Pro-lifers are going to have a tough time figuring out who to vote for in the primary season. Only the Republicans have pro-life candidates.
Pat Robertson has endorsed pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani. I can't figure that one either, but then again Robertson once claimed credit for telling a hurricane to change course from slamming into his city... too bad for the victims in other towns that took the hit.
The Republican National Coalition for Life sent out an email Sunday with an article attached from Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid that says that Fred Thompson is finished for his poor showing on Meet the Press. Thompson unbelievably repeated a pro-abortion straw man/lie that pro-lifers would send you girls to prison for abortion and then said he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment and said he wouldn't support the pro-life platform before he said he would. I'd say that would finish him off too. But today National Right to Life endorsed him.
Mitt Romney has the endorsement of the senior statesman of the pro-life movement Dr. John Wilke, eminent pro-life attorney James Bopp, leading conservative Paul Weyrich, Fundamentalist Bob Jones and Mary Ann Glendon, the Catholic Harvard Law Professor, Editorial Board Member of First Things, US Ambassador to the Vatican and head of the Pontifical Council on Social Sciences, is an adviser to Romney. Romney opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research and supports a life amendment. Romney ran as a pro-abortion candidate for Senator and Governor of Massachusetts.
Senator Sam Brownback, who dropped out of the presidential race and is the leading pro-life leader in the United States Senate and author of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, is supporting Senator John McCain. McCain has a good abortion voting record but supports embryonic stem cell research and has alienated activists with his free speech limiting campaign finance bill.
Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson has yet to support anyone, but the only person of the big four noted above who seem to have a chance at his support seems to be Romney. We'll see. National Right to Life did not think pro-life Mike Huckaby had a chance to win.
It's going to be a bizarre season. My reaction to the Thompson endorsement makes me think I'm leaning toward Romney. We'll see. I saw him in Sparks last month and he's very charismatic and well spoken. I'm not totally happy with any of the candidates, but pro-lifers were nervous about President Bush too. He turned out to be pro-life. Too bad he's all action and no talk. We'd like to see him use the bully pulpit. We'll see what happens. There are too many pro-lifers in the campaign and I fear that Giuliani will win by default, although his poll numbers are going down.
UPDATE: American Family Association President Don Wildemon is supporting Governor Mike Huckabee.
Click here to see read the discussion between Hugh Hewitt and National Right To Life's David O'Steen on why NRL is supporting Thompson. It's going to be a bizarre campaign. I can see why NRL came out and chose someone. There are too many pro-lifers in the contest spliting the vote and Rudy Giuliani is in danger of winning by this division. That's a no brainer.
My feeling on the angst toward National Right to Life-which is the best of the best along with the Catholic Bishops, is that they are asking us to support a candidate who doesn't have much juice. Really, do you get excited about Fred? But then again, if we all remember, it was hard to get excited about GWB in 2000 because he wouldn't say where he stood. But he wasn't Al Gore.
The other thing is that the candidates aren't that good. NRL is a great group. We use their stuff all the time. I think they are suffering/getting hurt by this because they had to choose someone at this time and the lack of a good candidate to get behind. I think no matter who they chose, choosing someone from this field was going to cause angst. But make no mistake, they had to choose someone right now in hopes of derailing Giuliani.
Talking about Obama and his stand on life issues, I found a partial list of a few measures that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. backs. Not all of them but some of his more egregious opinions:
ReplyDeleteIn 1999 he was the only Illinois State Senator to vote against a bill barring early release for (criminal) sex offenders. Can you believe this and him with 2 young daughters?! What is he THINKING!
He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and he voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.
Also, in 2001, he voted ““present”” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.
Of course, as Don mentions in his post - just as unsettling is his voting record on abortion.
Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.
In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘‘so-called’’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) was sent, Obama prevented it from even getting a hearing. BAIPA, by the way, stated that all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
In 2001, he voted ““present”” on a bill to notify parents when their minor children seek an abortion.
He voted against a cloning ban in 2000, but voted for it in 2001.
In 1997, Obama twice voted ““present”” on an Illinois partial-birth abortion ban.
“For all that he is polished on the surface, his stand on the defenseless seems cold to the core.” (Donna Hope in Associated Content).
Amen to that, Donna.
By the way have you wondered what it means to vote ‘present’ on a bill?
It seems that you need a constitutional majority in Illinois to pass a bill. Its state Senate has 59 members, 30 are required to pass a bill. Thirty, not just a collective majority. This is not the case in the Congress. A plain majority is required: a majority of votes. Voting 'present' means a lot of things depending on the situation. But in effect it means a vote of no.
There can be strategic reasons for voting ‘‘present’’ rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A ‘‘present’’ vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting ‘‘present’’ can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.”
In any case, folks, we get the picture that Obama is like the old farmer listening to a politician speak back in the 30's. Asked what he thought the politician said, the farmer took the straw out of his mouth and replied: 'he ain't sayin'
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people ALL of the time!