Tag Archives: Ultrasound

Awakening the “moral sense” of the public in the abortion debate

 

Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood
Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood

Scott Klusendorf linked to this article from the Public Discourse. The article talks about the need to augment logical arguments in other ways in order to awaken the moral sense of the public so that they will support the pro-life cause and vote to repeal pro-abortion laws.

Excerpt:

In a manner similar to the case of slavery as outlined by Douglass, there are two simple points that, once admitted, join to condemn clearly the practice of abortion: (1) the embryo is a human being from the moment of conception, and (2) all human beings have a natural right to life.

The second point, as in the case of the natural right to liberty, doesn’t require serious argument on the level of ordinary judgment, even though many pro-choice philosophers have tried to argue that only persons have a right to life, and the unborn, in their view, aren’t persons. To make such arguments, however, requires choosing an arbitrary cut-off point for personhood, as pro-life philosophers such as George, Tollefsen, and Lee have shown.

The first point is more often chosen as promising ground for challenges, but it too is plainly obvious to the unbiased mind.

Once conception occurs, the embryo is something other than the woman who carries it. The fact that the embryo requires the mother’s body to live is no argument against this—dependence does not exclude otherness, otherwise none of us would be distinguishable from everyone and everything else in the world upon which we depend in innumerable ways. The embryo is obviously something other than a part of the mother, but what is it?

This is where it gets easy, despite the messy, abstract philosophical arguments. The more appropriate version of the question is the following: What else could it be besides a human being? Is there a single example in natural history of sexual intercourse between two individuals of the same species resulting in something other than another individual of that species? Is it plausible to guess that sexual intercourse between two human beings might result in a fish, at least initially? Or maybe a frog? Such speculation is entirely fanciful and runs directly contrary to our experience of the world since the beginning of recorded history.

It should be obvious to anyone that the two points hold, and that the embryo is a human being possessing a natural right to life from the moment of its conception. The problem is that the younger and less developed the embryo is, the less it excites what some have called our “moral sense,” our sympathy with it as another human being like us. And as Hume correctly notes, human beings tend to be moved more by their passions and feelings, including the so-called “moral sense,” than by their intellectual understanding of the world when determining their actions. Even if our reason and common sense tell us clearly—as they undoubtedly do—that the embryo is a human being with the right to life, our moral sense or sympathy lets us off the hook.

So where does this leave pro-life advocates? How can we bridge the Humean—and human—gap between intellectual understanding and actual practice in our nation? The answer lies in the parallel between the issue of abortion and those of slavery and subsequent civil rights. The pro-life movement needs to model more closely in its organization and practices the antebellum abolition movement and the civil rights movement in order to achieve similar success in ending the evil of abortion. It needs to take up the mantle of these causes in a manner beyond rhetorical parallel or intellectual analogy and be prepared to undergo similar hardships before achieving its goals.

Both of these historical movements ultimately succeeded not by winning arguments, but by awakening the moral sense or conscience of a majority of the nation. Legislation relating to the provision of an ultrasound prior to an abortion, currently in place in some form in more than twenty states, is very well suited to this purpose. The dissemination of graphic images relating to abortion procedures, though controversial in pro-life circles, is also highly appropriate to this purpose.

The civil rights movement was driven forward significantly by television and photographic coverage of the inhuman treatment of protestors, as well as the publication of vivid written reports of racially motivated cruelties. Moral senses or sympathies are sparked most effectively by distasteful, unsettling, and shocking information; and when intellectual argument has had its day in trying to awaken consciences and has shown itself insufficient, recourse must be had to the level of moral sense and feeling.

There can be no doubt that pro-lifers are the abolitionists of this generation, urging the powerful not to take advantage of the powerless.

This reminds me about the story of Emmett Till. Have you heard of that? Here it is explained in a letter from Gregg Cunningham of CBR, a pro-life group.

Excerpt:

Many pro-lifers have heard about Emmett Till, the fourteen-year-old black boy from Chicago who, while visiting relatives in Mississippi, was tortured to death, allegedly for whistling at a white woman (or bidding her farewell with a flippant “bye baby” – accounts vary). But this tragic civil rights story offers more lessons for effective pro-life activism than is generally understood.

