I've been working in the pro-life movement since 1973, and demanding purity on the issue hasn't done one blessed thing to save ONE baby since 1973. I'm tired of 'pie in the sky', and I want something actually DONE to help save the lives of unborn children. If we have to go about it incrementally, that's fine with me, because we'll at least be saving SOME babies while we're changing hearts and minds on the issue with the ultimate goal of folks accepting the unborn as a citizen with rights.
Do you honestly think that any state HLA will get any further than any other state laws that have been trying to restrict abortions since 1973?
***Yes.
It sounds great, but it ain’t gonna happen.
***Thanks for the crystal ball.
I’ve been working in the pro-life movement since 1973, and demanding purity on the issue hasn’t done one blessed thing to save ONE baby since 1973.
***I’m not a purist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927653/posts?page=23#23
And your argument is hollow.
I’m tired of ‘pie in the sky’, and I want something actually DONE to help save the lives of unborn children.
***Then support the candidate who has a plan that DOESN’T DEPEND UPON overturning Roe V Wade — Hunter.
If we have to go about it incrementally, that’s fine with me, because we’ll at least be saving SOME babies while we’re changing hearts and minds on the issue with the ultimate goal of folks accepting the unborn as a citizen with rights.
***I don’t mind an incremental approach, but a federalist approach is a copout.
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts