Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney: My views on abortion rights are clear
CBS ^ | August 27, 2012 | Staff/ Scott Pelley

Posted on 08/31/2012 9:09:04 AM PDT by Mozilla

(CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.

"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

The Republican Party is gathering in Tampa, Fla., this week for its national convention, where in addition to nominating Romney for president, the party will officially adopt its national platform. Last week, the party added language to the platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with no mention of making exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

President Obama in an interview Saturday said that if Romney were president, the Republican would not "stand in the way" if Congress attempted to strip women of their reproductive health rights. Democrats have recently stepped up their attacks against the GOP ticket on the issue of reproductive rights, in part because of the strong views held by Romney's running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, and in part because of the controversial remarks GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin made on rape and abortion.

Romney, however, told Pelley that the issue amounts to a distraction.

"Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; abortion; assclownposting; clownfor0; democratproapganda; demspartyofdead; howtolose; idiot; moronpost; obotposting; ocampaignad; retardfor0; rino; romney; stupidposter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last
Video at link.
1 posted on 08/31/2012 9:09:10 AM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Well you can always rely about See BS to me a reliable whore for the Democrat party's propaganda machine tactics of diversion and distraction
2 posted on 08/31/2012 9:10:37 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
If it's OK in rape or incest, why is it NOT OK for other reasons?

This position is indefensible. There is at least a logic behind being pro-abortion. But, this position is mere pandering. No pro-lifer should vote for him.

3 posted on 08/31/2012 9:15:42 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (The good news ... There's no Bob Dole Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
"I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

"Health and life of the mother"...very tricksy! Threw that word "health" in there...Almost sounds good.

4 posted on 08/31/2012 9:17:09 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

The voters don’t care. Keep hitting about the economy/jobs/gas prices.


5 posted on 08/31/2012 9:20:04 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments

For some reason everyone here on FR seems to think that this is a new position. This is the same pro-life position that’s been held by Republican candidates since Ronald Reagan.

You say the position is indefensible, and I say it is not. It’s the correct and moral position.


6 posted on 08/31/2012 9:20:53 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Which views would those be Willard. The ones where your pro choice with state funding for abortions?


7 posted on 08/31/2012 9:25:21 AM PDT by Breto (The Establishment party is killing our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
It is, in fact, THE immoral position ~ and it is a sign of lacking in civilized viewpoints to hold to it.

Romney wouldn't be the first barbarian put into office, nor will he be the last, but you can't claim to be civilized and be in favor of the purposeful killing of an infant.

8 posted on 08/31/2012 9:27:33 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Breto

Being for abortion because you don’t like who fathered the child, is the position of all RINOs. It was also the position of RINO George W. Bush and of course RINO Juan McAmnesty.

The “Life of the mother” or the baby never happens in this day and age. A big red herring.


9 posted on 08/31/2012 9:31:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Melas
For some reason everyone here on FR seems to think that this is a new position. This is the same pro-life position that’s been held by Republican candidates since Ronald Reagan.

Really? So when a politician is in favor of abortion being legal for the health of the mother, that's OK? News to me. Seems that's the DemocRATs position. I guess if amniocentesis reveals that a developing fetus is carrying Down's syndrome, and for the mother to bring that child to term would damage her mental health, then abortion is A-OK. That's the nice big loophole you leave for yourself when you use the weasel-word "health of the mother".

10 posted on 08/31/2012 9:32:11 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Melas

No it’s not. “Health of the mother” is different from “life of the mother” because “health of the mother” is used by pro-aborts to justify any abortion on mental health grounds.

Life of the mother is commonsense. No pro-lifer has a problem with that. (Though we would specify that while saving the mother’s life you also try to save the child if it’s possible.)

You are correct that the rape and incest exception has been embraced by a lot of “pro-life” Republicans. But rejected by others. The platform leaves it out. I reject it because it is, of course, inconsistent with the principle that the baby is innocent. Including or not including the incest/rape exception is not new.

But Romney’s use of “health of the mother” is new and it is troubling. But not surprising.


11 posted on 08/31/2012 9:32:20 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

He isn’t “in favor of the purposeful killing of an infant.”

He’s “in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”

It is the correct and moral position.

If you are in favor of forcing by law a mother to bear the child of her rapist without her consent, then you are no better than her rapist.

Stop playing word games. No sane person is in favor of the purposeful killing of infants.

Only Obama and his ilk are in favor of that.


