Of Many Things

The once and future presidential contender Rick Santorum delivered a podium-pounding, populist speech early this month to the Conservative Political Action Conference, urging Republicans to focus their attention on Joe the Plumber and his proletarian brethren if they really want to recapture the White House for the G.O.P. “All we’re talking about is cutting taxes for high-income people—it doesn’t exactly connect emotionally,” said the former Pennsylvania senator, as he called for policy approaches with greater blue-collar appeal. “We are the party who has the policies that will work best for these folks.”

Thanks to Ronald Reagan, a sizable portion of the U.S. electorate agrees with Mr. Santorum. If you ask me, that is the Gipper’s greatest political achievement: convincing working-class Americans that the G.O.P. was on their side. I’m not necessarily saying that the Republicans aren’t on the side of working people. I do have an opinion about that claim, but what interests me more at present is the titanic late 20th-century shift in public perception, when the Republican Party went from being thought of as the party of Wall Street to being thought of as the party of Main Street. The Democratic Party of the 60s and 70s made that an easier sell. What many folks perceived to be the Democrats’ radical left wing antics alienated a lot of American workers; the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, they thought, had abandoned and perhaps even betrayed its blue-collar base. As the Democratic stalwart Tip O’Neill observed in the wake of the Reagan landslides: “The Democratic Party created the middle class in this country, but we no longer represent it.”

Advertisement

Just how did that happen? True, the implosion of the New Deal coalition was evident by 1980, but the “conservatization” of the American worker had been underway since at least the 1950s, the product of a collaboration in part between Mr. Reagan and a little known executive at General Electric, Lemuel Boulware.

Mr. Boulware was in charge of G.E.’s labor relations; and over a career that spanned 20 years, his take-no-prisoners, take-it-or-leave-it negotiating style was so effective that it inspired a corporate labor strategy still known as Boulwarism. Mr. Reagan met Boulware in the early 1950s, when the out-of-work actor was hired as G.E.’s corporate spokesman. In a big way, G.E. brought Reagan’s ideology to life, with Boulware as the mid-wife. He was the one who “came up with the idea of trying to change the politics of blue-collar America,” the Reagan historian Will Bunch once remarked. Boulware “wanted to wean blue-collar workers off of the New Deal politics of Franklin Roosevelt...toward a new politics of anti-Communism, patriotism and progress.”

As Mr. Reagan traveled about the country making endorsements and meeting G.E. employees, Boulware’s ideas began to crop up in his remarks. It was here, on “the mash potato circuit,” as Reagan called it, that he developed and honed what later Reaganites called “the speech”: a folksy yet forceful treatise on free enterprise, democracy, anti-Communism and patriotism, the same speech he would give in different forms and forums for the rest of his career. “Progress” was the theme, and for Reagan and Boulware progress meant whatever was good for G.E.

In “the speech” Boulware’s ideas found a sophisticated, eloquent and friendly expression. Ronald Reagan had the talent and the smarts (yes, the smarts) to take Boulware’s ideas—ideas that were not obviously in the interests of most workers—and convince people like Joe the Plumber that they were. That was no small feat, and Mr. Reagan’s success continues to pay dividends for Republicans today. No wonder we call him “the great communicator.” 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Stanley Kopacz
3 years 9 months ago
The great communicator was also implementing the southern strategy of the Republican party, which worked to even higher latitudes. He helped whites re-map their traditional racism onto a matrix of drugs, crime and illegitimate birth. The war on drugs made possible the arrest of many and subsequent records which kept those people in their socioeconomic place. Setting groups of people against other groups of people was no small part of Reagan's success.
