This is the third part of a multi-part series taking a deeper dive into various important topics in the 2020 election. On the 100-point scale I am using to grade candidates, social issues are worth 8 points.
This section of the dossier has been revised and updated to reflect the general election field.
In days past, I used to consider two aspects when it came to social issues: abortion and gay “marriage.” Unfortunately, the former is still with us and the latter is supposedly “settled law.” (I look at both Roe v. Wade and the Obergefell decision as “settled” in the same vein as the Dred Scott decision or Plessy v. Ferguson were.) So this became more of an abortion question, although one candidate in this field in particular has a deep concern about other issues regarding families.
This was such a rich vein of information that I didn’t need to ask the candidates anything. All the information is gleaned from their websites and social media. Once again, I am going by party beginning with the Republicans for House and Senate, respectively, then proceeding through the Libertarians, Independent Party of Delaware candidates, and finally the incumbent Democrats Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons for House and Senate, respectively.
Lee Murphy (House)
Murphy states right up front, “I am pro-life.” And then he tells me what he is not: “Democrats are advocating for late-term abortion. They are okay with ending a baby’s life at seven, eight and nine months of pregnancy, or even after a child is born. I strongly disagree.”
The slower go comes from this statement, “We should instead provide support to mothers and their families facing hardship, and ensure they have the resources necessary to choose life.” This, to me, puts the federal government in a role in which they don’t really belong. I can buy this a little bit more if he were running for state office – which Lee has a few times over his long, uphill political career – but this is another case where money = strings and I don’t support those. 3 points out of 8.
Lauren Witzke (Senate)
This is one of Lauren’s bread-and-butter issues, to a point where she has said way more on the subject than I can summarize in a few paragraphs. Maybe the best way to put it is her saying, “the American Family has been put on the back burner. It has been sacrificed to turn every American into an economic unit, who lives not to serve his or her family or God, but to serve his or her employer and the false idol of GDP…Lauren will pass legislation to further incentivize marriage and child-bearing, thus increasing American birthrates and rebuilding our culture to center it around the American Family.”
So let’s look at this idea. Lauren has noted the example of Hungary, which has created its own incentives for marriage and childbearing with some success. I think it’s a noble idea, but there are two issues I have with it: first of all, it’s not a legitimate function of government at any level to dictate child-bearing (witness the outcry over the years about China’s one-child policy, which led to millions of abortions) nor should the incentives be based on an income tax – more on that in a future edition of the dossier.
It’s been argued that we can’t legislate morality. Witzke also backs a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, which would be the extent of federal involvement I might favor. Until such an amendment is passed – and I’m not holding my breath on that one – abortion should be a state issue. 5 points out of 8.
David Rogers (L) (House)
If I were to assume his stance from being a member of the Libertarian Party, I would likely not agree with it. But I can’t say that based on my next candidate. I can skip giving him a score, though. No points.
Nadine Frost (L) (Senate)
I’m going to quote her verbatim from a social media exchange:
“Now, do you approve of the government paying for that choice? And what about the individual liberty of the unborn child? Does that person not have rights?
You know when is a good time to make a choice? Before sex.
I think it should be the person’s responsibility not to get knocked up if they aren’t prepared to deal with those consequences…
I also believe that the abortion issue belongs to the states. Why should nine people in Washington, D.C. decide what the people of Texas, Minnesota, and California should consider acceptable?”
The beautiful thing about this is that Nadine thinks almost exactly like I do on the subject, but she’s a woman so she doesn’t get the stinkeye some man like me would get if he said it. I’d love to know where she stands on same-sex marriage, but for now this is an outstanding answer from a person representing a group notorious for promoting the liberty of the woman over the life of the unborn, a position exactly backwards. 6.5 points out of 8.
Catherine Stonestreet Purcell (IPoD) (House)
Again, a little surprised she has not expounded on this. But there’s still time and I think she visits the site. No points.
Mark Turley (IPoD) (Senate)
I am less surprised that Turley has said nothing. No points.
Lisa Blunt Rochester (incumbent D) (House)
Here’s what you need to know:
“EMILY’s List has been working to elect pro-choice Democratic women at all levels of government for 35 years. I’m grateful for their support as they continue to be the largest resource for women running for public office.
I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood and remain supportive of their efforts to advocate for and provide equitable healthcare to the women of our state.” You mean equitable baby murdering? 0 points out of 8.
Chris Coons (incumbent D) (Senate)
Again, all you need to know:
“Chris is a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade, and he believes that decisions about a woman’s health – including pregnancy – should be left to her and her doctor. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chris has successfully fought Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, gut the Title X family planning program, and take away women’s rights in Delaware and across the country.”
There ain’t one damn right taken away if Roe v. Wade were overturned. In fact, rights would be restored. Get this man out of office. 0 points out of 8.
House: Murphy 9.5, CSP 2, Rogers 2, LBR 1.5.
Senate: Witzke 15.5, Frost 10.5, Turley 1, Coons 0.
The next portion of this deep dive will look at the topics of trade and job creation. People actually respond to this subject.
One thought on “2020 federal dossier: Social Issues”
Comments are closed.