12 posted on 08/31/2012 9:32:54 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
The “Life of the mother” or the baby never happens in this day and age. A big red herring.

Exactly. Dr. Ron Paul says he has never seen such a case in all his years of practice.

13 posted on 08/31/2012 9:39:01 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (The good news ... There's no Bob Dole Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Stop playing word games. No sane person is in favor of the purposeful killing of infants.

Romney's the one playing word games, by using the weasel-word "health of the mother." But no one should be surprised by this, since Romney has been pro-abort since he ran against Teddy.

14 posted on 08/31/2012 9:39:17 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chris37

“It is the correct and moral position”

So you think God would kill the child because of it’s father?


15 posted on 08/31/2012 9:40:34 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Melas
This is the same pro-life position that’s been held by Republican candidates since Ronald Reagan.

Nope. Rape, incest and "health" were not part of Reagan's pro-life position during his national career. The health exception he signed off on as governor in 1968 showed him where that goes.
16 posted on 08/31/2012 9:43:52 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I love to watch you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."-Del Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

“Health and life of the mother” is an Orwellian phrase that has proved to mean any and all abortions that are convenient. All a mother has to do is to say that having a baby would make her feel bad, and, boom, it’s aborted for the sake of her mental health.

Of course, once Romney gets in, he will drop the pretences, just like he did in Massachusetts as governor, and he will support taxpayer funded abortions for any reason whatever.

No, there’s nothing “moral” about killing innocent babies, Mitt.


17 posted on 08/31/2012 9:57:16 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.
Life of the mother is commonsense. No pro-lifer has a problem with that. (Though we would specify that while saving the mother’s life you also try to save the child if it’s possible.)

I wish that were true. However, over the years, I've seen contrary statements, some right here on FR. I'll find the thread, although it might take me a while to search my 11 years of history, but one that sticks out in my mind is the FReeper who said somthing to the effect of, "Pregnant women shouldn't be allowed chemotherapy. She's had her chance at life, so it's the baby's turn."

18 posted on 08/31/2012 9:57:56 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Melas
You say the position is indefensible, and I say it is not. It’s the correct and moral position.

So, you're saying that considering the termination of the life of the unborn as murder and finding the "well the courts say it's legal" argument repugnant and lacking is the incorrect position?

Let me clarify on why the courts-argument is wrong: The Supreme Court manufactured its ruling out of whole cloth, invalidating [as 'unconstitutional'] all State laws which were in place to protect the life of that state's citizens. (Indeed, the 14th Amendment, Sec I, virtually requires states to protect its citizens.) Further, the 5th Amendment prohibits the deprivation of Life without due process, but by invalidating the States's own protections of the unborn the USSC was condemning the innocent to certain death, when that court cannot legitimately alter the Constitution.

If the USSC could alter the Constitution, then they are not bound by it, but sovereign over it. Furthermore [if what they say is constitutional is constitutional], as decisions are by majority, any dissent is by definition contrary to constitutional law and therefore any action based upon it is sedition.

IOW, not only is the decision itself invalid, but the system which could make such decision is itself so flawed and inconsistent as to be utterly self-destructive.

19 posted on 08/31/2012 9:59:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

It’s an interview and the video of the interview is on the site.


20 posted on 08/31/2012 10:02:00 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Melas
However, over the years, I've seen contrary statements, some right here on FR. I'll find the thread, although it might take me a while to search my 11 years of history, but one that sticks out in my mind is the FReeper who said somthing to the effect of, "Pregnant women shouldn't be allowed chemotherapy. She's had her chance at life, so it's the baby's turn."

So from the postings of a few on the fringe you will extrapolate to the general pro-life Freeper population? Do you understand the flaw in that logic?

21 posted on 08/31/2012 10:03:20 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

Yea I understand. I get that Obama has to go, but this is what Romney said and is worthy of bringing up. Tea party and social conservatives should know what they are getting.


22 posted on 08/31/2012 10:04:18 AM PDT by Mozilla (Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
Your posting history betray you bot. 100% anti GOP agitprop. Not a word attacking the Progressive Fascist Democrat Party

So spare us the faux "conservative" posturing. When you have to lie about your real agenda in the vain hope it gives your posting a fake gloss of intellectual credibility, you have all ready lost the debate.