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. Kopacz: Very good post, thank you. Might I add that while Reagan implemented the Southern Strategy, the ground work began years before his "States Rights" speech given in Mississippi just miles from where three martyrs to the Civil Rights Movement were murdered. Goldwater invoked states rights in his vote against the Civil Rights Act; Kevin Philips laid out the mantra you so well note of "find out who hates who and work them against each other." Going back to Goldwater,he also laid out the placing a libertarian veneer over the resistance to Federal intervention on the side of african americans, etc. As a Union member I must also point out that one major milestone in the split between the Democratic Party and working class/ union members was George Meany's refusal to endorse George McGovern. Ultimately I see we as a nation drinking to the bitter dregs the legacy of slavery. While still a great admirer of Lincoln, I have come to realize that Thaddeus Stevens was correct; the Slave Owners should have been hung and their land given to freedman and Union veterans. Sincerely
Robert O'Connell
3 years 9 months ago
So much for "Love your enemies." Think about the impact that Gary Hart and George McGovern had "in the split between the Democratic Party and working class/union members" when they kicked Richard J. Daley out of the 1972 convention -- despite his exemplary support of "working class/union members" if not Chicago's personification back then of the middle class.
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
Hanging all slaver owners??? That would have been over 300,000 hangings (all Democrats). More capital punishment than in all US history. A terrible thing to contemplate, and a terrible precedent for addressing societal wrongs (such as those doctors who kill by abortion?).
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Father Malone: Thank you for this article. Very good post, thank you. Might I add that while Reagan implemented the Southern Strategy, the ground work began years before his "States Rights" speech given in Mississippi just miles from where three martyrs to the Civil Rights Movement were murdered. Goldwater invoked states rights in his vote against the Civil Rights Act; Kevin Philips laid out the mantra you so well note of "find out who hates who and work them against each other." Going back to Goldwater,he also laid out the placing a libertarian veneer over the resistance to Federal intervention on the side of african americans, etc. As a Union member I must also point out that one major milestone in the split between the Democratic Party and working class/ union members was George Meany's refusal to endorse George McGovern. Ultimately I see we as a nation drinking to the bitter dregs the legacy of slavery. While still a great admirer of Lincoln, I have come to realize that Thaddeus Stevens was correct; the Slave Owners should have been hung and their land given to freedman and Union veterans. Sincerely
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
Hanging all slaver owners??? That would have been over 300,000 hangings (all Democrats). More capital punishment than in all US history. A terrible thing to contemplate, and a terrible precedent for addressing societal wrongs (such as those doctors who kill by abortion?)
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. Leary. Please, your wasting your time here; there must be an open mike at a comedy club somewhere! "All Democrats?" What, did you poll them? No Independents? What a crack up, or what? Makes me recall a past post of yours where after ranting about the Democrats being "the slave owner party " you stated you were a Democrat, until they went too far with, what was it affirmative action? Okay with slavery, but man that affirmative action! You got Bill Maher beat as far as laughs! Most Sincerely
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
John. It was abortion that killed the modern Democratic Party for Catholics. Maybe, you were thinking of the Know-Nothing Party. In any case, the old Democratic Party excluded slavery abolitionists and the New Democrats exclude abortion abolitionists. Why is this so hard to understand?
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
once again Mr. Leary, in one of your (so many) past posts you stated that the Democratic Party was acceptable until it went too far with "affirmative action." And actually abortion hasn't killed the Democratic Party with Catholics, has it? Any given national election the Catholic vote is split, isn't it? Oh, wait, you decided that only bad Catholics vote Democrat, haven't you? Or is anyone voting for a Democratic candidate deemed not a Catholic at all! Goodness, canonization before death for you good man for such work!
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
John - Please send me at least one of my "so many posts" where you think I repudiated the Democrats for affirmative action. I cannot find one. I am for affirmative action for the poor - which would comport with a preferential option for the poor. The soul of the Democratic party was killed when they abandoned the little ones. They are now moral zombies, in my "abolitionist" opinion. I think you know some Catholics were slave-owners, and you think they should have been executed, which might be seen as more severe than excommunicated. But, killing children before they are born is worse than slavery. Any Catholic advocating for abortion-on-demand or supporting politicians who work to keep abortion-on-demand the law of the land is supporting something worse than slavery.The Democratic platform of 1856 defends slavery 10 times (see here http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29576).
