Posted on 10/24/2011 8:20:45 AM PDT by julieee
Herman Cain Backs Human Life Amendment Banning Abortions
Washington, DC -- In an new interview, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says he would support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S, Constitution that would ban abortion by protecting unborn children under law.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/23/herman-cain-backs-human-life-amendment-banning-abortions/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
“If one of your female children, grandchildren was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?” Morgan asked.Cain said that Morgan was “mixing” questions, but then replied: “No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision."
"that decision" is in response to the question "you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?”
Then again he seems to understand the role of a president pretty well when asked to state his policy position.
“Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
"As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life."
Watch the phony "pro-life" RINOs try to say that's not a pro-life policy.
You are overplaying your hand to say he was “the top advisor” for Dole/Kemp. He was a senior economic advisor, because that was, and remains, his strong hand. From his Navy days forward he has been exceptionally good with numbers.
However, to my knowledge, He has never been in the oven on the life issue like he is now, and that is a lack of a particularly useful kind of political experience. Obviously, in his earlier runs, he never broke out of a relatively small fan base, so he never had to deal with being scrutinized on the full range of issues a President is expected to handle. Now he is getting that exposure, and if he is who I think he is, he will put together a good half-time adjustment and come out roaring in the second half. Time will tell, but I am cautiously optimistic.
Placing credence in political neophytes is a huge mistake. Ross Perot proved that twice. Without a governing or legislative record on which to judge Cain, we are left with dissecting his public rhetoric, both past and present. When his rhetoric falls short, Cain falls short. That applies to all politicians, btw.
Personal principles sometimes take a backseat when people enter into the political arena. I have given Cain the benefit of the doubt several times. The same can't be said for the smear merchants hitting Perry with gratuitous attacks. This emotional euphoria for Cain is unnatural and self destructive.
Having said all that. If Cain is the last man standing on the right, I will vote for him over Obama. However, I still see Romney (aka. FUMR) taking the nomination. Although the level of certainty for Willard is way down right now. The first goal remains to knock off Willard. If that means its Newt, Bachmann, my guy, Perry or if its Cain who becomes the nominee, here's the bottom line. In the end, conservatives will need to coalesce around one challenger in order to beat Obama and send him packing back to Chicago. Anything less and America will continue to suffer.
I agree he’s got some key elements of prolife policy theory under control, but there are serious divisions within the prolife movement itself as to how to proceed at both state and federal levels. For example, while I favor the overturning of Roe v Wade, I also want a federal personhood amendment that piggybacks on the 14th to provide the states with a basis for treating the unborn as legal persons in their own right, regardless of their biological dependency on the mother. That is a big improvement on the federal framework, but not an outright federal ban on the specific act of abortion.
However, there are scenarios where either approach, however well intended, could be co-opted by statists to aggrandize the power of the federal beyond original constitutional boundaries. That’s why I am saying Cain needs to get with someone who has already digested all that and can give him some help on messaging, because there are elements of the prolife community for whom his current presentation is problematic. Are they enough in number or influence to make a difference? I don’t know. But they need not be lost at all. Cain just needs to go the extra mile and have a definite view on a comprehensive prolife policy strategy, the details of which he can expound upon and defend comfortably.
That sounds good. Do you know of any candidate, in this or any past election, that had a clear platform on those more subtle issues?
He also served as the national co-chair for the Steve Forbes campaign in 2000. Forbes just endorsed Rick Perry; apparently Steve Forbes doesn’t agree with the Freepers here that Perry is done.
We should forget the talking points, so why do you keep using the talking points? Cain explained what he meant, and what he interpreted the question as, and it wasn’t what you are claiming here.
Are you calling Cain a liar now?
You can’t move this country in a truly pro life direction without changing the attitudes of the voters.
Herman Cain donated a MILLION DOLLARS of his own money on an advertising campaign to get blacks to vote pro life.
If anyone hugs liberal gotcha questions to make Cain look less than pro life, I am really skeptical.
He has a long track record as a strongly pro life person, putting his money where his mouth is.
And by the way, if Cain’s own denial of your claim isn’t good enough for you, the response should tell you that you are dead wrong.
Because if you are right, Cain’s answer to the question “you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own” was “No”.
Do you really believe that Cain would NOT want his daughter to bring up that child? Or will you admit that his “No” had nothing to do with what you thought the question meant, and that Cain isn’t lying when he says he took the question as being about what government should do?
What in the world are you talking about? I posted the exact words from the interview. How are those talking points? Direct quotes are talking points? You need to adjust your meds.
Wow! That’s the most incoherent rant I’ve seen for a long time. Don’t take the brown acid! (oops, too late)
I took the exact words you posted from Cain’s interview, and showed how by your standard, he answered “NO” to the question. If you find that incoherent, it could explain why you still cling to the disproven notion that Cain’s answer regarded adoption.
As to your other comment (combining here), your “talking point” wasn’t the quotes from the interview, it was your insistance in advancing the now disproven hypothesis that Cain understood the question to be about adoption so his answer was about adoption.
Yes, the question was worded in a way that you COULD have decided it was about adoption. But Cain explicitly said what he thought the question was, and it wasn’t about adoption to him. So his answer was NOT about adoption, and your talking point that it was is false.
Or, you think you are right, and Cain is lying when he says what he was ACTUALLY answering.
And frankly, it is not an easy question.
Seems like he's got it figured out. He's on record as supporting an "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution. Using the process of Amendment is the only way to ban abortion at the national level within the original intent of the enumerated powers.
He's either going to be "in trouble" over abortion or he's going to be "in trouble" over original intent, but there are people who are going to try and insure that he is and remains "in trouble" about something.
Or, you’re on drugs and can’t stop typing nonsensical blather.
It's called having your cake and eating it too.
that is why I encouraged everyone to watch the interview which apparently almost no one did.
If you watch the flow of the interview Morgan was talking about aborting the child. Cain knew it and was saying, I guess, they could have an illegal abortion.
He did the same thing on John Stossels show. Don't take my word watch the interviews. they only take a few minutes see if his words convince you.
He was a top adviser.
I don't have a problem with it at all, it's actually a good thing, but the guy is not an outsider.
I am not sure about the other candidates, but I believe Santorum is better on the life issue than most:
In addition to which he has, like Palin, had to confront the worst case life and death scenario in his personal life, so this is not political theory for him, but a practiced reality.
Disclaimer: I am not a shill for Santorum. I am a dislocated Palin supporter and I am backing Cain because I think he is a trustworthy person who is a genuine Reagan conservative, can pull off the leadership gig, and has the juice to beat Obama.
Which gets to the basic problem we have this cycle: You don’t elect policies to office; you elect people. Given a true cafeteria candidate, I suppose I would splice Santorum’s coherent prolife policy together with Cain’s persona (leadership, communication, character, etc.), along with Palin’s “sudden and relentless” reform mentality, not to mention her foresight.
However, inasmuch as the foregoing fantasy candidate is not gonna happen, I’m taking what I think I can get. Furthermore, in the absence of Palin, I reserve the right to adjust as the game progresses. Cain can do this. He’s got the ball, and he’s in the red zone. It’s up to him. I am rooting for him.
Cain/Palin 2012
Thank you for the answer on who has the coherent pro-life platform. I don't think Santorum has the juice to win and he really rubbed me the wrong way when he took up the distortion of Cain's pro-life position that the libs and Paul-bots are spreading around.
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.