23 posted on 08/31/2012 10:09:31 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgotten Amendments

You guys are full of it. My wife had a patient not more than a few years ago at most who was advised not by the obstetrical practice, but her cardiologist to not continue her pregnancy because of an existing heart condition. Patient ignored the advice and sure enough coded on the telemetry unit at 28 weeks. Her heart was just not strong enough to deal with the 150% blood volume associated with pregnancy. They still had fetal heart tones when an ECS was attempted, but that was futile as well. Both mother and baby were lost.


24 posted on 08/31/2012 10:09:31 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
So from the postings of a few on the fringe you will extrapolate to the general pro-life Freeper population? Do you understand the flaw in that logic?

To be fair, it might be better for finding the average* feeling, rather than the general** feeling.

* Statistic's 'mean'.
** Statistic's 'mode'.

25 posted on 08/31/2012 10:12:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

At no point did I ascribe the position of those who I would label as the fringe to most FReepers. I was merely pointing out that they do exist, which was contrary to the black and white declarative, “No pro-lifer....” statement I was responding to.


26 posted on 08/31/2012 10:12:29 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Melas
You guys are full of it. My wife had a patient not more than a few years ago at most who was advised not by the obstetrical practice, but her cardiologist to not continue her pregnancy because of an existing heart condition. Patient ignored the advice and sure enough coded on the telemetry unit at 28 weeks. Her heart was just not strong enough to deal with the 150% blood volume associated with pregnancy. They still had fetal heart tones when an ECS was attempted, but that was futile as well. Both mother and baby were lost.

And how does that make us "full of it"? The abortion in this case would have been for the life of the mother. Pretty much every reputable pro-life group would not have been against terminating that pregnancy. Sorry, try again.

27 posted on 08/31/2012 10:14:23 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
Ok, I'll walk you through it.

the “Life of the mother” or the baby never happens in this day and age. A big red herring. Exactly. Dr. Ron Paul says he has never seen such a case in all his years of practice.

See the above statement? See the key words and phrases? Never happens

No leeway there. It obviously does happen, hence my example.

This is twice now where you've taken exception to me correcting absolutist nonsense. When someone declares without a equivocation that no one ever, or something never...it had better be cut and dried, or the entire argument is lost. Obviously, in both cases where you've responded to my replies, sometimes people do, and sometimes it does happen. That would preclude the evers and nevers. Nuff said.

28 posted on 08/31/2012 10:21:23 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Melas
You guys are full of it. My wife had a patient not more than a few years ago at most who was advised not by the obstetrical practice, but her cardiologist to not continue her pregnancy because of an existing heart condition. Patient ignored the advice and sure enough coded on the telemetry unit at 28 weeks. Her heart was just not strong enough to deal with the 150% blood volume associated with pregnancy. They still had fetal heart tones when an ECS was attempted, but that was futile as well. Both mother and baby were lost.

Maybe the patient couldn't stand the idea of abortion, thinking it to be murder. If that is the case then I cannot fault the decision to "ignore the advice" of the doctor.

29 posted on 08/31/2012 10:25:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Melas
This is twice now where you've taken exception to me correcting absolutist nonsense.

Fine. Then please refrain from using the phrase "you guys".

30 posted on 08/31/2012 10:27:40 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (FUMR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Absolutely. I’m in no way judging the patient. My own wife took great risks with our youngest, after developing a DVT in her previous pregnancy and throwing an embulis (sp?) to her lung, almost dying. It was daily shots of low molecular weight heparin for months, and a few scary moments.

I’m suspecting that it is because of the high degree of emotion surrounding the subject matter, but there seems to be a complete inability for anyone to keep my posts in context today.

I relayed that incident solely to refute the nonsensical, untrue statement that, “The life of the mother or the baby NEVER (emphasis mine) happens in this day and age.” A statement which has nothing to do with the courage of the mother, so for the life of me, I cannot understand how my reply was taken as such either.


31 posted on 08/31/2012 10:32:33 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Melas
This is twice now where you've taken exception to me correcting absolutist nonsense.

Not all absolutism is nonsense though. The USSC Roe v. Wade decision was terrible, absolutely, on both the legal and moral fronts.

32 posted on 08/31/2012 10:33:28 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

That’s fair. For clarity, “you guys” referenced NKP_Vet and Forgotten Amendments. It was not meant to be inclusive of anyone else.


33 posted on 08/31/2012 10:34:18 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla

Romney is a judicial supremacist, pro-choice democrat.

He’s not pro-life in any way that matters at all.