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. O'Leary, Let follow your thread here; the Democratic Party was, and shall ever be, the Slave Owner's Party, with 10 "defense of slavery" in its 1956, oh I'm sorry 1856, platform; Catholics supported the Democratic Party while it was the Pro-Slavery Party, us Catholics were okay with that; being the pro-slavery party did not make it a party of "moral zombies." Once the Democratic Party merged their pro-slavery platform with pro-abortion it lost the Catholics; now, how does that work, since in any given national election the Catholic vote is split? Once again, have you decided who is a a Catholic and who isn't? Wow, no wonder Ratzinger felt it was safe to retire, with you on guard!
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
John - it seems your position is that as long as many Catholics vote for the Democrats, the Church has to accept their platform as Catholic? I do not. Here is information on how both Parties stood regarding abortion in 2012: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/04/democratic-platform-opposes-any-effort-to-stop-abortions/. Note you started this conversation saying all the slaveholders should have been executed right after the civil war, and I rightly noted that they were the Democratic side then.
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. O'Leary, First, if it was anyone else I would be wondering why in a reply to my reference to Steven's "hang all slaveholders" one would feel a need to reference that slave holders political party, that is over one hundred years ago; of course with you, you seem to be channelling McCarthy; "dem democrats are everywhere!" I did want you to inform me and other readers how you can come up with such an absolute statement; "all slave holders were Democrats!" My! If you check your posts you see that you stated that it was abortion that killed the modern Democratic Party for Catholics; I simple point out that in any given election the Catholic vote is split; Wait a minute, maybe that is a falsehood propagated by the MSM! Well, maybe not; So if the Democratic Party has been declared by Mr. O'Leary "To has always been and shall every be the party of slavery!" why did it "take abortion to kill the modern Democratic Party with," your words" Catholics." Was like slavery okay? I do understand it was with some popes. But the first question again, why did you reference the political party of the slave holders, and since you did, how can you make such an exclusive statement?
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
John – Your question led me to do some more research. Here is a great site on the election of 1860 (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=1860&datatype=national&def=1&f=0&off=0&elect=0). Note that there were four parties: Republican, Constitutional Union (CU), Democrat and Southern Democrats . The Republican party was the only anti-slavery party. The CU party wanted to stay agnostic on slavery and was opposed to secession. It was composed of former Whigs and the famously anti-Catholic Know Knothings. The Democratic and Southern Democratic parties were pro-slavery. No independents were mentioned but I suppose you might equate them with the CU party. Lincoln received 0.00% votes in all soon-to-be Confederate states, except Virginia where he received 1.1% of the vote (he received 1% in Kentucky and 2.5% in Maryland). The CU party won sizable minorities in the Confederate states and won in VA, TN and KY. The Democrats won 9 of 11 Confederate states. Since there were many southerners who did not own slaves, they may have accounted for most of the southern CU vote. But, it is possible some slave owners considered themselves CU members. So, your desired execution order might have included some CU members.
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
According to Wikipedia, the Republican party platform promised not to interfere with slavery in the states, but suggested an opposition to slavery in the territories. The Constitutional Union Party platform advocated compromise to save the Union, with the slogan "the Union as it is, and the Constitution as it is." The Southern Democratic Party was made up of those Democrats who wanted to see slavery extended into the territories. The Northern Democrats favored popular sovereignty to prevail on the issue of slavery in the new territories. In other words, no one was actually campaigning to abolish slavery and only the Southern Democrats wanted to expand the practice.
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
Marie – if you follow the argument in the above string, you will see that the point of discussion was about what party the slaveholders aligned with. In any case, the interpretation you make that the Republicans "promised not to interfere" and "suggested" belies why they were so vehemently opposed by the slaveholders. Best to go to the actual sources. Here is the actual Republican Party Platform and the Resolutions 5-10 that were inimical to any slaveholder - http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html. Paragraph 2 reiterates the Declaration of Independence’s “All men are created equal” paragraph - the very same paragraph we see in modern Republican Party platforms against abortion. Para 5 rails against the “Democrats” attempt at “construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons.” – directly against owning another person. Para 7 condemns as political heresy the then Democratic Administration‘s interpretation of the Constitution that “carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States.” Para 8 says “the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” Para 9 against the “recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade” as a “a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age” Para 10, 11 re the then Democratic administration’s vetoing of Kansas and Nebraska state legislatures prohibition of slavery in their states. Note the Republican Party was founded on abolition of slavery in 1854 and was a coalition of Abolitionists, Free Soilers and Whigs, who all had their varied anti-slavery positions. I end with a resolution from their 1856 Convention (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29619): "Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery." - they were defending marriage even back then.
