Cardinal O’Connor always said that pro-choice IS pro-abortion b/c you support abortion when it is chosen! Rob
P.S Hillary Clinton supports the same socialist schemes as BHO. I don't even muse anymore about how Christians can justify voting for those who support killing the innocent.In 2005, Hillary Clinton gave a speech that stunned the left. It outlined her anti-abortion strategy, which just might have worked if it had any support. I understand why people distrust Clinton’s dedication to ending abortion, because of her voting record in the Senate. I couldn’t find the text of her speech, but this article in Slate does a good job analyzing it from a liberal perspective. slate.com/id/2112712/
Obama signs executive order on abortion funding limitsToday, this dilemma almost NEVER happens. Of those few Democrats who are ostensibly anti-slaughter of pre-born humans, only ONE voted against Obamacare, which enshrines abortion a health “care” right. Bob Casey Jr. of Pa. was totally on board with the Marxist nightmare right from the onset, despite touting himself as pro-life. I suppose that he reveres the miraculous life inside the womb, right until the moment the sharpened scalpel kills it.Palin/Rubio '12! Rob
OLITICSOther than the fact she did then and does now support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.why would anybody not think she wants to end abortion?
An Executive Order is not binding on any future president nor ,as we have found out since the bill was passed is it binding on the states. The easy solution to this was to just pass the Stupak amendment that would have forbidden the use of funds funds for abortion. The fact the Democrats and Barack Obama would not to do this speaks volumes.Obama signs executive order on abortion funding limits
March 24, 2010|By the CNN Wire Staff
President Obama signed an executive order Wednesday ensuring that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion remain in place under the new health care reform law.
Unlike the signing of the health care bill Tuesday – which was conducted under the glare of television cameras – Wednesday’s event was closed to the news media.
It was attended by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and 12 other House Democrats opposed to abortion rights, without whose help the landmark overhaul bill would not have passed, political observers say.
articles.cnn.com/2010-03-24/politics/obama.abortion_1_offer-abortions-abortion-funding-abortion-opponents?_s=PM
OLITICSThe abortion funding statute, contained in the nearly 3000 page train wreck known as Obamacare, overrides Presidential Executive Orders, and the Congressmen knew this, while the general public does not. The "pro-life" Democrats lied to their constituents. The Clintons called such maneuvering "throwing boob bait to the Bubbas". :cool: Rob There was not one word of this during the long '08 campaign. Obviously, someone had persuaded her in '05 to position herself for '08 by talking out of both sides of her mouth on abortion. As you said, Hill's voting record was 100% pro-abortion. :hmmm: RobI believe there are many pro-life democrats who have been marginalized by the party because of the “abortion rights” lobby. I also believe that heavy-handed tactics play right into the “abortion rights” agenda, which is based on perpetuating fear among women that the United States will turn into another Romania. Where do you think I learned about Ceausescu’s Decree 770? It wasn’t from an anti-abortion website!
Yes. Every woman I talk to is paralyzed by fear that we’ll turn into Romania.
Most of the pro-life folks I talk to believe that the women in crisis pregnancies, pressured into having an abortion need healing and counseling and forgiveness. Isn’t the Church a model of compassion with Rachel’s Vineyard? I don’t see how you can look at the way current pro-life people view the women who have abortions and think that they’ll be thrown into jail like hardened criminals. The abortion providers on the other hand would deserve severe penalties, don’t you think?
I am frankly tired of being presented with this framing of the abortion debate as a false choice that says, “either you’re a right winger who is for criminalizing abortion and doesn’t care about women, or you’re a good compassionate liberal like Hillary Clinton who want to really deal with the issue and be compassionate.” This is the message that I’m afraid comes across in this post and many of your others. Is there a lot of truth that conservatives lack compassion? Is compassion measured by how many condoms are handed out at the inner city high school? By how much tax money is spent on programs to supposedly eliminate the conditions that cause women to seek abortions? I would be careful in tossing out blanket characterizations based on your unsubstantiated suppositions - stick to the facts. I know lots of people who are pro-life and vote, who also give substantially to crisis pregnancy centers. I would argue that the pro-life side is the compassionate side.
Maybe you could explain, in light of this supposed radical departure of Hillary Clinton on the abortion issue, why her campaign felt betrayed when NARAL endorsed Obama over Hillary in 2008? They felt as if she deserved the endorsement as she’d been a huge supporter of NARAL up to that point. The Emily’s List folks love her too. Doesn’t quite add up to your airbrushing of her past and holding up her one speech as evidence of her supposed “anti-abortion” strategy. Actions speak louder than words don’t you think? NARAL, you’ll remember are the ones trying to shut down the crisis pregnancy centers that are actually doing the things that the Church exhorts us to do - which is help women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies, give them advice and aid and options which don’t include killing the baby.
The Bishops got it right again when they outlined their Resolution on Abortion. The only way we will succeed is to implement the WHOLE plan, which isn’t just anti-abortion, but PRO-LIFE.
usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml
Peace
You make one false assumption about me after another.:banghead:
So-called pro-life Democrats are marginalized by a party leadership that allows absolutely no dissent on this issue. They are further marginalized by the fact that pro-life Democrats continue to vote in pro-abortion candidates. In spite of the fact they support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand under the guise that other issues are more important.
I suspect things will go back to the way they were before Roe V Wade was imposed… Women were not punished for having an abortion. Rather, the law would exclusively after those who profit most from the action-the abortionist can those who helped them
There you go again claiming this is somehow a woman’s issue… The presence of breasts a uterus does not justify killing one’s child.
Only by those who measure compassion as tolerating evil.
Actually it appears that you’re trying to win this battle by alienating everybody that opposes abortion but does not share your neo-feminist view on how should be done.
Not as hardened criminals, just as criminals. They are the ones who pay the abortionist to do the killing and make him or her accesories to the crime. They deserve incarceration or conviction without jail time just as the abortionist does. Abortion is a serious crime and needs be treated as such - for all involved in it.
Bob, can you seriously not see the alienating tone to your posts?
We’re told he is unelectable, which means those that say that have no intention of voting for him. Instead, they prefer to put forth a candidate to protect other issues they are concerned with and usually a candidate that moderates are uncomfortable to support. Then it becomes other people’s fault that the ‘wrong’ candidate gets elected.
Regarding Hillary Clinton’s speech, I look at what the other side is doing to find arguments that will resonate across the political divide. It may not be a strategy that inspires a revolution, but incremental change in reorienting people towards the pro-life cause is a valid strategy that is supported by the Church.