Well, since you asked.
The main one is the same primary problem I have with virtually all of the presumed candidates, and that is their support for what I would characterize as “and then you can kill the baby” bills such as NRTL’s “fetal pain” legislation.
These bills grant an explicit license in our laws to kill babies, all of the babies, in fact, as long as the murder is done on time and by the rules.
This is immoral, unconstitutional, and destructive of the most important principles upon which the survival of the republic depends.
These lawless laws destroy the concept of the God-given, unalienable, intrinsic nature of the supreme individual right, the right to live, they fly in the face of every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, and they violate the explicit, imperative equal protection requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
I like Senator Cruz on a personal level, and I have no doubt that we agree on many things, but I won’t support any candidate for any office who supports these bills. They’re telling you ahead of time that they will not keep the most important part of their sacred oath.
I’m gonna have to dig in to this a little bit. I must have missed something.
The problem with your position is that you are putting theory ahead of practical effect. Legislation such as fetal pain legislation can pass now and likely survive a court challenge and would save countless babies from abortion right now. However, you are opposing it because you think it undercuts the case for stronger pro-life laws (which you and I would both support) which unfortunately cannot be passed at the moment and would immediately be struck down by the courts. Remember that in England slavery had to be whittled down by legislation before it could be totally banned.
“The main one is the same primary problem I have with virtually all of the presumed candidates, and that is their support for what I would characterize as “and then you can kill the baby” bills such as NRTL’s “fetal pain” legislation.”
The laws you refer to chip away at abortion rights within the realm of Roe. Unless you’re advocating revolution as a cure, it isn’t these laws allowing abortion, it’s Roe.
You opposed HB2 in a Texas on the SAME grounds (the Bill Wendy Davis filibustered) and in part because of that bill, our local abortion clinic shut down.
Praise God, there are no abortions happening in my community any longer. You oppose that.
You would oppose that because conservatives voted for laws that allowed some abortion, not on principle, but to chip away at Roe as much as possible. I can’t fathom your all or nothing approach that would rather see more abortions as preferable to anything but none at all.
The murder clinic in my community was forced to close down in the past year. I don’t give a rat’s crap about your intellectual posturing. IT’S A VICTORY.