Herman Cain, personally pro-life but politically pro-abortion?
UPDATE 1:45p: Herman Cain came on Fox today to attempt damage control. Beginning at 4:12 on the video below Cain unequivocally states he thinks abortion should be illegal, even in the case of rape and incest. If this is true, and I’m taking Cain at his word, I have no clue the point he was trying to make to both Morgan and Stossel…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STouYrf3bvQ[/youtube]
7:48a: Having been burned so many times, pro-lifers distrust pro-life politicians, with few exceptions, almost as much as they distrust pro-abortion politicians.
And once a pro-life politician breaches the trust, either in word or deed, it’s next to impossible to get it back.
And tbat distrust rocks the vote. Ask Rick Santorum.
Of the presidential contenders, Herman Cain was considered a solid pro-lifer. Now he’s not. In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on October 20, Cain started out sounding pro-life and ended up sounding pro-abortion…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8WmqiOiUdc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
As RealClearPolitics reported:
After initially saying that he believed in abortion “under no circumstances,” Cain appeared to change his tune entirely when pressed by Morgan about cases of rape and incest.
“It’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain said. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”
It was unclear whether Cain was referring specifically to cases of rape and incest in calling such a decision a “choice” or whether he was addressing all unwanted pregnancies.
But his comments… left the impression that while he personally opposes abortion, he does not believe it should be made illegal….
Cain released a statement yesterday attempting to clarify what he meant:
“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.”
But Cain’s scripted words don’t match Cain’s unscripted words.
Even if originally attending to confine his comment to the rape/incest exception, Cain still cast a wide net of those he thought should not have a say whether a preborn baby lives or dies: “It’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision…. [n]ot me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family.”
And so, at the very least, Herman Cain is not “100% pro-life.”
Because it is the government’s role, and everybody else in society’s role, to protect all innocent human beings from murder.
CBN’s David Brody was willing to give Cain a break:
My sense here is that Herman Cain is indeed pro-life. This became a problem for him because he’s not a politician and so he isn’t well versed in choosing his words more carefully. He hasn’t really been around the block on these social issues and their ramifications on the national level. The glare of the spotlight can be quite bright and thus he can get tripped up because unlike Santorum and Bachmann who have been in the trenches on the life issue, Cain hasn’t.
I disagree. Way back on July 17, Cain said worse to Fox News’ John Stossel than he did to Piers Morgan…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-sBPBzpmE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Cain and his handlers had three months to get his story straight on the life issue. If you put the two interviews together, I think the picture becomes clear that Cain is “personally” pro-life but politically pro-abortion. There is no other explanation.
Don’t forget that Cain, along with Mitt Romney, refused to sign Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I find it interesting how Cain and others will say that it’s not the government’s role in deciding whether someone should kill another human being. They do it all the time with laws against murder or killing someone in a vehicle accident, etc. The only conclusion one can make is that he values the unborn less than the born. This is one issue that you can’t talk out of both sides or your mouth. You’re either for the killing of the unborn or you’re not. Obviously, he is for it as long as those personally involved think it’s fine.
Cain is representing a contradictory view of his desired role not unlike that of Mario Cuomo or John Kerry. He claims that the innocent life in the womb deserves full recognition as a person but does not merit rights or justice. The rationale of being (personally) opposed to child killing but, as a governing official, not acting upon the same is intellectually dishonest.
He lost my vote.
Great. Just great.
Ok. Who’s next??
This bears repeating
Because it is the government’s role, and everybody else in society’s role, to protect all innocent human beings from murder.
I am still sighing today after hearing the initial Morgan interview with Cain. I feel like I simply cannot trust him when it comes to the life issue, and that saddens me, because I’ve liked everything else about him. I think you said it best, Jill:
” I think the picture becomes clear that Cain is “personally” pro-life but politically pro-abortion. There is no other explanation.”
That is the typical pro-choice view. I’m hoping he can gain my trust back on this issue, but I’m not sure if it’s possible.
I was willing to stick with Cain because I believed he is 100% pro-life. Now, I am not so sure. My gut tells me he doesn’t get it. Personally, I have liked Newt Gingrich all along. He has done extremely well in the debates. I trust that he is 100% pro-life since converting to Catholicism. But can he win the nomination?
I really liked Ron Paul but Ron Paul who claims to be 100% prolife now admits he wants Plan B given to rape victims. I would love for Ron Paul and Herman Cain to look Rebecca Kiessling in the face and tell her its not their job to protect people like her, people conceived in rape.
On facebook Herman Cain posted “I am 100% pro-life. End of story.” um, you wish Mr. Cain. Its not the end of the story. You can’t be anything BUT 100% pro-life because if you allow rape exceptions you are 100% NOT pro-life. How a child is conceived does nothing to affect her humanity. Why is that so hard for these politicians to understand? We need someone with a backbone who stands for what is right even if it makes them unpopular.
I really wonder if he has “Handlers”. As a non-politician conservative, I can understand the arguments against even having “Handlers”. If this message gets to him, I would argue that he needs to spend some quality time debating these topics in a private setting so he can get his verbiage straight.
I believe that he IS pro-life. I also believe that in cases of rape and incest the line can be very much muddied. I also believe that the federal courts are not the place for this to be decided. It really needs to be at the state level. That is where murders are handled.