BlackPressUSA.com, August 27, 2001, reported in a story entitled “1955 – Emmett Till Killed in Mississippi” that Emmett’s mother “had insisted that the casket be opened when it arrived in Chicago, although it had been sealed when it left Mississippi.” There was a reason that authorities in Mississippi did not want the world to see the body of Emmett Till.

The Washington Post, August 28, 2005, published a story on the legacy of Emmett Till entitled “Dead End,” with a subhead which read “On the Trail of a Civil Rights Icon, Starting Where He Did”:

…Ahmed A. Rayner Sr., … prepared Emmett’s body for services after it was pulled from the Tallahatchie River – with a cotton-gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. Tortured and bruised, with most of his teeth missing, his remains were returned in a sealed box on a train to Chicago.

Ahmed Rayner is dead and the family-owned funeral home is run by his granddaughter [Pamela Rayner].

[…]‘I remember him saying that he had to do something because the way that he [Emmett] was brought up here, he looked so bad that it would probably scare most of the people,’ says Rayner. There was the eye that her grandfather had to put back into Till’s head and the fixing of his swollen tongue that hung out of his mouth – the stitching and patchwork to make the boy presentable in a glass-covered casket.

There was also a reason that Emmett’s mother demanded the unsealing of the crate in which the condition of her son’s body had been hidden:

‘After the body arrived I knew I had to look and see and make sure it was Emmett. That was when I decided that I wanted the whole world to see what I had seen. There was no way I could describe what was in that box. No way. And I just wanted the world to see.’ (BlackPressUSA.com, February 21, 2001, ‘A Disturbing Picture’)

Sounds a lot like abortion: no way it can be described; vital that we show the world how horrifying it looks.

I think the right approach is to give the arguments and the evidence first, and then to show the ultrasound images or the graphical images second (warning people to look away if they are squeamish, first). This is the way that moral people have always argued against injustices. If it worked to change minds then, then it will probably work to change minds now, too. For my own part, I’ve chose not to engage in sexual behavior at all until I am in a position where I can welcome a child into the world. I want to give my future children a safe environment with a committed mother and father. And if I have to give up short-term recreation in order to avoid putting myself in a situation where abortion might be a temptation, then that’s what I’m going to do. It’s called acting responsibly.

Awakening the “moral sense” of the public in the abortion debate

 

Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood
Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood

Scott Klusendorf linked to this article from the Public Discourse. The article talks about the need to augment logical arguments in other ways in order to awaken the moral sense of the public so that they will support the pro-life cause and vote to repeal pro-abortion laws.

Excerpt:

In a manner similar to the case of slavery as outlined by Douglass, there are two simple points that, once admitted, join to condemn clearly the practice of abortion: (1) the embryo is a human being from the moment of conception, and (2) all human beings have a natural right to life.

The second point, as in the case of the natural right to liberty, doesn’t require serious argument on the level of ordinary judgment, even though many pro-choice philosophers have tried to argue that only persons have a right to life, and the unborn, in their view, aren’t persons. To make such arguments, however, requires choosing an arbitrary cut-off point for personhood, as pro-life philosophers such as George, Tollefsen, and Lee have shown.

The first point is more often chosen as promising ground for challenges, but it too is plainly obvious to the unbiased mind.

Once conception occurs, the embryo is something other than the woman who carries it. The fact that the embryo requires the mother’s body to live is no argument against this—dependence does not exclude otherness, otherwise none of us would be distinguishable from everyone and everything else in the world upon which we depend in innumerable ways. The embryo is obviously something other than a part of the mother, but what is it?

This is where it gets easy, despite the messy, abstract philosophical arguments. The more appropriate version of the question is the following: What else could it be besides a human being? Is there a single example in natural history of sexual intercourse between two individuals of the same species resulting in something other than another individual of that species? Is it plausible to guess that sexual intercourse between two human beings might result in a fish, at least initially? Or maybe a frog? Such speculation is entirely fanciful and runs directly contrary to our experience of the world since the beginning of recorded history.

It should be obvious to anyone that the two points hold, and that the embryo is a human being possessing a natural right to life from the moment of its conception. The problem is that the younger and less developed the embryo is, the less it excites what some have called our “moral sense,” our sympathy with it as another human being like us. And as Hume correctly notes, human beings tend to be moved more by their passions and feelings, including the so-called “moral sense,” than by their intellectual understanding of the world when determining their actions. Even if our reason and common sense tell us clearly—as they undoubtedly do—that the embryo is a human being with the right to life, our moral sense or sympathy lets us off the hook.

