Mark Ronchetti’s position on abortion is ignorant of or indifferent to its critical issues. Ronchetti has no excuse; the controversy has been ongoing for generations, more intensely in the half-century since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. So he has had lots of time to get smart. But no, like most people who talk or rant about abortion, he has not bothered to read the two landmark abortion decisions, Blackmun’s and Alito’s. And he learned nothing in high school about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The abortion issue depends on definitions of the beginning of life and the practices adopted on the basis of those definitions, many of which have changed over time. Ronchetti does not know, or knows but does not care, that different religions define the beginning of life differently: Catholics, traditionally at quickening, now at conception (not clearly defined); other Christians, at conception, at quickening, or at birth; Jews, at birth. He does not know, or knows but does not care, that the issue is exclusively a religious one (science does not answer religious questions). He does not know, or knows but does not care, that the issue is a First Amendment one. Without this knowledge and commitment, he cannot honestly swear to an oath of office to uphold and protect state and federal constitutions if he were elected governor.
Ronchetti is ignorant when he says, “We can end late-term abortion while protecting access to contraception and health care.” He knows nothing about the medical facts of pregnancies. His ignorance leads him to a contradiction between ending late-term abortions and protecting a woman’s health or life. The truth of the matter: health- and life-threatening conditions can and do arise, though rarely, late in pregnancies.
Ronchetti is nonsensical and disingenuous when he says, “I believe we can all come together on a policy that reflects our shared values.” He implies that Catholics and Jews have “shared values” which can enable them to resolve differences about when life begins—conception versus birth—and to agree on circumstances, if any, legitimizing abortions. He does not, because he cannot, identify those “shared values”; none exist.
Ronchetti has shifted his position. He is retreating from attacks for wanting to end abortion and perhaps from the absurdity of a kumbaya resolution based on “shared values.” To reduce damage to his campaign and to seem more reasonable than he is, he now suggests shifting the decision on abortion to a referendum to amend the state constitution. One obvious problem is the wording of the referendum on this nuanced issue; another is that no wording can do justice to the nuances which differentiate religious beliefs on abortion. Yet he wears a velvet glove of gossamer verbiage to cover an iron fist of forced conversion. He assumes that, in this predominantly Catholic state, a referendum will force Jews to give up their values to “share” Catholic values—a standard antisemitic maneuver of Christian dominance.
Ronchetti does not know, or knows but does not care, that such a referendum, however worded or implemented, would violate the Constitution, In particular, he does not know, or knows but does not care, that its First Amendment exists to protect one or more minorities from a majority in matters of belief or opinion, including religion. A referendum, “a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision,” establishes a majoritarian position. However, on a matter of religion, the majority’s vote is likely to violate the minority’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom from an establishment of religion. In the case of abortion, it is certain to. His suggestion displays his ignorance of, or indifference to the violation of, religious rights of others not sharing his religious beliefs. In declaring late-term abortions “barbaric,” he shows hostility to Jews and their beliefs and practices. He also shows his inhumanity to all, not just Jewish, women of child-bearing age who might have one of those rare pregnancies which require late-term abortions to save their health or life.
Ronchetti’s fact-free, untruthful, and shifting positions on abortion should be disqualifying. Since Ronchetti has not troubled to master either vital facts and essential nuances about a crucial issue like abortion or fundamental facts about the Constitution, he shows himself lazy, irresponsible, and untrustworthy on this and likely any other issue. His position on abortion alone reveals that he is unqualified for the highest office in the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment