Eliot Spitzer's predicament and resignation are viewed as well-deserved by the pro-life, traditional values crowd. Like the stock brokers on Wall Street, right-to-life blogs and religious groups opposed to abortions were happy to see Spitzer fall. Why? Spitzer's well publicized support for strengthening abortion rights.
Last April, the New York Times reported that Spitzer planned to make abortion rights a top priority, updating the state's once-pioneering but now outdated legislation.
"Abortion rights advocates hailed the proposed legislation as a critical step in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, but it is also one whose purpose could be seen as insurance if the Supreme Court upholds stricter regulation of abortion," according to the Times.
Spitzer wanted to declare abortion a "fundamental right," but he faced opposition from the Catholic Church and other anti-abortion organizations, who worried the law would be used to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. Spitzer denied this. The Times article quotes Lori Kehoe, a spokeswoman for the New York State Right to Life Committee, calling Spitzer “a bully with an insatiable appetite and tunnel vision to accomplish his fierce agenda.”
Fast-forward to Monday, when, according to Democracy Now!, pro-choice activists gathered in Albany, celebrating the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. Governor Spitzer planned to address a crowd of a thousand at the annual meeting of Family Planning Advocates of New York State and shore up support for his legislation to update and strengthen abortion rights in New York.
Meanwhile, Catholic website Commonweal reports that Cardinal Edward Egan and other New York bishops couldn't understand why they were kept waiting so long for their long-standing appointment with the governor at 3 pm Monday afternoon. All sides, it seems, were gathered Monday to give Spitzer a piece of their minds on his proposed bill, the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.
But the governor never showed.
Right-to-life and religion blogs noted what they saw as the great irony of Spitzer missing his pro-choice speech to deal with his own private dealings with prostitution and infidelity.
LifeNews.com alerted its readers yesterday that they shouldn't get their hopes up with Spitzer's resignation: Incumbent governor David Patterson is a strong supporter of a woman's right to have an abortion. In fact, Patterson ended up making the speech in Spitzer's stead on Monday, perhaps his last as lieutenant.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Comments (10)
As a Christian who wants to lovingly serve the Lord and other people, I'm mostly deeply saddened when the sinfulness that clings to all of us rears its ugly head in such a public way that damages women, a man's family and a career of public service. I pray for Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer, the women who have been harmed, as well as New York's new governor.
March 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 10:24
Gov. Spitzer supports a woman's right to choose because of his incredible respect for women. He believes a woman should have the right to murder her own children in the womb, to provide sexual service for men in exchange for money, and to stand by her husband to protect his careeer after he has broken his vows to her and publicly humiliated her. Unlike the evil pro-lifers, Gov. Spitzer truly loves women.
March 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 09:59
Governor Spitzer rightly challenged anti-abortion advocates who were stampeding women entering abortion clinics in New York City.
What the "religious" crowd forgets is that the right to abortion is a federal law. If they want to change the law, then they should lobby Washington, not the women who are availing themselves of that right.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers are available to those women who choose an alternative to abortion. But the anti-abortion crowd needs to understand that the law is the law and a woman's right is a woman's right - and that they do not have the right to harass and otherwise impair a woman's right to an abortion. I hope Governor Patterson follows suit and continues to support women's rights.
March 14, 2008 9:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 09:38
Speed123:
This statement: 'Catholic leaders are not looking to ban abortion in the state' is a flat-out lie, and you know that it is. The Catholic Church wants to ban abortion everywhere under all circumstances even if carrying to term kills the woman.
March 14, 2008 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 14, 2008 09:32
PS- this law isnt about "a woman's right to have an abortion," as Hoffman states in the last paragraph.
Catholic leaders are not looking to ban abortion in the state, they are looking to protect their right to object to the practice and stand against abortion on-demand (i.e. against non-M.D.s preforming the abortion and against allowing abortions in ALL trimesters).
Framing it this draconian law that infringes on the rights of religious citizens as "protecting a woman's right to choose" is utterly preposterous, and biased journalism.
March 13, 2008 11:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 23:58
Comparing an abortion to the minor medical treatment of setting a gay person's arm is really rich - especially considering the fact that Catholic hospitals provide care regardless of sexual orientation.
Typical canard used by the previous poster...
As for the government's attack on religious objections, read the law and it is as clear as day that - though they cannot "force" anyone to preform an abortion - they plan to open the door to millions in legal action and we all know where that leads.
Hoffman, of course, takes the side of government aggressors against religious liberty and independence...so long as it is not her group (yet, that is)
March 13, 2008 11:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 23:51
C'est la vie
und
Que Sera Sera
March 13, 2008 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 23:15
"The government plans to take away the legal protections for religious to abstain from acts that violate their traditions and you push the propaganda line of the government????"
Ummm, no, she said that Catholics "worried" that Catholic hostpitals would be 'forced' to perform abortions if anyone was allowed to at all.
An unwarranted concern, I assure you, ...as we've seen, you can't *force* a Catholic hospital to set a queer person's broken arm, if they decide it's against their religion right then, or a rich private one of any kind to treat a poor person's cardiac arrest, necessarily, if they can claim they sent the ambulance elsewhere.
Besides, it's the 'Family Values' politicians who get a pass each and every time they violate the very standards they seek to impose on all others.
March 13, 2008 10:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 22:53
Your bias, Clair, shows right through your whole piece here...I thought you were an objective observer?
Oh, thats right, this is the Washington Post!
As for your "reporting" on abortion "rights," it is funny how someone covering the religious beat can miss the obvious use of government coercion to attack at the core belief of a religious people - belief in the sanctity of all life for Catholics - is really an outrage.
The government plans to take away the legal protections for religious to abstain from acts that violate their traditions and you push the propaganda line of the government????
You must have worked on pieces "proving" the government's stories on WMDs in Iraq before you were bumped down here to help them with religious issues...
Wow!
March 13, 2008 7:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 19:13
J
O
Z
E
V
Z
.
U
S
J
O
Z
E
V
Z
.
U
S
March 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 13, 2008 14:07