Skip to comments.Schwarzenegger Criticized for Saying GOP Should be More Pro-Abortion
Posted on 12/20/2004 2:26:56 PM PST by Ed Current
Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) -- First, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came under fire from pro-life advocates for backing a $6 billion measure using taxpayer funds to destroy human life in cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Now he drawing criticism for suggesting the GOP should become more pro-abortion.
In an interview with Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily newspaper published Saturday, Schwarzenegger said the Republican Party should move "a little to the left" on issues such as abortion -- a shift he claims would pick up more voters.
Schwarzenegger told the paper that "the Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle."
"I would like the Republican Party to cross this line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center," he said. "This would immediately give the party 5 percent more votes without its losing anything elsewhere."
However, post-election poll of voters shows that a majority of Americans are pro-life and the abortion issue gave pro-life candidates such as President Bush a twelve percent advantage.
Thinking about their own position on abortion, 55 percent said they took a pro-life position and only 40 percent took one of three positions in favor of legal abortions.
That November 2004 Wirthlin poll conforms to others showing pro-life Republican presidential candidates benefiting from that view on abortion.
According to Lydia Saad, Senior Gallup Poll Editor, "national exit polling in every presidential election since 1984 has shown a net advantage to the pro-life side over the pro-choice side, based on the percentage of single-issue abortion voters in the electorate."
Schwarzenegger's comments drew opposition from Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute, a California group involved in pro-life issues.
"Schwarzenegger's statements that the GOP would not lose its base if it embraces ... abortion rights show extreme arrogance and total ignorance concerning the values and dedication of the party's core constituents," England said.
"Schwarzenegger has spent too much time in Hollywood. He needs to start mingling more with mainstream Californians," she added.
"We are outraged that Schwarzenegger has the audacity to misspeak for the millions of Republicans in this country who believe that abortion is murder," England concluded.
"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.
The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
Funny, I just read yesterday that the liberals want more pro-life people to join them. Something tells me that Arnold is wrong.
Sorry, I meant the Democrats want more pro-lifers. Liberals sure don't.
How many abortions would you guess Arnold has caused and paid for over the years?
My guess would be well over 200, honestly.
I imagine his pro-abortion stance is entirely self-serving, like the rest of Hollywood.
"My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.
Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: '"The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words.'" Today's slogans are: "'a woman's right to choose"' and "freedom of choice," etcetera. Jessen testimony.wpd
I suppose we should re-institute slavery, too. /sarc
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill dubbed by critics as "The Pedophile Protection Act."
Democrats and liberal Republicans dismiss the constitutional amendment to protect marriage against judicial redefinition as hasty fiddling with the Constitution. But it turns out that they would like to fiddle with the Constitution this year themselves. Barney Frank and others in Congress are advancing a constitutional amendment that would permit foreign-born presidents.
Why hasn't the abortion issue ever made it on the ballot as a referendum to be voted on by the public?
Still not getting any eh Arnold?
For the same reason that the Massachusetts Legislature kept Gay Marriage off the ballot. The truth about the actual number of Pro-Lifers would put the lie to the Most Americans are Pro-Choice shpiel.
Why hasn't the abortion issue ever made it on the ballot as a referendum to be voted on by the public?
Since we are a United State democracy Vs the former Constitutional Republic known as the United States - why not?
The anti-abortion crowd (no abortions, ever) are wackos, IMHO.
Because you would lose in a landslide.
So try it. Go for it. Just agree beforehand that you will live with the results.
By monitoring changes in fetal heart rate, psychologist Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, Ph.D., and his colleagues in Paris have found that fetuses can even tell strangers' voices apart. They also seem to like certain stories more than others. The fetal heartbeat will slow down when a familiar French fairy tale such as "La Poulette" ("The Chick") or "Le Petit Crapaud" ("The Little Toad"), is read near the mother's belly. When the same reader delivers another unfamiliar story, the fetal heartbeat stays steady. Fearfully and Wonderfully Made
State Unborn Victim Laws a summary of the laws of the 30 states that recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, enacted April 1, 2004, covers unborn victims of federal and military crimes.
It may strike some as surprising that legal protection of embryonic human beings can co-exist with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 legalization of abortion.29 However, the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life outside the abortion context,30 and public sentiment also seems even more opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion.31 The laws of a number of states-including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah-specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb.32
Nothing personal to all of you anti-folks, but believe it or not, most Americans do not want to outlaw abortion. Sure, partial birth abortion should be outlawed, but preventing women from RU-486 is your agenda, not ours.
You can call me "baby killer" all you want, but most of us do not believe that a 10-day old glob of cells is human. You do; your preacher tells you so. We don't. So vote.
Is there a heart rate at ten days?
but most of us do not believe that a 10-day old glob of cells is human
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.
"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.
"The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes - the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species." http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
"Scientifically, the international consensus of embryologists is that human beings begin at fertilization (or cloning)--i.e., when their genetic code is complete and operative; even before implantation they are far more than a "bunch of cells" or merely " potential human beings."" http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/
"The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question - not a scientific question. I will not go into great detail here, but ""personhood"" begins when the human being begins - at fertilization." http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html This objective argument refutes all metaphysical speculations stating otherwise.
Tell your PREACHER to read post #22
Abortion should be legal but abhored and socially unacceptable - I think this is the position of most Americans. It can never be made illegal as long as it is socially acceptable. On the other hand, when it becomes socially unacceptable there will be no need to make it illegal. There are situations where allowing a woman to abort her unborn child is preferable to the alternative of having the government somehow enforce a woman to bring a child to term against her will.
