Posted on 10/16/2014 3:01:10 PM PDT by Morgana
In the cola-dominated soft drink market, 7-up enjoyed great success after it labeled itself the “UN-cola”.
And for the last 2 months, a multi-millionaire without public service experience, Greg Orman, has gotten some good poll numbers portraying himself as an independent “UN-politician” running against incumbent Kansas U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts.
But in the candidate debate last night, Roberts charged that Orman’s attitude about abortion is “UNconcionable.”
Here’s how it developed: more than halfway into the debate, the sole “life issue” question was posed: Kansas abortion law requires a mandatory ultrasound, should that be a federal law? (By the way, no such ultrasound mandate has been filed in Congress.)
kansas3Orman didn’t answer, instead responding:
that, as a man, he’ll never face that issue, and he “trusts women” (this is the slogan created by the late-term abortionist George Tiller); abortion is settled law about which we have wasted too much time when there are other important issues to discuss.
The debate moderator interrupted to ask whether he was pro-life or pro choice and Orman said pro-choice.
Roberts looked at Orman with incredulity, saying that to admonish us to “get past” the rights of the unborn and those at the end of life is unconscionable.
“I am pro-life,” he said [voting record: 64 out of 64 correct pro-life votes] and am proud to be endorsed by National Right to Life and Kansans for Life.
In a follow-up rebuttal, Roberts added, “[abortion] isn’t settled law because we had a great fight over Hobby Lobby, didn’t we? …[that] we’re not going to accept Obamacare because it strikes at our religious beliefs. And the Hobby Lobby won. And so it isn’t settled law, not by a long shot.”
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Later on, during discussion of second amendment gun rights, Roberts brought up Orman’s support for a bill [S.J. Resolution 19, see here] that would severely restrict first amendment free speech rights of groups like Kansans for Life.
Orman is running neck and neck with Roberts and the Kansas Democrat candidate for Senate dropped out of the race Sept. 3 (more here). Notwithstanding Orman’s repeated claim that, if elected, he has not decided which party he will side with, no one believes it; there are currently two “independent ” Senators who vote with the Democrats.
Roberts’ key message is that a vote for Orman is a vote for the Democrat anti-life agenda of Harry Reid and President Obama; for example, Reid has refused to allow a vote on the Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act (s. 1670, read here) which passed this year in the U.S. House.[Kansas passed this law in 2011.]
KFL executive director, Mary Kay Culp, commented, “One Kansas City-area abortion business has posted Orman signs at their front door, and in their window. They know that Orman is not a new-style, problem-solving “UNpolitician”- he is an old-style politician trying to downplay an unconscionable pro-abortion position in a state with a pro-life majority.”
Frankly, I can’t see any Constitutional justification for a federal law requiring an ultrasound before an abortion. Fifty state laws to that effect would suit me just fine, though.
I don’t think most people know the meaning of that word.
I can’t believe anybody but a confirmed leftist would vote for Orman. Just by looking at him and listening to him speak, you can tell he’s a greasy criminal con artist.
Voters should arm themselves with strict scrutiny of a politician like Ross Perot and this guy, who use gimmicks, not substance, to portray themselves as “different” from the other politicians. Wolves in sheep’s clothing.
I think Orman will fade now that he has been forced to take positions. Before, he was a blank slate allowing people to paint him however they like or just as not-Roberts. Now they will see he’s just another Democrat trying to fool people into believing he’s a “moderate.” Every one of the Dems trying to fool people into believing they are not Obamabots voted for Obamacare. Every one.
The “constitutional justification” is one of many necessary responses to the usurpation by Black and White and the Seven Shades of Grey (aka 1973 SCOTUS) of enacting their desire that unborn babies be killed by their mothers hiring paid killer doctors to carry out mom’s temporary whim that the baby must die. But, I bet you knew that already since Roe vs. Wade was handed down over the signature of Herod Blackmun from Mt. Olympus by the nine “gods” of SCOTUS forty-one years ago.
With greatest respect, two wrongs don’t make a right. Roe v. Wade is bad law and should be overturned, but that doesn’t justify more bad law. “The end justifies the means” is a very slippery slope indeed.
Orman ruse is over
I can’t see any Constitutional justification for a federal law requiring an ultrasound before an abortion.
**********************
Shouldn’t be a question at all ,, without an ultrasound the abortionist 1.) doesn’t know what to charge (based on fetal age) and 2.) may miss a tubal/ectopic pregnancy ... all abortions for those reasons should be preceded by an ultrasound already ... If I was an ambulance chaser I’d be looking for those errors...
Hmmm... 64 out of 64 on pro-life issues. I bet there are a lot of Freepers who are not impressed.
Greg Orman is a flaming liberal liar. The ideal candidate for many true blue pure conservative voters here on Free Republic. If he’s elected, they will own him.
If I lived in his state I would still vote for Roberts. I wouldn’t vote for McConnell or Cochran, but I don’t live in those states either. Roberts may be a lot of things, but he’s mostly Conservative on most things. Whether he’s an out of touch, inside the beltway elitist...that will be decided by his constituents, but isn’t in the same category as the other RINOs in this election.
I wouldn’t vote for McConnell or Cochran
__________________________________________________________
The Dem running against Cockroach in MS is Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment, ANTI-Same/Sex Marriage and ANTI-Amnesty.
He is now, perhaps.
But what happens once he crosses the Beltway?
Those are sound medical reasons. They do not, though, reflect a federal or Constitutional interest, since medicine is regulated at the state level.
Assuming that such federal legislation saves one baby per year or per month or per day and that any such legislation is only necessary because of the rank lawlessness of SCOTUS run amok and roughshod over the constitution that they are sworn to uphold, what is the moral justification for failure to act resulting in the preventable death of even ONE innocent?
How would you restrain the ongoing lawlessness of SCOTUS? Shall we just sit down, shut up and allow SCOTUS to destroy innocent babies? Shall we sacrifice THEIR lives on the altar of the Tenth Amendment by our failure to act?
The old saw as to whether "the end justifies the means" requires more than mere repetition. If Lenin justified the killing of innocent Russians because "to have an omelet, one must break eggs," Lenin's goal (his end as it were) was as immoral as his means of killing as many innocents as necessary or convenient to establishing the communist USSR. If he had advocated "liberating" the eggs produced by egg farmers to keep young children and their adults nourished and alive, the means would be immoral but the ends would be moral. If he accepted as a legitimate gift those same eggs from those same farmers and used them to nourish Red Army thugs, keeping up their strength to kill innocents for Lenin to consolidate soviet power: moral means, immoral ends.
If the end does not justify the means,just what the hell does? Specific circumstances require specific analysis. Some means are NEVER justified: abortion of a viable infant for example. Some ends are NEVER justified: abortion of a viable infant for example. Neither proposition is a slippery slope. The slippery slope is sitting around with one's thumb where the sun shineth not and saying: Don't blame me! I submit to SCOTUS on the law and put my morals in trust to do so. OR: Don't blame me! No matter how many innocent people die, I recognize the philosophical purity and abstraction of the Tenth Amendment as ruling over any and all other societal values.
The short answer is that if it’s acceptable to ignore the law for a good reason, it makes it easier to ignore the law for a bad reason. A slightly longer answer is that law is based on precedent, and any precedent set by such a law could and would be used by our enemies. They already routinely pass unconstitutional legislation to suppress us that gets shot down by the USSC because it is unconstitutional. What happens when constitutionality is no longer an issue?
Last, and far from least, there is a very ugly word used when what is lawful depends on the whims of those charged to uphold it. I would rather see the states secede than live under such a government.
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.