34 posted on 08/31/2012 10:50:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

No, I don’t. What I think is that God isn’t going to do anything at all.

But the child’s mother must be asked if she wishes to proceed.

She can say yes, and she can say no. It really depends on the person. And quite frankly, it really isn’t anybody else’s business what she chooses.

When and if you get impregnated by a rapist, then you decide how best to proceed. Until then, I suggest you mind your own business.


35 posted on 08/31/2012 10:51:11 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Melas

If the woman was aware of her serious health problems, she had the opportunity to PREVENT pregnancy. A child conceived by rape or incest is a victim also. Why is it OK to kill the victim but not have the death penalty for the perpetrator?


36 posted on 08/31/2012 10:52:03 AM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

That’s fine.

That’s between the woman, God and her doctor, and it’s not between the woman, God and her doctor and you.


37 posted on 08/31/2012 10:52:26 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chris37
That’s between the woman, God and her doctor, and it’s not between the woman, God and her doctor and you.

IBTZ

38 posted on 08/31/2012 10:54:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day Christians stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Melas; Forgotten Amendments
You say the position is indefensible, and I say it is not. It’s the correct and moral position.

And I say you are full of it. This is exactly the same position as the Pro-Abortion democrats. Safe, rare and legal.

The mother's health scam is used as an excuse to abort any child at any time.

39 posted on 08/31/2012 10:54:47 AM PDT by itsahoot (Write in Palin in 2012, That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Stop playing word games. No sane person is in favor of the purposeful killing of infants.

I guess he is insane then?

He’s “in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”

I find this a little confusing, don't you?

40 posted on 08/31/2012 10:59:10 AM PDT by itsahoot (Write in Palin in 2012, That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
This is exactly the same position as the Pro-Abortion democrats. Safe, rare and legal.

That's a damned lie.

41 posted on 08/31/2012 11:00:31 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Only Obama and his ilk are in favor of that.

Sorry but that is the position of the political elite in both parties. Progressives must protect Gaia from the infestation of the intellectually inferior workers, and useless food gobblers.

42 posted on 08/31/2012 11:03:18 AM PDT by itsahoot (Write in Palin in 2012, That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: brightright

It’s off the subject, but I’ll explain why rape should not be a capital crime.

Do you know why so many of the Little Lindbergh laws were repealed? I do. It’s also the best common sense reason to not make rape a capital crime. When a crime carries the ultimate penalty, there is no longer any reason whatsoever to not escalate that crime to the ultimate crime.

Several states overreacted and knee-jerked statutes into effect post Lindbergh that made kidnapping a capital crime. Kidnapping, already rare, remained at about the same level of occurance, but the number of kidnappings that escalated to murder spiked. The laws were universally repealed, and the kidnappings that escalated to murder declined to their former levels.

You’d see the same thing with rape. Make it a capital crime, and you’ll see more murder rapes. There is no longer a reason to let the victim live, and every reason not to.


43 posted on 08/31/2012 11:16:27 AM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Nuff said.

In this case the mother chose to put her life at risk attempting to protect her child.

We have fighting men and women make similar choices all the time. We call them heroes.

Nuff said.

44 posted on 08/31/2012 11:20:16 AM PDT by itsahoot (Write in Palin in 2012, That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Not comfortable outside your echo chamber, eh Tom?


45 posted on 08/31/2012 11:31:31 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Nope.


46 posted on 08/31/2012 11:31:51 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Uh, ok.


47 posted on 08/31/2012 11:32:05 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: chris37

So kill the child and let the rapist live? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.

“The welfare of mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases,” says Dr. David Reardon, a full-time researcher into the impact of abortion on women, in a valuable article, “ Rape, Incest and Abortion: Searching Beyond the Myths .” “Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.”

From his own research and the work of others, Reardon reports some results most people would find surprising:

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Makhorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.


48 posted on 08/31/2012 11:41:00 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Melas

My point is that killing the victim of a crime is wrong. If anyone should die it should not be the victim. Unfortunately society has decided that being conceived by rape or incest makes one deserving of the death penalty.


49 posted on 08/31/2012 11:56:15 AM PDT by brightright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Kill the rapist if you want, I don’t care.

As far as what happens to the child, that is for the mother and victim of the rapist to determine, not you.

But forcing the mother to bear the child of her rapist even if it against her consent?

Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany.


50 posted on 08/31/2012 12:13:34 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson