Party positions have changed dramatically over the past fifty years

James Bennett, a column writer in Lexington, is considered deep shifts in American policy

In 1970, when New York approved the country’s most abortion law, the Republicans were controlling it by Republicans, and the ruler was also Republican. This law was that Shirley Chicholm, a democratic and first black woman nominated for the presidential nomination of a major party, was defending the assembly in 1972 that I mentioned in the Lexington column this week.

I found myself thinking about the history of this abortion legislation when I read through our package describing the political agendas of democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency this year. Combined, as our leader says, the articles reveal at least rapprochement such as differentiation between candidates – clarification in industrial policy, trade, entitlements, immigration, cracking, and foreign policy that represent major changes in basic partisan positions that are no longer long.

We should not be surprised. The parties are always in the process, sometimes radically. Today, we may think of the Democrats as united in favor of abortion rights, and the Republicans. But after more than five hours of tormented debate in the Senate in New York State on March 18, 1970, the majority that approved the abortion law was from 13 Republicans and 18 democratic. The draft law moved to the association, where the vote was contradicted, from 74 to 74. But before the writer was able to drop the clown, George Michaels, a democratic from central New York, asked to be recognized.

I voted no. But with a shivering voice, with tears in his eyes, he said that one of his sons described him as a prostitute. The other son had appealed to him not to vote on the draft law. “Mr. Michaels said:“ The speaker is completely able to end my political career. ”But what is the benefit of the election or his re -election if you did not stand for something?” He replaced his vote, then he fell to his seat and lowered his face in his hands. Constance rose up. Cook, a member of the Republican Assembly that participated in the sponsorship of the legislation-one of only four women out of 207 legislators in the two rooms-.

Michaels will already lose his seat in front of the abortion discount, as well as others who voted in favor of the bill. He will not hold an optional position again.

Two days later, the ruler, Nelson Rockefeller, signed the bill in the law. “The wives of the Senate and the Association put this law,” he said. The new law allowed miscarriage within 24 weeks of pregnancy, or whenever the mother’s life is in danger. In 1972, the Legislative Commission voted for the abolition of the law, but Rockefeller objected to this legislation. Then in 1973 the Supreme Court issued ROE V WadePartly like New York standards.

Yes, Rockefeller was a different kind of Republican, which would be caught and rejected by today’s party. This is the point. The madness in this campaigns season, the intensity of the breaking policy style in Donald Trump, may distract her from deeper transformations. This change in politics is great, clear, but, more interesting, that this political overlap is a lot of illogical. Even in abortion, Mr. Trump is scrambling to put the difference (apparently by his wife, Melania).

It seems that the parties are heading over time to sort themselves into new alliances with sharply specific business schedules. Assuming that the Republic is still in place – and I choose to assume it will work – it seems certain that it is a more important political story in the coming years. I hope at least some politicians who determine the upcoming transformations will be brave about doing the right thing, in the end, as Michaels was.