So where does this leave pro-life advocates? How can we bridge the Humean—and human—gap between intellectual understanding and actual practice in our nation? The answer lies in the parallel between the issue of abortion and those of slavery and subsequent civil rights. The pro-life movement needs to model more closely in its organization and practices the antebellum abolition movement and the civil rights movement in order to achieve similar success in ending the evil of abortion. It needs to take up the mantle of these causes in a manner beyond rhetorical parallel or intellectual analogy and be prepared to undergo similar hardships before achieving its goals.

Both of these historical movements ultimately succeeded not by winning arguments, but by awakening the moral sense or conscience of a majority of the nation. Legislation relating to the provision of an ultrasound prior to an abortion, currently in place in some form in more than twenty states, is very well suited to this purpose. The dissemination of graphic images relating to abortion procedures, though controversial in pro-life circles, is also highly appropriate to this purpose.

The civil rights movement was driven forward significantly by television and photographic coverage of the inhuman treatment of protestors, as well as the publication of vivid written reports of racially motivated cruelties. Moral senses or sympathies are sparked most effectively by distasteful, unsettling, and shocking information; and when intellectual argument has had its day in trying to awaken consciences and has shown itself insufficient, recourse must be had to the level of moral sense and feeling.

There can be no doubt that pro-lifers are the abolitionists of this generation, urging the powerful not to take advantage of the powerless.

This reminds me about the story of Emmett Till. Have you heard of that? Here it is explained in a letter from Gregg Cunningham of CBR, a pro-life group.

Excerpt:

Many pro-lifers have heard about Emmett Till, the fourteen-year-old black boy from Chicago who, while visiting relatives in Mississippi, was tortured to death, allegedly for whistling at a white woman (or bidding her farewell with a flippant “bye baby” – accounts vary). But this tragic civil rights story offers more lessons for effective pro-life activism than is generally understood.

BlackPressUSA.com, August 27, 2001, reported in a story entitled “1955 – Emmett Till Killed in Mississippi” that Emmett’s mother “had insisted that the casket be opened when it arrived in Chicago, although it had been sealed when it left Mississippi.” There was a reason that authorities in Mississippi did not want the world to see the body of Emmett Till.

The Washington Post, August 28, 2005, published a story on the legacy of Emmett Till entitled “Dead End,” with a subhead which read “On the Trail of a Civil Rights Icon, Starting Where He Did”:

…Ahmed A. Rayner Sr., … prepared Emmett’s body for services after it was pulled from the Tallahatchie River – with a cotton-gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire. Tortured and bruised, with most of his teeth missing, his remains were returned in a sealed box on a train to Chicago.

Ahmed Rayner is dead and the family-owned funeral home is run by his granddaughter [Pamela Rayner].

[…]‘I remember him saying that he had to do something because the way that he [Emmett] was brought up here, he looked so bad that it would probably scare most of the people,’ says Rayner. There was the eye that her grandfather had to put back into Till’s head and the fixing of his swollen tongue that hung out of his mouth – the stitching and patchwork to make the boy presentable in a glass-covered casket.

There was also a reason that Emmett’s mother demanded the unsealing of the crate in which the condition of her son’s body had been hidden:

‘After the body arrived I knew I had to look and see and make sure it was Emmett. That was when I decided that I wanted the whole world to see what I had seen. There was no way I could describe what was in that box. No way. And I just wanted the world to see.’ (BlackPressUSA.com, February 21, 2001, ‘A Disturbing Picture’)

Sounds a lot like abortion: no way it can be described; vital that we show the world how horrifying it looks.

I think the right approach is to give the arguments and the evidence first, and then to show the ultrasound images or the graphical images second (warning people to look away if they are squeamish, first). This is the way that moral people have always argued against injustices. If it worked to change minds then, then it will probably work to change minds now, too. For my own part, I’ve chose not to engage in sexual behavior at all until I am in a position where I can welcome a child into the world. I want to give my future children a safe environment with a committed mother and father. And if I have to give up short-term recreation in order to avoid putting myself in a situation where abortion might be a temptation, then that’s what I’m going to do. It’s called acting responsibly.

All he does is win: Governor Scott Walker’s long record of pro-life victories

Scott Walker - pro-life deeds, not pro-life words
Scott Walker – pro-life deeds, not pro-life words (Image provided by ECM)

Life News has an overview of Scott Walker’s record fighting against abortion.

Here’s the latest accomplishment:

Earlier this year, Walker burnished his pro-life credentials by issuing a letter saying he would sign a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

“As the Wisconsin legislature moves forward in the coming session, further protections for mother and child are likely to come to my desk in the form of a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. I will sign that bill when it gets to my desk and support similar legislation on the federal level. I was raised to believe in the sanctity of life and I will always fight to protect it.”

Since then, the Wisconsin legislature has approved the pro-life measure and Governor Walker is expected to sign the 20-week abortion ban into law soon.

The position is not a new one as Walker co-sponsored legislation in 1998 while he was a member of the Wisconsin state legislature to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

And here’s the rest of the list:

Abortion Funding: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted against taxpayer funding of abortions for public employees. As Governor, Walker signed into law a state budget provision to prohibit the UW Hospital Authority from being involved in performing abortions and from using taxpayer dollars to pay medical students to learn to perform abortions. Also as Governor, Walker signed legislation allowing Wisconsin to opt-out of taxpayer-funded abortion coverage under ObamaCare.

Funding Abortion Providers: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted to prohibit taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that provide or promote abortions. As Governor, Walker signed into law a state budget provision to prohibit Title V taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that perform abortions. Also as Governor, Walker steered funds from the Wisconsin Well Woman program to local counties instead of Planned Parenthood.

Protecting Unborn Children: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted to recognize an unborn child as a separate victim of a criminal act against the pregnant mother, to prohibit partial-birth abortions, and to protect unborn children at risk due to drug or alcohol use by the mother.

Protecting Families: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted to strengthen Wisconsin’s law requiring parental consent before a minor’s abortion. As Governor, Walker signed legislation returning sex education curriculum to local control and allowing abstinence-only programs.

Protecting Women: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted for the Woman’s Right to Know Act which requires that women be given full information prior to an abortion and establishes a 24-hour waiting period. As Governor, Walker signed legislation to protect women from coerced abortions; to prohibit unsafe RU 486 chemical web cam abortions designed to expand abortions into local communities; to require that a woman view an ultrasound of her unborn child 24 hours before an abortion can take place; and to require abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.

Alternatives to Abortion: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted for tax exemptions related to adoption expenses; to improve adoption laws; to expand funding for adoption assistance for children at risk of developing disabilities; and for a provision to allow a woman and her unborn child to be considered as a family eligible for BadgerCare.

Conscience Protections: As an Assembly Representative, Walker authored legislation to strengthen conscience protections for medical professionals and institutions.

Other: As an Assembly Representative, Walker voted in favor of legislation to prohibit lawsuits based on the “wrongful” life of an unborn child and to prohibit the sale of body parts of aborted babies.

The radically leftist National Journal, which despises Scott Walker, explains how he wins:

The son of a conservative small-town minister who showed his son how to be “pastoral,” Walker has mastered the art of governing in a manner that mobilizes the party faithful while campaigning in a way that doesn’t scare off moderates, independents, and even some Democrats. This misdirection has been the source of much of Walker’s political success.

“Even as he cut that abortion ad, there isn’t a single pro-life voter in the state who suddenly thinks he’s pro-choice,” said Matt Batzel, executive director of American Majority, a conservative activist group. “They know he shares their views.”

Batzel, who is based in Wisconsin and has had a front-row seat for Walker’s biggest political battles, added: “He has legislated very conservatively. But when you look at his tone and how he wins elections, it’s different. And that’s a needle he’s successfully been able to thread in Wisconsin.”

This is the story of Walker’s political rise. In a National Journal magazine profile last year, the governor’s friends and foes alike remarked on his unique ability—demonstrated over the past two decades—to wrap a fierce ideological agenda in a neighborly, nonthreatening persona.

“He has an altar boy’s appearance,” said Bob Jauch, a longtime Democratic state senator who worked closely with Walker in the legislature. “But Darth Vader writes his policies.”