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
I disagree with your equating abortion and slavery because slavery is something that can be ended by outlawing it, while abortion is something that existed even when it was against the law.
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
I wish outlawing slavery could end it but it still exists in some forms. See Nicholas Kristof on "Slavery Isn’t a Thing of the Past," where he claims there are 60,000 in America despite our laws http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/opinion/slavery-isnt-a-thing-of-the-past.html?_r=0. The Global Slavery Index lists slaves by country (30 million worldwide today) even though it is against the law in these countries. http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/report/. The Law can reduce an evil practice but rarely ends it completely. At least it removes any moral cover from it and provides some legal recourse.
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Ms. Rehbein; Thank you for this and your other posts on this page. Well written and to the point; the analogy of slavery and abortion lacks any credibility. One interesting point though, in context with the Church, is that for a significant portion of the papacy slavery was endorsed. Again, good work here. Sincerely
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
Yes, for abortion to be comparable to slavery, when the sperm meets the egg, a fully grown independent person would have to suddenly appear who would then be killed because his or her presence was not intended by the sperm and egg providers. It is a woman who is required by law to play host to a developing human who could be compared to a slave. The toll that pregnancy takes on a woman's body is not part of the equation for those who believe that the embryo is a full human being entitled to the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. O'Leary, "The point of the discussion was what Party the slave holders were aligned with." What discussion are you writing about? It must be one that you are having with yourself, which actually is pretty evident, since you are the only one who put the party question into this, and even at that you don't answer the question, since you can't identify how any individual voted! which you are only interested in! My Goodness, what are you up to? But, okay, I'll try to go slow ( even number the questions) 1)why did you reply to my reference of Stevens mix in the party question? 2) Why do you say "abortion killed the Democratic Party for Catholics" when actually it hasn't? 3)Why, if the Democratic Party has always been the Pro-Slavery Party did it take abortion to kill it with Catholics? Here is one for bonus points: By "Catholics" do you mean only good Catholics? Sincerely
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. O'Leary, Goodness, aren't you dodging the questions! I did ask you how you knew all slave holders were Dems, not the vote break down of that election. And of course my main question, which I put in twice in my last post, was, why did you respond to my reference to Stevens plan with any reference to political parties; well lets face it, all of us in this "community" know why, you have some fixation with those Dems; And I do get a kick out of your dodging of my question, that if, by decree of Mr. O'Leary, "the Democratic Party has been forever and always shall be the Pro-Slavery Party" why did it take, your words now, so pay attention, abortion to kill the Democratic Party with Catholics? Which of course it hasn't, has it? But for those Catholics for whom abortion did kill the Democratic Party, does that mean slavery was okay? The more I look at your last reply, the more I think someone must be writing them for you! There are so, well you know.
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
Sorry, John but I missed this comment as you entered it after the string had grown further below. I also see that you inserted another late comment below. You have a very peculiar way of blogging, John, misspelling names, throwing in insults and misquoting respondents (re affirmative action, etc.). Even here, you assign a direct quote to me that I never said "the Democratic Party has been forever and always shall be the Pro-Slavery Party")? In any case, my point is that the overwhelming number of slaveholders were the supporters of the Democrats back then. The Constitutional Union Party wanted to avoid addressing slavery, which had the effect of keeping the status quo in place (which was to keep blacks slaves). To address your questions below, I only brought up the political party affiliation since you endorsed Stevens' desire to have them all hanged. And, as regards Catholics who vote Democrat today, I do say they have blood on their hands, because of the abortion regime that the Democratic Party keeps in place. Are they still Catholics? Well, as the slavery history tells us, or the Nazi regime in Germany, Catholics sometimes do not listen to the Church and vote directly contrary to their faith. You can make the call. Sincerely, Tim
Kevin Murphy
3 years 9 months ago
You're saying that when Reagan, working with Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher, finally exhausted the communist's occupation of Europe, he was doing it on behalf of G.E.? I'm not a shill for Reagan and found him lacking in many ways, but I believe the man truly believed in "free enterprise, democracy, anti-communism and patriotism," no matter how he honed his presentation skills. Also, why were these ideas, "not obviously in the interests of most workers"? That is a ludicrous and insulting statement.