California, like New York, ceased to be in step with the rest of America awhile ago. It is its own little world.
Ahnold is an example of everything that disgusts me about godless Califonicators.
Wow- the two names I hear for the GOP Presidential candidate in 2008 are Arnie and Rudy. Who's YOUR pick? (rolling eyes).
With all dubious respect, you don't speak for "most of us", and you sure as hell don't speak for me. If you "get your rocks off" killing, or advocating killing, the unborn, I don't suppose anything will stop you. Your "freedom to kill" is intact.
But do not DARE presume to speak for me, included in "most of us".
However, the abortion issue has emerged in the past 20 years to be one of the top three or four defining issues of the Republican Party, especially in races where we previously had not fared well.
We tend to be more of a party of principle than politics, therefore, with it being one of the main definining issues, I don't think we should stray off of the party line on this. The Republican Party should officially remain just as pro-life as it is now. However, at the same time, we should make pro-choice folks feel welcome, if they agree with us on most every other issue.
We are a center-right party. Our job is to convince people to come to us, not the other way around.
I really despise Ahhnold, both as an actor and a politician.
Calling the pro-life brigade!
I don't they would necessarily "go" anywhere but they might stay home more often when election time comes.
They may also keep their money at home with them, which in the end is the only thing that makes a politician take notice.
Abortion MURDER should be legal but abhored and socially unacceptable - I think this is the position of most Americans. It can never be made illegal as long as it is socially acceptable. On the other hand, when it becomes socially unacceptable there will be no need to make it illegal. There are situations where allowing a woman to
abort MURDER her un born child is preferable to the alternative of having the government somehow enforce a woman to bring RAISE a child to term against her will.
We'll see. He's actually finessed a Grey-Davis/Dem sort of budget better than Davis would have. But he's been stepping out a lot in the last two months, with the bill-signings and the talking, and more talking. He's going to talk himself right out of politics - which will be just as well.
Pastors wear high heels nowdays. They live in California sometimes. They have children and work and go to school and preach Jesus to anyone who will listen. They also work GOP campaigns. They might have voted for McClintock.
You just NEVER KNOW who is on your side. *shrug* That's the facts.
Good point. Oh, my bet is on Afghan & Iraq.
Have a great Christmas.
Ethic of Reciprocity - Every person shares certain inherent human rights, simply because of their membership in the human race.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage - James Matthew (Matt) Wallace, aka The Compleat Heretic; a Secular Humanist atheist and a pro-life advocate. A nontheistic and nonreligious opposition to the life-denying horror of abortion"... because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being."
As I contemplate the Declaration of Independence on the anniversary of its signing, I am chastened by the tragic fact that too many Americans are denied their "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Ironically, these same rights are used as an argument for alienating these oppressed and persecuted Americans from their rights as human beings. These Americans are the more than one million preborn children violently killed annually by abortion.
The day will come when we as a people will live out the true and full meaning of our dearest creed: All human beings are equal under the law. We will no longer deny the humanity and the human rights of preborn children. Freedom will cease being corrupted into the right of a mother to slaughter her innocent and helpless child within the sanctum of her body. The inhuman and barbarous genocide that is abortion as birth control will end. On that day, all Americans will be free at last.
In 1976, when she became pro-life, Doris Gordon founded Libertarians for Life "because some libertarian had to blow the whistle."
As libertarians, LFL's interest in the abortion debate is in everyone's unalienable rights. LFL's reasoning is philosophical, not religious. Some LFL associates are religious; others, such as Gordon, are atheists.
LFL focuses mainly on two central points: personhood (what "person" means, and why all preborn children are persons); and parental obligation (how parents incur it). From our answers we conclude that prenatal children have the right to the protection of the law.
Libertarianism affirms the central, inalienable right of all persons to be free from aggression (the initiation of force or fraud). Nonaggression belongs in every code of morality. LFL also affirms that from conception to death, we are persons with the right not to be killed. The killing of an innocent person, as in abortion, violates this right.
LFL further affirms that, under libertarian principles, parents owe their dependent children, born and preborn, care and protection from harm. Even if abortion were merely a case of "abandonment" or eviction, as some wish to rationalize it, it would still be wrongful death.
Dependent children are like "captives" of their parents, for they are in the parents' control. This is not voluntary for the children, but it is for the parents. Therefore, when parents choose not to provide care and the children get harmed, the parents have initiated force, and they are accountable.
Abortion, then, violates two rights of children: the right not to be killed, and the right to parental care and protection. Even when pregnancy is due to rape, both parents still have the general obligation not to kill or further endanger their innocent preborn child.
They are a victory for the left, not for conservatives across this nation.
You nailed it down completely!
No, I wrote what I meant to say. Thanks.
How to you propose the government implement the policy of forcing a women to bring an unborn child to term against her will? There are many ways to abort a child without a doctor including the use of commonly available herbs that have been used for centuries throughout many cultures. If a woman is pregnant, does the government have the right to keep her from engaging in risky behavior, e.g. drinking, smoking, kickboxing, bungy-jumping, or imbibing certain completely legal herbal concoctions? How do you suggest such government controls be implemented? May I suggest we take all pregnant women who seem to have a predisposition toward abortion and place them in an artificial coma for 9 months until the unborn child comes to term. That way we can be certain the mother doesn't do anything that might harm the unwanted baby.
no 'compassionate wuss conservatives',
Arinie is one of the best 'girlie' men the feminized left has.
So put it on the ballot. And live with the result.
I'm in favor of a ballot measure. Are you?
Wow. Thank you for posting that.
Read & understand the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.