Now, I understand that some pro-lifers would prefer that Walker sound more direct about his pro-life views during election campaigns. They think that there are enough pro-lifers who will go for tough rhetoric of the Ted Cruz sort. But that’s false of course. Candidates who sound shrill on social issues in a purple state like Wisconsin simply don’t win elections. Pro-lifers are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to politics, and there is a lot of pious chest-pounding from the sidelines. But Walker knows better. He knows that to win elections, you have to speak about the issues that everyone cares about, like balancing the budget and creating jobs and lowering property taxes, and that’s how he gets elected. Then, when he is elected, he actually does pro-life things. Why would you talk to the hostile left-wing media about abortion? They will just use anything you say against you! A much better idea is to promise fiscal achievements, achieve them, win re-election on the strength of your fiscal achievements, and then be the guy who can quietly push for incremental pro-life legislation. Walker has done more for the pro-life cause than a whole host of shrill pro-life activists who have strong rhetoric, but do not have the chance to make the impact that a governor does.

Related posts

Scott Walker: if sent a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks, “I will sign that bill”

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this decision
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this decision

Life News reports on some good news:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a likely pro-life candidate for the Republican nomination for president and he burnished those pro-life credentials today by issuing a letter saying he would sign a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

“As the Wisconsin legislature moves forward in the coming session, further protections for mother and child are likely to come to my desk in the form of a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. I will sign that bill when it gets to my desk and support similar legislation on the federal level. I was raised to believe in the sanctity of life and I will always fight to protect it.”

The letter adds:

Life is a value I learned from my parents, and it’s a value I have cherished every day, predating my time in politics. My policies throughout my career have earned a 100% rating with pro-life groups in Wisconsin. Just in my first term I signed numerous pieces of pro-life legislation and I will continue working for every life.

In my past four years as governor, we have made substantial progress in the fight for our pro-life values in Wisconsin. We defunded Planned Parenthood. We prohibited abortion from being covered by health plans in a health exchange. We passed legislation assuring the women and their unborn child are better protected under law – through placing stringent requirements on medical professionals and requiring the provision of thorough and vital information to the mother.

I was raised to believe in the sanctity of life and I will always fight to protect it.

Pro-life groups were delighted by Walker’s letter.

“Wisconsin Right to Life is very happy to hear that Governor Walker intends to sign a bill that would protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain,” stated Heather Weininger, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “In light of this excellent news, we urge the Wisconsin State Legislature to pass a bill to protect pain-capable unborn children as soon as possible.”

In 2013, Gov. Walker signed an ultrasound bill (Senate Bill 206, also known as Sonya’s Law) that ensures that women seeking abortions are given the opportunity to see their unborn children through ultrasound. The legislation also requires abortionists to have admitting privileges within thirty miles of their facility. This is the kind of pro-woman, pro-life bill that not only has proven to save the lives of unborn babies, but it has closed down abortion clinics that can’t comply with basic health and safety requirements. Sure enough, abortion centers in Wisconsin closed down after Walker signed the bill into law.

[…]Since Governor Walker took office in January 2011, the pro-life movement in Wisconsin has made monumental gains. Walker signed into law a state budget that included a provision to prohibit the UW Hospital Authority from being involved in performing abortions and from using taxpayer dollars to pay medical students to learn how to perform abortions. Walker steered Wisconsin Well Woman funds to local counties instead of Planned Parenthood.

Governor Walker also signed bills that allow Wisconsin to opt out of abortion funding under Obamacare, to protect pregnant women from coerced abortions and to prohibit RU486 chemical web cam abortions.

Life News reminded us in 2014 that what Scott Walker did got results for unborn babies:

Last year, abortions in Wisconsin dropped 4.4 percent and they declined 7.4 percent the year before. Now, Wisconsin Right to Life informs LifeNews abortions in the Badger State are down another 16 percent.

“Last week, Wisconsin abortion providers stated under oath that abortions have decreased from 6,927 in 2012 to roughly 5,800 in 2013,”  stated Barbara L. Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.  “This is another sharp decline of approximately 16%, continuing Wisconsin’s record as having some of the lowest abortion numbers in the country.”

[…]The abortion drop comes after pro-life Governor Scott Walker signed multiple pro-life bills into law.

I like to see results. A lot of people talk pro-life, and even vote pro-life – but very few sign pro-life bills into law and take the heat for doing so. I like what I’ve seen so far from Scott Walker. But I am very demanding, and very hard to please. I want to know what Scott Walker has done for unborn babies lately!

Yes, I realize that Wisconsin is a blue state, and that Wisconsin has voted for the Democrat candidate in every presidential election since 1988! So getting this pro-life bill signed there would be a tall order. But this is what people expect from Scott Walker. He is in first place in the GOP primary polls because Republican voters know that he regularly does the impossible. He takes on tough problems and he finds conservative solutions to them.

I am sick and tired of seeing Democrats get elected and then aggressively enacting their agenda. When we elect Republicans, I expect them to enact Republican priorities. Look at what is happening in the House with the executive amnesty capitulation. Before that we had the failure to vote on the  Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. And before that the Cromnibus debacle. I’m sick of it. Scott Walker has a history of taking on big challenges and winning. He can do it! And it would give pro-lifers even more reasons to vote for him than they already have.

Related posts

Wisconsin abortions decline again by 4.4% after Governor Walker’s pro-life laws

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Life News reports.

Excerpt:

Abortion are on the decline in Wisconsin and they are poised to drop further thanks to new pro-life laws signed by Governor Scott Walker. Abortions dropped 7.4 percent in Wisconsin in the prior report.

Last year, Walker added to his pro-life list of accomplishments today by signing bills the pro-life movement supported, including measures to stop abortion funding in Obamacare and webcam abortions.

Wisconsin Right to Life officials told LifeNews Wisconsin abortions have decreased 68% from their all-time high in 1980 and 60% since Wisconsin began requiring abortion reporting in 1987.

[…]According to an AP report, abortions declined 4.4 percent from 2011-2012:

The Department of Health Services reported Monday that there were 6,927 abortions in 2012. That is down from 7,249 in 2011 for a drop of 4.4 percent.

It marks the third year in a row that abortions have gone down. Prior to an increase between 2008 and 2009, abortions had dropped for five straight years.

The rate of women aged 15-44 who had an abortion in 2012 was 6.1 per 1,000, down from 6.3 per 1,000 the year before. That is well below the national rate of 15.1 per 1,000 as of the most recent data available from 2009.

State law requires any facility that provides abortions to report statistics to the state.

In July, Walker signed Senate Bill 206 (Sonya’s Law) into law.  This important new law requires that women seeking abortions in Wisconsin be given the opportunity to see their unborn children through ultrasound.

Just hours before Walker signed the law, the Planned Parenthood abortion business announced it would file a lawsuit seeking to stop women from seeing these ultrasounds.

[…]After Walker signed the bill, the Planned Parenthood abortion business shut down one clinic in Appleton and another facility end abortions at another center in Green Bay.

But he’s not just a social conservative, but a fiscal conservative, too.

Excerpt:

Wisconsin is living proof that elections have consequences. The last 10 years of public policy in the state proves this, providing a sharp contrast between Republicans and Democrats and highlighting the positive results of Republican leadership.

The previous Governor left Wisconsin with a $3.6 billion budget deficit and a bleak economic outlook. In fact, during Governor Jim Doyle’s last term, Wisconsin lost over 133,000 jobs, and only 10% of employers thought our state was headed in the right direction.

At the polls in 2010, Wisconsinites elected Scott Walker and Republican majorities in the Assembly and Senate. Since taking office, Republicans have turned things around. Unlike the Democrats, who in 2009 were debating over $3 billion in tax hikes, State Republicans have been cutting taxes and eliminating regulations to foster a pro-growth environment in Wisconsin. In fact, the current budget provides nearly $1 billion in tax relief for hard-working middle class families.

In a stunning reversal of Doyle-era job loss, Wisconsin created over 14,000 jobs in June alone. The budget is balanced, and 94% of employers say our state is headed in the right direction. Furthermore, a leading economic indicator from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia just ranked Wisconsin second in the nation in jobs outlook for the next six months.

What if he were to run in 2016? Well, Scott Walker is a favorite of social conservatives, but remember that this is the same Scott Walker who took on the labor unions to limit collective bargaining and he won. His law, which has produced an economic boom in Wisconsin, is still standing. He’s showing leadership on social AND fiscal issues. It’s not just talk, it’s action. I think he should be considered in 2016, along with governors Bobby Jindal (LA), Rick Perry (TX), John Kasich (OH), and Mike Pence (IN).

Related posts