Cain clarifies again: Abortion shouldn’t be legal, but some families might decide to break the law

HotAir ^ | Saturday October 21, 2011

[Bigtigermike]

Full Title: Cain clarifies again: Abortion shouldn’t be legal, but some families might decide to break the law anyway.

A better answer than yesterday’s spin attempt but Mediaite is right that it still doesn’t jibe with what he said to Piers Morgan. Then:

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision…

The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.

Now:

Look, abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if that family makes the decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Big difference between (a) the government shouldn’t tell you what to do about “sensitive” social decisions and (b) the government should tell you what to do by criminalizing one of your options. In fact, per Heinze at the The Hill and Philip Klein at the Examiner, even in today’s answer there’s an element of choice insofar as Cain suggests that a pregnant woman might end up breaking the law to get an illegal abortion. That’s, er, true — some of them would end up doing that — but it’s an odd note for a man in his position to sound. Rarely do would-be presidents acknowledge lawbreaking as an option

[TigersEye]

On his radio show he targeted 4 democrats specifically - Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Reid.

It's too bad there weren't some sitting GOP Congress critters who saw that then. There still don't seem to be many.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

"His incoherence on abortion bespeaks the same sort of befuddlement."

That tells me all I need to know about you.

-----

Huh? How so?

Hank

[Prokopton]

I thought I read at one point that the O Care bill is structured in a way that if one portion is struck down, the whole thing is invalid? That may have been changed. I’ll try to source this and post.

Some people, mostly non-lawyers, stated that because the bill did not have a severability clause that separate parts of the bill could not be "severed" and if one part of the bill was found unconstitutional that the entire bill would fail. This is not correct. Laws do not have to have a severability clause for the court to sever an unconstitutional clause from the rest of the law. Justices tend to uphold as much of a law as they can which means they will not be adverse to severing an unconstitutional section from the rest of the law. However, there are cases where the unconstitutional section is so essential to the rest of the law that the law cannot stand without that section and severence would not be practical.

As we do not know which sections, if any, of the law SCOTUS will find unconstitutional, it is impossible to say at this point whether severence would be practical and/or determined by the Court.

[FreeReign]

You want proof - search yourself.

Presently no proof.

[TigersEye]

I think Cain has grandchildren. Maybe one can draw a picture for you in crayon.

[Fred]

Perry was a huge supporter of Hillarycare which paid for abortions. Typical Rino.

[plain talk]

Understand. As it is now each time he answers these abortion questions it raises more questions. He will grow and learn how to deal with these questions ... or fade away.

[Prokopton]

Well, bye. Take your leftist smears with you.

It's been a busy night for you, Mr. Robinson. ; )

[SoConPubbie]

It was posted on here last week - not a thread - a post. Don’t remember seeing RP’s name attached to it.

So there's no proof anywhere (I did a Google Search) and yet we are supposed to take some posting on a Ron Paul forum and your sketchy memory as proof of this failing on Herman Cain's part?

What happened to you PNSN?

You used to seem to be an objective poster.

What changed?

[Ken H]

Correct. It does not have a severability clause in it. However, unless there is a case precedent that says otherwise, I think SCOTUS will ignore that fact and rule as they please.

[berdie]

Thank you, Prokopton.

I thought I had read something of that nature.

It seems to me that the mandate for and individual to purchase health insurance is the most contoversial and unconstitutional part of O Care. It is probably the most essential to making the whole mess workable.

Unless as Ken H suggests, we are taxed out the wa-zoo to support this monstrosity. Then we might as well move to England.

Myself, I am hoping that SCOTUS will rule in our favor and throw O Care out of the window. (I can hope, can’t I?) There are portions even the administration are admitting can’t be sustained.

[GLDNGUN]

fortheluvofgawd, people who twist words ought to be strung up

Yes, Cain has done some word twisting...but don't you think that's a little extreme? ;-)

[GLDNGUN]

People around here who are emotionally tied to other candidates in the campaign need to keep in mind the 9th Commandment is not a suggestion. Bearing false witness is still a sin

Who is bearing false witness? The people who claim that Cain was talking about adoption, not abortion? Or have you finally come to your senses on that?

[GLDNGUN]

then it is clear that he is answering the question of whether the mother is obliged to keep the baby

Wrong, wrong, wrong. He has tried to clarify his position several times now since making his statement and not once did he say it had anything to do with adoption. See? Even his defenders don't know what he's talking about.

That's a problem.

[Prokopton]

then it is clear that he is answering the question of whether the mother is obliged to keep the baby

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Please post the transcript of the question you believe Cain was responding to.

[GLDNGUN]

Stop it. He is saying that

No, YOU stop it. If you have to start a sentence with "he is saying that..." then it means you are trying to clarify an unclear, confusing, and/or contradictory statement. It means that if a person just reads the words as spoken it will give them a different impression than the one YOU want him/her to have. The fact that Herman Cain needs YOU to explain to the rest of us what "he is saying" is evidence enough that he has dug a very serious hole. And every time he "clarifies" things, he just digs a little deeper.

[GLDNGUN]

he was answering a question on whether he would want his daughter or granddaughter to raise a child if it was the result of rape

Nice try, but WRONG! Even Cain disagrees with you. In his "clarification" he has said NOTHING about it being an answer about adoption. NOTHING. Even ardent supports such as yourself don't know what he's talking about or understand him.

That's a problem.

[Prokopton]

The fact that Herman Cain needs YOU to explain to the rest of us what "he is saying"

In this case, the "rest of us" is a relatively small number of conservatives and a rather larger number of RINO/Progressives, all with their own agenda. Some true conservatives at first questioned what was said because of the selective editing and distortions by the media and some Perry supporters, but after reading the transcripts for themselves, saw that Cains statements were all clearly pro-life and at least one apology for believing the distorters was posted. On the other hand, zotting and leaving in a huff has been prevalent on this thread by the distorters.