Sorry, not killing your child is not a pro-life credential. The idea that it is is offensive, frankly. Do you think Obama is pro-life? After all, he has two living children, right?
Sarah Palin takes the Gerald R. Ford position on abortion, not the Ronald Reagan position.
Reagan believed the child to be a person and therefore protected by the clear provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. That view was enshrined in the GOP platform 27 years ago.
Ford, and Palin, and Paul, and McCain, and Romney Republicans say that it’s up to the states whether or not to allow abortion.
In other words, they’re pro-choice for states.
That is not a truly pro-life position. Their position is the destruction of the cornerstone principle of our free republic: that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the right to life...and that the reason for the existence of government, all government, is to secure that right.
I’m surprised that pro-life people haven’t been able to make a dent in the wide open “right” that abortion has become. Even back in the day when abortions were illegal, some women still got them anyway, though I doubt there was quite the number of coat hanger butcher shops in that day as the left claims.
On the contrary, Sarah Palin knew that Trigg had a retardation issue, but still chose to honor him as a God given life rather than to abort him as “defective”. I call that putting your money where your mouth is, and quite an example. One that DUer’s ridicule.
Don’t worry. I doubt that Sarah Palin will run. - Who do you suggest as a good candidate; understanding that he won’t be able to reverse abortion either? If it could have been, Reagan would have done it. I wish it could be; and perhaps conservative appointments to the Supreme Court could roll things back a bit.