Skip to comments.
Pro-Life Leader Endorses Ron Paul
Ron Paul 2008 ^
| May 10, 2007
Posted on 05/11/2007 8:49:53 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
Barbara Hagan to Chair Ron Paul's New Hampshire Pro-Life Coalition
Top right-to-life advocate will head up statewide efforts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA Long time right-to-life activist and former two-term New Hampshire state representative Barbara J. Hagan has endorsed Ron Paul for president of the United States. Mrs. Hagan will head up the Paul campaign's outreach to the New Hampshire pro-life community.
"The Ron Paul campaign is honored to have Barbara Hagan's support" said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Barbara is one of the most respected activists in New Hampshire and a giant in the pro-life community. There is no one better to lead our outreach to the right-to-life voters of the Granite State."
Barbara Hagan, the wife of Robert M. Hagan and mother of seven children, has been involved in politics since the age of 16. She has served as president and chairman of the New Hampshire Right to Life Committee and is a former vice chairman and long time member of New Hampshire Eagle Forum. In addition to vast political campaign experience, Barbara Hagan was one of four New Hampshire Pro Life and Pro Family Delegates to attend the White House Conference on Families and has devoted much of her public life to the right to life issue.
Mrs. Hagan says pro-lifers from all political persuasions can and should support Congressman Ron Paul for president because of his impeccable voting record, understanding of our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all.
-30-
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: 2008; abortion; elections; paul; paulbearers; prolife; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-118 last
To: No Blue States
Your premise is false. He did not blame us.
To: cva66snipe
To: Dead Corpse; elizabetty
If you want the FedGov to regulate abortion, pass an Amendment. We already did. It's the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court must rule that abortion deprives unborn persons of life without due process.
Abortion is always wrong. Leaving it up to the states would be like leaving slavery up to the states.
To: Tailgunner Joe
The problem with that is, mission creep. It's how a war on booze became a war on drugs, fat, guns, and smoking.
Passing an Amendment lays it out once and for all. As the father of two beautiful kids, I'd support such an Amendment. Doing it the way we are currently doing it is unConstitutional and actively dangerous to the protections for our other liberties.
Don't kill the patient curing the disease.
104
posted on
05/21/2007 6:28:57 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
You make a slippery slope logical fallacy argument. We are already well down that slope anyway.
Amendments are politically impossible. We don't need to convince a supermajority. We only need to convince one more Supreme Court Justice.
To: Tailgunner Joe
First you say I made a logical fallacy, then you tell me we're well down the very much factually based slope... so we may as well enjoy the ride.
Come on. You can do better than that.
Also, your "I don't care how badly it violates the Constitution as long as my pet legislation/judicial decision gets through" is part of the reason this country is so screwed up right now. Not a good thing.
106
posted on
05/21/2007 6:41:03 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
My argument does not violate the Constitution at all. It is based entirely on the 14th amendment. Should slavery be left up to the states too?
To: Tailgunner Joe
Slavery was abolished by Amendment. If you ask some of the hoplophobic gun haters here, the Amendments only apply to the FedGov despite Art 6 Para 2. They are wrong. The 13th prevents States from enacting "indentured servitude" or slavery laws just as surely as the 2nd protects individual RKBA.
Look, I'm all for an Amendment abolishing abortion. It is the LEGAL, Constitutional, and honest way to get it done. Anything less throws the baby out with the bathwater. In this case, possibly literally...
108
posted on
05/21/2007 7:18:26 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
Slavery had to be abolished by amendment because it was previously protected by the Constitution. Abortion has never been protected by the Constitution, therefore a Constitutional amendment is not required to abolish it.
To: Tailgunner Joe
The Constitution doesn't list "prevent abortion" as a list of duties assigned to the government.
Pass an Amendment. It isn't that hard to understand.
110
posted on
05/21/2007 7:35:32 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
we already did. The 14th amendment authorizes the federal government to prevent states from depriving any person of life or liberty without due process. Should the unborn have less rights than black people? Should the unborn have less rights than illegal aliens? No. Do states have the power to deprive the unborn of their right to life? No. Not any more than they have the power to deprive you of your guns.
To: The_Eaglet
She’s not much of a leader....
112
posted on
05/21/2007 7:40:12 AM PDT
by
Badeye
(You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
To: Tailgunner Joe
The 14th amendment authorizes the federal government to prevent states from depriving any person of life or liberty without due process. That is finding an emanation in a penumbra. State it plain. Get an Amendment.
113
posted on
05/21/2007 7:58:24 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse
No State shall ...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... - United States Constitution
Life is life. That's not any emanation.
To: Tailgunner Joe
So if a Mother aborts due to Natural causes, it's what? Manslaughter? It is to those legal limits you would drive this country. It's patently absurd.
Pass an Amendment.
Keep talking if you want, but I'm done replying to those with their fingers jammed firmly in their ears...
115
posted on
05/21/2007 9:02:38 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: Dead Corpse; Tailgunner Joe
"-- there are nonetheless some things majorities must not do to minorities, some areas of life in which the individual must be free of majority rule. --"
I see these areas as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
-- Many here do not. Feel free to tell me why not.
Tailgunner joe:
The 14th amendment prohibits states from depriving persons of life without due process. This should extend to unborn persons as well.
It does. Unborn people are protected by state laws against murder. Murder should be prosecuted.
Allowing states to have legal abortion is just as immoral as allowing states to have legal slavery, exactly what the 14th amendment was meant to prohibit.
The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th reiterated that States are bound by the Constitution to protect our rights to life, liberty or property.
Should the unborn have less rights than black people? Should the unborn have less rights than illegal aliens?
Born or unborn, all people have the same inalienable rights. Illegal aliens are denied the privileges and immunities of US citizens.
116
posted on
05/21/2007 9:17:36 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
To: y'all
The Madisonian Dilemma
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836773/posts
>> there are nonetheless some things majorities must not do to minorities, some areas of life in which the individual must be free of majority rule. <<
I see these areas as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
— Many here do not. Feel free to tell me why not.
117
posted on
05/21/2007 9:20:40 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
To: y'all
>> Why not prohibit a dangerous evil?
If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all?
There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments.
Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition.
We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.
__________________________________
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820965/posts
This is the logical core of the article above.
- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.
Governments are limited to legally reasonable regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.
118
posted on
05/21/2007 9:33:42 AM PDT
by
tpaine
(" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-118 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson