Skip to comments.Susan B. Anthony List to endorse Santorum
Posted on 02/17/2012 11:47:02 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Susan B. Anthony List to endorse Santorum
Published February 17, 2012
BOISE, Idaho The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List plans to endorse Rick Santorum for president.
The group is announcing Friday it will back the former Pennsylvania senator over Mitt Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. It's the first time the group has endorsed in a presidential primary.
Jane Abraham, an anti-abortion activist in Michigan and chairman of the group's board, says none of the other candidates has the "record of consistent leadership" Santorum has shown on abortion.
Romney has struggled to win over social conservatives nervous about his previous support for abortion rights. Last year, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.”
...too broad? Funny. You’d think he woulda signed it, then unsigned it when necessary.
Don’t they finance women only?
***Dont they finance women only?***
Another voice heard from that reaffirms that I am supporting the right guy.
I’m surprised the feminazi crowd hasn’t disowned the late Susan B. Anthony yet over her prolife views on abortions.
The “fetal pain” legislation promoted by the Susan B. Anthony List and signed on to by Rick Santorum is grossly immoral and blatantly unconstitutional.
Therefore I cannot in good conscience support either of them.
Please explain how the fetal pain legislation promoted is grossly immoral and blatantly unconstitutional. Honestly, I have not heard this argument and I'd sincerely like to hear your view on this.
I see Faux news is on board with the “anti-abortion” vs Pro Life lexicon...
Dr. Brian Kopp - The problem with fetal pain legislation or most abortion regulations, for that matter, is that they end with, “...and then you can kill the baby.” Whether it is legislation that states you cannot abort a baby after 20 weeks, then it becomes, if you decide to abort your baby prior to 20 weeks, “then you can kill your baby.” If due to fetal pain, it would require anesthesia to be given to the baby first, “then you can kill the baby.”
I’d say it’s grossly immoral because it gives a solution to how to get around the abortion regulation. I’d say it’s grossly immoral, because it sets a line that says, prior to 20 weeks, it is ok, because the baby (allegedly) doesn’t feel any pain. It diminishes the value of all life prior to the point in time that an abortion might be illegal; and in the case of the 20 week benchmark, would include the VAST majority of babies killed by abortion.
I know a lot of people advocate the incremental approach to fighting abortion. Well, honestly, how well can we say this has really worked? With well over 50 million abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973, I don’t see how anyone can honestly believe that incrementalism is working to end abortion in our country.
To the extent that we are willing to tolerate the killing of some, is the extent that we are pro-abortion. So, for example, there are a lot of people who call themselves pro-life, but would allow exceptions for rape and incest. This is not pro-life. It is FOR abortion in limited circumstances.
Then there is the huge blindspot for many who identify as pro-lifers, and that is to the abortifacient properties of hormone-based contraceptives. I’ve read where the number of chemical abortions from “the pill” dwarfs in number those killed by surgical abortion. Yet, they either are ignorant that contraceptives can end the life of a conceived baby at the very earliest point in life, or they will deny the truth of the matter, because they do not wish to give up their contraception, or acknowledge that they may be chemically aborting their own children, when they may be fighting so hard to stop surgical abortions.
Even Blackmun, in Roe, admitted that if the “fetus,” or child, is a person, of course they are protected by the clear provisions of our Constitution.
This type of legislation explicitly defines the child as a person, and then lays out how you can kill certain classes of those little persons.
It’s the codifying of the killing of innocent persons. It is an explicit violation of equal protection.
In other words, worse than Roe. Deeply immoral.
Here is my definitive position on this, one that “and then you can kill the baby” legislation most signally does NOT meet: