Posted on 08/07/2007 3:17:17 AM PDT by monomaniac
Des Moines, IA (LifeNews.com) -- The Republican presidential candidates met for another debate on Sunday in Iowa and found abortion to be among the top dividing issues. The discussion was less about the policy differences between the candidates and more about the latest salvo from the Brownback campaign against his opponents.
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been positioning himself as the most pro-life candidate in the race in an attempt to gain much-needed primary support.
In doing so, his campaign has launched radio ads questioning former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's change of heart on abortion just a few years ago.
Brownback called the ads that question Romney's sincerity "truthful" and added, "I am pro-life. I think this is a core issue for our party."
But Romney, who called the ads "desperate, maybe negative," said, "I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have."
"I am pro-life. And virtually every part of that ad is inaccurate," Romney added.
When asked what part of the ad is untrue, Romney replied, "The idea that, for instance, I've been in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion; that's wrong. I oppose taxpayer funding of abortion."
However, a March 2005 Boston Globe article quotes a Planned Parenthood representative saying the former governor "professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women" on a political questionnaire in 2002.
The Brownback commercials say "Mitt Romney is telling Iowans that he is firmly pro-life. Nothing could be further from the truth."
They add that Romney defended abortion as late as 2005, though he has firmyl said he is pro-life since then and said he had a chang eof heart when confronted with the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
The ads also attack Romney's wife Ann, saying she has donated money to Planned Parenthood in the past.
Also during the debate, Brownback vowed to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would be likely to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions.
"I hope, would be the voting decision to overturn Roe v. Wade," he said.
Meanwhile, pro-abortion former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was asked to defend his position, which runs counter to the pro-life views of the other Republican presidential candidates.
"But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn't make," Giuliani said, restating his pro-abortion views. "Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor."
Giuliani could easily be the one republican with a shot at winning and this is why. I would ADVISE people to avoid abortions in 90% of the cases I hear about, but that other ten percent includes cases compelling enough that the idea of outlawing abortions strikes me as basically a bad idea.
Brownback is grasping at straws. He should just give it up. Who in hell is going to vote for him? He has no chance. All he’s doing here is hurting the party and its chances to be victorious in ‘08. And he’s not even helping the pro-life cause by picking this scab. He should just STFU.
I agree with that.
Like Christians that argue standards as doctrine ... some things aren't worth the bother.
Let's get a good man in office and continue to un-elect socialists and save our nation first ... abortion will be dealt with later. What more can a man tell us? He's for or against it, and that is all for now.
LLS
I think you win the award for the most poorly-reasoned post of the morning. First, to say that he's the only Republican with a shot at winning because he's pro-abortion is just silly: President Bush is the most pro-life president we've had, and he won two elections that way.
Second, why would you "ADVISE" people to avoid abortions in 90% of the cases you hear about? What's wrong with it? Either it's killing an innocent child or it's not. If it's not, there's no reason to ban it. If it is, though, that child deserves the full protection of the law just as if it had already been born. To "advise" people to avoid it, or to act like there's something wrong with it but not something in which the state has an interest, is to sidestep the core question and try to have things both ways. But you can't have it both ways: either it's a person or it's not.
OK. I'll bite. Please describe the kind of cases you feel should keep abortion from being outlawed and explain why those particular cases could not be excluded in a law that bans abortion in general.
As I see it, this is one of those cases in which the law has to be written for the five or ten percent and not the 90 percent.
I will vote pro-life as long as there is a pro-life choice. That said, there is only one issue that matters this election and that is the defeat of Islamist Fanatics.
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.