Ken McElroy Online

Gray Davis, Anti-Choice

Ken McElroy
August 24, 2002

When Democrats like California Governor Gray Davis boast of being "pro-choice" they really mean that they're pro-choice when the choice is abortion, because they are anti-choice on virtually every other issue. From schools, to SUVs, to smoking, to guns, on practically every issue besides abortion, the liberal Democrats are "no-choice" not "pro-choice."

Davis is expected to quickly sign the Reproductive Privacy Act, which was passed by the State Assembly on August 20th. According to the California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, "SB 1301 will ensure that California women have a constitutionally sound reproductive rights law that protects privacy and the right to choose, regardless of what happens on the federal level."

Davis' 2002 campaign website says the governor "helped make California the most pro-choice State in the nation, signing into law seven pieces of legislation to strengthen a woman's right to choose."

If a woman wishes to choose where to send her child to school, however, the governor and his cronies in the state legislature are opposed. Nationally, Democrats consistently oppose any school choice initiative that is proposed, regardless of the details. Democrats were uniformly in opposition to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of school vouchers for poor inner city kids in Cleveland. Poor minority children don't make campaign donations, teachers' unions do.

Democrats also tend to be anti-choice for business owners. They believe that employers should not have the right to hire and fire employees as they, the employers, see fit. If you take your hard-earned money, and years of hard work, and build a business, the state knows better than you do whom you should hire or fire. If you fire someone without ample documentation to support it, especially if the fired employee is a member of a "protected class," expect to end up in court. So much for "choice."

In a similar vein, Davis and the Democrats are anti-choice for property owners. Do you own a rental property? Do you wish to choose whom to rent to, and for what price? "Pro-choice" liberals say "No way." The state has the right to control prices and terms. An elderly Christian woman in California a few years ago who had a room for rent refused to rent it to an unmarried couple, as their arrangement conflicted with her moral principles. So she had the right to choose, right? She owned the place, and freedom of religion is in the Constitution, right? No way, said the defenders of choice on the left. The landlord was sued, and lost. So, no "right to choose" for property owners then.

What if a woman wants to choose to buy a gun to protect herself against felons released from prison after a few years by some kind-hearted liberal judge? "Hold on," say Davis and his liberal friends, "Criminals don't kill people; guns do." Thus they support a fifteen-day wait for a gun, but oppose a twenty-four hour wait for an abortion. They sue gun manufacturers to force them out of business, deny virtually all permits to carry a concealed weapon, and they want to tax you for every bullet. Never mind that the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects the right of "the people" to own guns, while never mentioning abortion at all. So much for "freedom to choose."

The Boy Scouts of America have the right to choose, says the U.S. Supreme Court. They may choose who is eligible to become a Scout leader according to their own standards. "Not so fast" say the choice-defending Democrats. A group of Boy Scouts was actually booed at the Democratic Party Convention in 2000, because Democrats believed the Scouts made the "wrong" choice. You have the right to choose, but choose their way, or else.

You have the right to choose to have an abortion, but you may not have the right to choose your own doctor. The plan proposed by the Democrats in 1993, led by Hillary Clinton, to nationalize the nation's health care system, included provisions that would have made it a criminal offense to go to a doctor and, with your own money, pay him to treat you. Choose your doctor, pay him out of your own pocket, and pay a hefty fine, said the Democrats. "The right to choose," sure, but only for one particular medical procedure.

This latest legislation in California is nothing but a political ruse by the Democrats to woo female voters into supporting the "pro-choice" Davis. But women have the right to have an abortion in all fifty states, protected by multiple Supreme Court rulings. Additionally, liberal Democrats dominate the state legislature, so unfettered abortion on demand is particularly secure in California.

So this November, consider how "anti-choice" the Democrats really are. And when you vote, remember - choose wisely.