Skip to comments.Herman Cain Backs Human Life Amendment Banning Abortions
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
That’s his position today? It must be Monday.
Posted thrice makes it nice
It’s about time. Why didn’t he just say this when the question arose last week? Did it take this long for his advisors to tell him which position would hurt him the least in the polls?
Now, there is a bigger question — why does he “support” this, when it has nothing to do with the President, but argue that the President has nothing to do with advancing laws, which is clearly something a President can do.
And what does he mean by “support”? If he won’t work to advance pro-life legislation, would he work to advance a constitutional amendment? Or is he just saying that he won’t say anything negative about it?
Since the president has nothing at all to do with constitutional amendments, what difference does it make that he supports one, unless it means he will advocate for it — something he has said he wouldn’t do for certain other pro-life legislation?
Im wrapping my head around Herman Cain’s dilemma. His conversation with the American people is a mark of sanity.
The Government should not be supporting the training, financing and subsidy of professional abortionists. Abortion should be sanctioned as un-Constitutional.
If there are circumstances, i.e. rape, incest and the life of the mother - those cases should be appealed for PRIVATE medical review at the behest of the individual women and custodians (if a minor).
Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk Ill sign it. Thats all I can do. I will sign it, Cain responds.The President has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. They are passed by both houses of congress, and sent to the states. So he will not "sign" anything.
You'd think that a guy who has been running for President for months and considers himself a fan of the constitution might have some idea what the job of President is and is not -- at least more than some random guy on the internet.
Another Cain joke.
Understand you CainBots, not calling Cain a liar, just a lousy politician with a penchant for placing expediency over principle.
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.
That would go nowhere and everyone knows it.
Piers Morgan; "If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?"
That's precisely how I would describe your FR postings.
That’s what happens when cranky ol’ guys need more fiber. ;)
Not another constitutional amendment ... that will not have a chance of being ratified.
Come on candidates, talk about what you plan on accomplishing in office. These ‘amendments’ are piling up.
Look, lets go back, Cain told the America Live program. See, he was asking me two questions. My position on abortion has been the same on pro-life has been the same throughout this campaign. And that is, I am pro-life from conception and I dont believe in abortion. When he then tried to pigeon-hole me on my granddaughter being there as a victim of rape, then what would I do?See -- he looked at the question as "what would I do if my daugher was a victim or Rape. Nothing about adoption.
The only point I was trying to make: A lot of families will be in that position and they are not going to be thinking, Well, what does the government want me to do? My position is no abortion. My position is no abortion. But all I was trying to point out was take the typical family in this country and you dont know what they might do in the heat of the moment, Cain explained.Again, nothing about adoption -- but rather "heat of the moment" decisions. He then further clarified, making it clear he is talking about ABORTION, not adoption:
Look, abortion should not be legal, Cain said a moment later. That is clear, he said, adding that anyone who wanted to get an abortion would be breaking the law by doing so: But if that family made a decision to break the law, thats that familys decision.So, when Cain answered the question by Morgan, what Cain now SAYS he was answering was that government could not force the family to obey the law, that they could still get an abortion.
So the whole "he was talking about adoption" is defunct -- Cain himself has dismissed that story, although a few Cain supporters still cling to it, I guess because having a fictional theory that has been debunked by their candidate is more comforting to them than the truth, which is that his various comments on abortion were a muddled mess showing little comprehension of the political issues.
Anyway, I have no idea why you brought that up here, because my point in this thread was that his clear statement supporting the human life amendment (and other statements in interviews about using the bully pulpit) show that Cain has finally figured out what his position is, and it's pro-life.
But unfortunately, in doing so he committed a more serious gaffe, in that he showed he doesn't understand how the constitution works, and claimed that the ONE thing he could do was something that is actually the one thing he CANNOT do.
So after a week of telling us all the things he thought the President shouldn't do, he said he'd do something the President cannot do -- on a simple matter of the amendment process, which any reasonably educated american could understand after a 1-minute briefing.
Thee is just one thing about being in a rock and a hard place. There is no squish there and you keep tying to fill that space with it.
Let's see, which is better? being called a liar, or being called unprincipled? Kind of a tough choice RM. And an unnecessary choice. There is another way to understand this. Cain is a political novice, by his own admission. He has yet to fully understand how prolife policy might be implemented in a constitutional Republic.
And frankly, it is not an easy question. I'm guessing that Cain believes by expressing his core belief on the matter in general terms he can keep from getting bogged down on the details of implementation. As a messaging strategy, I am not sure that will work, but in no way does it represent a lack of principle. He has demonstrated his principles sufficiently by putting his money where most of the rest of us will only put our mouths.
But his principles must now be translated to a plan of action, and he needs to work that through with someone who has a good understanding, not only of the issues, but how to message on those issues. Again, this is a phenomena primarily associated with political inexperience. Nothing else.
You make a great point and it refutes the Cain freeper talking point it was about adoption. That was bogus on it’s face and I confronted it and people went nuts. Good to see Cain agreed with me. Good job in pointing this out
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 its not the governments role or anybody elses 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. Thats 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. Hes got the ball, and hes in the red zone. Its up to him. I am rooting for him.
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.
I have seen the interview several times already and you distortions don’t hold any water.
So why did Cain clarify and why did he again come out and say he admits to his mistakes. Perhaps his supporters should too.
Because he was asked to???
...why did he again come out and say he admits to his mistakes.(sic)
Because he is honorable enough to???
Golly gee! he wasn't clear with Morgan's dishonest word-twisting change-the-premise-in-mid-stream gotcha questions. LOL Wowee zowee, that wipes out his entire life's solid pro-life stand. /s
I’m curious which 38 states folks think will vote to ratify an unconditional ban on all abortions? (It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment).
Or putting it differently, all it takes to block it is 13 states.
Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, Massachusettes, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida.......
All voted for Obama. Just takes 13 states from the list, to block a constitutional amendment.
Which is exactly why there is a debate in the prolife community over what is the best strategy. I am willing to cut anyone slack who genuinely wants abortion to end, and who is willing to act in the arena of public policy to bring that about, even if we may not see eye to eye on how best to get that done. That’s why the federal amendment camp cannot be so dismissive of the state by state camp, and visa versa. I’m for trying anything and everything that saves the lives of children. Work for a federal constitutional amendment. But also dislodge Roe v Wade and empower the prolife states to stop the slaughter within their own borders. But don’t shoot our own. How un-prolife is that.
Why should the circumstances of one’s conception determine whether one lives or dies? If you are pro-life, how could one consider that it is ok for the mother to kill a baby because of the crime of the father?
I admire your absolute position. However, if my 13 year-old daughter had been savagely raped by a sexual predator - I would immediately ask a physician to administer RU486 and pray.
Sorry - but I cannot imagine putting a child through 9 months of psychological trauma, a risk-filled pregnancy, delivery and yet another emotional adoption procedure.