro-life/anti-choice makes you somewhat less of a Democrat, or at least more Republican than Democrat.
As far as the discussion about what type of justice Watts will vote for, I think your analysis lacks significant depth. We all know Watts is a plaintiffs’ trial lawyer and a proponent of expanded access to courts. That position comes with a whole host of positions on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Those positions tend to be based on broad 14th amendment interpretation (i.e. right to privacy, choice of forum, equal protection, etc…). Though not a rule by any means, jurists who generally oppose the positions that the trial lawyers hold also tend to generally oppose Roe v. Wade. Watts may have a lot of reasons to vote for or against a Supreme Court nominee, but I highly doubt that abortion will be deciding factor.
Now as far as admitting that Watts is “anti-choice,” I find that term to be just as ridiculous as anti-life, death tax, economic refugee, and, my personal favorite, border defense. If we really want to be accurate, we should just start referring to pro-lifers as anti-Roe v. Wade, and pro-choicers and pro-Roe v. Wade.
Concerning journalistic integrity, I think most people would agree that counting the number of stories you break has nothing to do with the integrity of your journalism. Integrity concerns how you break them and how you pick the stories to break. I challenged yours in this case because your post had nothing to do with the reasons why Texans should want to vote for a pro-Roe Democrat over an anti-Roe Democrat. All you did was say, “Hey, look how Republican Watts is.” Furthermore, if breaking stories is what makes integrity, where were you on the Terri Hodge indictments? NPR, PinkDome, and just about every paper found it worth at least a mention.
Finally, I will again promise you that I have never met Michael Watts, anyone who works for him that I know of, and I don’t intend to get involved in his, or anyone else’s primary campaign. I have never met you or Kuff; I am simply an avid reader of most of the Texas blogs. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having blogs that have obvious partisan or ideological bias. But why not try to justify the bias rather than simply celebrating it.