And, finally, try to get your facts straight before you sound off and tell someone they are “utterly wrong” and “smearing” Ronald Reagan.
FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
On June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill was an ironic beginning for a man often seen as the modern father of the pro-life movement.
Great find. Serves me right for the seeds of doubt after reading post #248.
I did not ridicule you in any way. As to my "righteous certitude", you have offered no counter to my statements, choosing instead to do exactly what you accuse me of doing.
There is no logical argument for Life being given to the courts of men. In doing so, one subverts the very foundations of the Constitution itself. There can be no reasonable excuse for that.
There is also no viable argument in that line of thought which will sway the Christian Right, which was my main point. I am but one of MILLIONS who believe as I do (the Lion's share of the Christian Right), and will *not* be moved. What I gave you is the Pro-Life position.
I am happy to address your arguments point by point, but I cannot do so if you do not make any, and simply resort to offensive baiting.
And, finally, try to get your facts straight before you sound off and tell someone they are “utterly wrong” and “smearing” Ronald Reagan.
You would do better to actually read the act, and what it allowed, rather than continue to denigrate RR, as so many now are wont to do, to try to tear him down. I will start you on your way with this little bit:
RedState.com: Ronald Reagan was never pro-choice, never "flip-flopped" by Mark Kilmer
And particularly this quote from the comments thereon from RR himself regarding the issue:
Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor. A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed was abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor would sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject that I had done on anything in my eight years as governor. I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it could only be justified to save a human life. The matter of health—meaning the permanent damage to the health of the mother if she went through with her pregnancy—was brought up. It seemed to me that the mother would have the right to protect herself from permanent damage just as she would be able to protect herself, even if it meant taking a life, from someone threatening her with mayhem, so I agreed to that provision. I thought there was adequate provision in the bill requiring responsible boards in the medical profession to declare such permanent harm would follow the birth of the child. Perhaps it was my inexperience in government, but, like so many pieces of legislation, there were loopholes that I had not seen, and the thing that made the California abortion bill become somewhat permissive in nature was violation of the spirit of the legislation by the groups that were supposed to police it. This was particularly true in the case of psychiatrists. If faced with the same problem today, I can assure you I would make sure there were no loopholes in the bill....
But do not believe me, and do not believe Kilmer... Don't even take Reagan at his word. Go find the Act and read it for yourself. I did. Then come back here and see if you care to call me a liar again.