Anne Chapman
3 years 9 months ago
This is interesting commentary given that it is in America magazine and has a 100% political focus, with not even a weak attempt to link the content to christian/catholic teaching. And while it may indeed include a grain of real history, it is highly simplistic - there is no actual analysis as to why "middle class" America has moved from the Democratic party to the Republican. It is far more complex than because someone at GE provided some inspiration for Reagan's main stump speech back in the day.
Vince Killoran
3 years 9 months ago
The roots of this go back to the immediate post WWII period when Labor was at its peak power--and it signed the "Treaty of Detroit." I can't blame workers and union officials--high wages, benefits, etc.--but they gave up a more capacious understanding of economic democracy. They soon became "middle class." Management didn't rest, however: they never really accepted the rights of workers to collective bargaining. What appeared only in the 1970s began thirty years earlier. As for the Catholic Church, it's corporativist vision was great but they abandoned it after the war and concentrated on fighting commies.
Michael Barberi
3 years 9 months ago
It seems that we are not addressing some fundamental facts. 1. The GOP platform, in particular, its Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has not changed since 1980. What is not addressed is the fact that several versions of the Human Life Amendment are acceptable to the GOP. One version permits abortion to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest (emphasis-added). According to the magisterium any abortion is intrinsically evil and immoral regardless of the circumstances. Is one version of abortion less evil than another? Does accepting one version in disagreement with the magisterium make Catholics, the right kind of Catholics and another Catholics-in-name only "regardless of their political party identify"? Clearly, abortion-on-demand should be considered criminal and immoral. However, the majority of Catholics support abortion to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest and this cuts across the political party divide. 2. Take about the era of the Civil War. Just after the Civil War, the Holy Office issued an unambiguous proclamation in 1866 supporting Pius IX's teaching that slavery was not against the natural law or the divine law. The teachings on permitted slavery were taught as truth for centuries. Some popes during these centuries did condemn certain forms of slavery, namely the so-called 'unjust slavery', but not so-called 'just slavery' or the slave trade. Finally slavery as an institution was condemned by Pope Leo XII in 1890-1891, by Vatican II in Gaudium et spes in 1965 and finally declared 'intrinsically evil' by JP II in Veritatis Spendor in 1993. Hence, the teachings on slavery were highly inconsistent, vacillating between moral acceptance, to morally permitted forms of slavery, to declaring alls forms of slavery as intrinsically evil.
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Mr. Barberi; Some very good work here in your posts. Thank you. Sincerely
john andrechak
3 years 9 months ago
Those baby-killing Repubs! Aren't man, key term here, enough to force a raped woman to bear the child of her rapist! Next thing you know they won't be up to a having a woman raped with a medical instrument!
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
I think most people, no matter their religion, are uncomfortable with the absolute position the Catholic Church takes on abortion, making saints of women who sacrifice their lives to bring still one more child into the world while leaving a brood of children motherless, and not making clear that this is an ideal that it is not expected that all can live up to. These same people are also uncomfortable with the idea that a woman would allow a pregnancy to progress to a point where a healthy, viable, infant exists and then choose to abort the pregnancy instead of putting up with it a little longer for the sake of the child. The political parties use this contradiction in feelings to get themselves elected, knowing full well that there is no thing the government or the law can do to conform to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church and that anything the government attempts to do to prevent later term abortions will be less than satisfying to the anti-abortion zealots and highly offensive to those who have made this choice because a fetus was not viable or because the pregnancy was life-threatening. In other words, the issue is a gift that keeps on giving to political strategists.
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
Marie - Many people tried the incremental approach to ending slavery in the 50 years before the civil war. But, the Democratic party and their slaveholder supporters opposed even incremental legislation. They wanted to reopen the African slave trade, to extend slavery to any new states, and to have any runaway slaves returned as if they were subhuman pieces of property. But, maybe, I can get some Democrats to agree on outlawing 3rd trimester fetuses who pose no threat to the physical well-being of the mother? Maybe, you can agree that no fetus should be aborted at any stage because of her sex? And, maybe, you can agree any child who survives an abortion should immediately receive the best life-saving emergency medical care? The latter was opposed by President Obama (the Born-Alive legislation he opposes). Perhaps, pro-life Catholics in the Democratic party need to leave that party and form a new "Constitutional Union" Party that will just stop promoting abortion-on-demand policies.
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
Tim, my disagreement with you on the comparability of slavery and abortion is premised primarily on the fact that one has a legislative solution and the other does not. If you outlaw slavery, for example, you can prosecute the slaveholder and jail him or her, fine him or her, force him or her to give money to the individual he or she enslaved, etc. If you outlaw abortion, who do you punish, how do you punish, and what does this achieve? If legal abortion is unavailable, women have been known to attempt things that are dangerous to their lives and health. Do slaveholders do things like that when they aren't allowed to have slaves?
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
I have addressed the distorted and fallacious charges against the Church on slavery previously, where an occasional statement is used in isolation and the many anti-slavery pronouncements are ignored. But I will just put a link here as this post is about the American political parties (https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM). As I describe below, the anti-slavery abolitionists were willing to form a coalition with the Free Soilers and the anti-slavery Whigs to form the Republican Party and work together to limit slavery, to reduce the slave trade, to protect runaway slaves and eventually to outlaw it. There is nothing wrong with forming political alliances to rid the world of such inhumanity. Similarly, while I am an abolitionist on abortion, and believe that every innocent human killed is a tragedy and shames our country, I am willing to form political coalitions with those who make exceptions for rape and incest, or even those who would eliminate abortion after the first trimester, to save at least the babies who presently meet the axe of abortion-on-demand Damnocrats. It will not stop me defending every person's right to life. Whatever the differences in specifics, the Dems are as pro-abortion today as they were pro-slavery back then. We cannot ignore the reality of our nation's past or it's present.
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
Tim, you seem to be well versed in statistics. Would you know how many second and third trimester abortions are of fetuses that would be born healthy if allowed to go to term? While you or I might be reluctant to end pregnancies if told our children would experience a life of medical hardship, do you believe the law should require everyone to continue pregnancies when the prenatal testing shows deformity or defects, say like cystic fibrosis or open spinal column?
Tim O'Leary
3 years 9 months ago
According to Planned Parenthood, 12% of abortions occur after the first trimester in the USA. So, of 1.2 million abortions a year, that would mean 144,000 are aborted after the first Trimester. Apart from being a biblical number (Rev 7:4) it is also coincidentally the number of Union combat deaths in the whole Civil War. I have not seen the reasons for abortions by trimester but here are the reasons for all of them: 21% for inadequate finances, 21% mother not ready for the responsibility, 12% problems with relationship, 11% too young or immature, 8% doesn't want any more children, 3% baby has possible health issue, 4% other, <1% rape or incest. (see data here: http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/) So, regarding rape or incest or medical condition of child, we are talking about 5% abortions.
Marie Rehbein
3 years 9 months ago
This does not answer the question, though I understand that the data is not available. Twelve percent, only, of abortions are after the first trimester, and 3% overall are due to baby's health issue. Perhaps you know when it is that most prenatal testing turns up health issues?

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

25,000 children and pilgrim sang the pope “Happy Birthday" today in St. Peter’s Square.
Gerard O’ConnellDecember 17, 2017
Homeless people are seen in Washington June 22. Bishop Frank J. Dewane of Venice, Fla., chair of the U.S. bishops' domestic policy committee, released a statement Nov. 17 proclaiming that the House of Representatives "ignored impacts to the poor and families" in passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the previous day. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)
The United States is thwarting the advancement of millions of its citizens, a UN rapporteur says.
Kevin ClarkeDecember 16, 2017
Why not tax individuals for what they take out of society instead of what they contribute?
Paul D. McNelis, S.J.December 15, 2017
Pope Francis will renew the mandate of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors for another three years, informed sources told America this week.
Gerard O’ConnellDecember 15, 2017