Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 08/24/2012 3:00:17 PM PDT by NYer
“Mitt Romney has made clear he believes in the rape and incest exceptions since his PIVOT on the abortion issue.”
~ ~ ~
“Pivot”....right. I believe his change, just like a baby isn’t a baby according to Mitt’s exceptions.
Can someone share, does the Republican Platform appose
Romney’s stand above?
Read their lips?
It also pledges to “strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by exacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion,” a stance intended to draw attention to the fact that Barack Obama opposed born alive infant protections as an Illinois state senator.
1980:
There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.
We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent’s obligation and right to guide their minor children.
1984:
The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose the use of public revenues for abortion and will eliminate funding for organizations which advocate or support abortion. We commend the efforts of those individuals and religious and private organizations that are providing positive alternatives to abortion by meeting the physical, emotional, and financial needs of pregnant women and offering adoption services where needed.
Christ must be fuming over the Republican Party's wordy nonsense ("pain-capable unborn children"?) I could vomit). Life is to be protected for all My miraculous people, from the moment of their conception until their natural death. [just because they don't feel pain, and boy are you gonna feel some pain someday, doesn't mean they aren't just as dead] Period. --Jesus (paraphrased)
“Pivot”....right. I believe his change, just like a baby isn’t a baby according to Mitt’s exceptions.
He apparently thinks innocent babies should be killed for the sins of their criminal fathers. Its sad how many people around here are fine with that. They don’t want romney to look bad. What is most important is winning, right? They fear an Obama win but don’t fear that God will eventually judge this nation for our acceptance of murder of the innocent.
Rebecca Kiessling (woman conceived in rape and adopted) was on Steve Deace’s radio show yesterday and said she has friends working on the platform. She said that they told her the abortion language has been finalized and will not be “softened.”
I think that is there for this reason. That is the part where they say what legislation they support. Because of Roe vs. Wade, legislation cannot ban all abortions, so they feel that narrowing it on the "pain-based" factor might pass muster with the courts. The first paragraph says they back an amendment affording 14th amendment protections for the unborn. An amendment like that would be necessary in order to ban all abortions without the legislation being overturned by the courts. There is no rape exception here, and it would seem to me that such an amendment if passed would not allow for one. So it seems like a strong pro-life plank to me.
Thank you for your response. When Huckabee was running (and with his strong pro-life stance) I wished to myself that if he became president, he would issue a state of emergency on day one, and put a stop to abortion. Of course, my husband, much more learned than myself, just smiled. But think about it; we are killing our children left and right to the tune of is it 3-3,500/day give or take, and if they were two years old all lined up and shot, instead of 2 months in the womb old, it would indeed call for a state of emergency, would it not?
An immoral, unconstitutional plank.
But he is well known in Washington for his spirited pursuit of legislation on social issues, even in cases where it stands no chance of becoming law. Akin has sponsored or co-sponsored a raft of legislation affecting abortion, including a proposal that would ban all federal funding for abortions. He has also sought to require parental consent for minors who want birth control. --LinkIs it any wonder why this man was "chosen" to deliver this particular gaffe?
Congratulations on reaching a new level of ineptness I haven’t seen on FR before.
The plank calls for a constitutional amendment. Last I checked, amendments are not unconstitutional.
Immoral? In your world, up is down and down is up. If you were slicing up the unborn baby yourself, do you really think it would feel good and moral to you?
He’s a staunch, independent Christian and fiscal conservative right down the line. If he was a “team player” the GOP wouldn’t have thrown him under the bus like they have.
After all, they won't feel a thing, right?
If you give Grandma enough morphine, do you think you can do away with her?
She won't feel any pain.
Like I said, the plank is immoral and unconstitutional.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
I realized some years ago that the GOP “pro-life” platform plank was vastly insufficient, and self-contradictory. They have now made it even more so with their inclusion of cheerleading for immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” legislation.
For contrast, our party’s pro-life platform plank:
http://www.selfgovernment.us/platform.html
The imperative duty to protect Life
The leaders of America’s Party have publicly pledged that henceforth all governmental policies they endorse will be in complete accord with the principles and purposes stated below. They have also pledged to henceforth offer their endorsement or financial support only to other political leaders and organizations who live up to these principles.
The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution
A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.
WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and
WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and
WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and
WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and
WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and
WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;
THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.
The bill wouldn’t allow anything like that. It supports a constitutional amendment giving 14th amendment protections to the unborn.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
So, why do you need legislation or amendments?
How about every officer of government, in every branch, simply supporting the explicit requirements of the Supreme Law of the Land, as they have sworn to do?
I don't know what bill you're referring to.
And our God-given, unalienable rights, the right to life being supreme among them, are not given by constitutions, or amendments to constitutions, or by any man-made laws. They are intrinsic, preceding and superceding all human laws.
This is not just my opinion. It is the first assertion, the very premise, of America and our claim to liberty.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
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.