I know that many would like the issue of Abortion to be resolved at the federal level, because that mandates an attack profile of 1 (as opposed to 51). This is true for both sides of the debate. I would argue that we need to set the normative language at the federal level that there IS NO right to an abortion, and allow the states to handle the details. This is federalism as opposed to tyranny.
Right now I am indifferent to him. I don’t know if Piers Morgan ambushed him or if he is pro life with “Exceptions” which is basically pro choice :|. maybe someone needs to send a copy of Maafa21 to him.
@Maureen – I think he lost LOTS of votes.
The July 17 interview is bizarre! He seemed to genuinely be unable to comprehend and answer the question.
This issue is a deal breaker for me. I have been supporting Mr Cain since before he announced his candidacy. Now, I can not support him any longer.
There is no 100% pro-life candidate. You have to understand that there are moderates in the GOP camp whose votes are up for grabs as well, and in order to win a nomination, a pro-life politician will most likely have to “soften” his or her publicly touted position on abortion.
Look at this in the framework of what so often happens in the pro-life world: incrementalist vs. “purist.” This, to me, is as if we’re saying “I’m not gonna vote for a Presidential candidate who’s not publicly, 100% pro-life, they’re EVIL and against God’s law.” This is what those in the Personhood movement claim against those who believe the pro-life cause can also be advanced through incrementalist laws.
So I guess what I wonder is – if you’re willing to vote for incrementalist laws, are you willing to vote for a Presidential candidate who has an incrementalist approach, or not?
However, I’m not so sure that Herman Cain is “pro-abortion.” As a matter of fact, I believe that’s a totally inaccurate term to assign to him.
I believe he is pro-life in all cases and he does not believe abortion should be legal for anyone – he basically said that in the last video. He does not agree with the exceptions. He made that clear.
Jill, it saddens me that you would jump to this conclusion – especially given that Mr. Cain has actually put his money where his mouth is time and again spending $1M of his own money in ’06 on anti-abortion ad campaigns etc. Anyway, here is a HIS response, I hope that you will now take this information and make an effort to educate you readers as to the TRUTH – Mr Cain is 100% Pro-life and would be a Pro-Life President.
Dear Friends,
The abortion issue is very serious. I believe strongly that this is true, and I believe that you do too.
Because the news media loves to make mountains out of mole hills, I want to be very clear about where I stand on abortion:
I am 100% pro-life, period.
Let me explain. In an interview yesterday with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
If you listen to the line of questioning, it is clear that Mr. Morgan was asking if 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 view on abortion…again, I am pro-life. End of story.
As President, 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.
Friends, please know that I appreciate all of your support. Together, we will put America back on the right track.
Sincerely,
Herman Cain
Laura Ricketts – Herman Cain needs to spend a little time with someone like Scott Klusendorf or Gregg Koukl to solidify his talking points, and fully understand how to articulate the pro-life point of view without disenfranchising both pro-lifers and independents who might be pro-choice, but have higher priorities than the life issue.
If anything, Herman Cain is being educated as to what media can do with selective editing.
Monte: I find it interesting how Cain and others will say that it’s not the government’s role in deciding whether someone should kill another human being. They do it all the time with laws against murder or killing someone in a vehicle accident, etc.
Yes, and sometimes they leave it up to the individual, and sometimes they strongly advocate for the killing, as with some wartime situations. It depends on the circumstances.
Here is my take, Kel. I simply cannot vote for someone who supports something intrinsically evil. Period. I’m not looking for perfection by any means, just not someone who says he/she plans to support or enact something that is evil. That being said, though I do not support incramentalist laws, I do NOT believe that they are intrinsically evil. I think they are bad strategy and that they cause much confusion among teh public (that is all for a different time), but if I was convinced that abortion could end through them, I would support them. So unless a law does somehow (implicitly or explicitly) affirm an evil, it is a question of strategy, which I think people of good will can disagree about. Hence depending on their incrametalist approach… I might… it still is very worrisome, and I need the specifics, but it is a possibility for me.
Doug @ 12:07pm
You must be talking about President Peace Prize….
Chris, I’m not sure what you mean, but that is some sweet alliteration.
It seems to me Mr. Cain is opposed to abortion on demand, that is abortion solely as a woman’s unrestricted choice in any and all situations. It seems too that he is ambiguous about the ‘hard cases’ like rape, incest, threat to mother’s life etc. We must remember that that was the position of former presidents whom we now regard as champions of pro life, like Reagan and Bush. Are we to demand more of Cain than we did of them? That may be a mistake. America is not yet ready for an absolutist position on abortion. I wonder if the other candidates would take such a (absolutist) position. With the exception of Santorum, I doubt any of them would. Cain is probably the best we can get. Don’t overlook another possibility: it is difficult to state one is opposed to abortion in (say) a case where the mother will die if it is not performed, without incurring devastating charges of insensitivity etc from the left which they would exploit ad nauseam. Indeed I believe that is what they were trying to do in those interviews. They have not asked such searching questions of any of the other candidates.
Laura, I most certainly did not jump to conclusions. I evaluated Cain’s CNN comment in its entirety. As I indicated in my piece, his comment was not solely about the presidency. No matter how he tried to later explain his CNN comment, as you posted, for example, it doesn’t jibe with what he actually said.
But IMO the more damning interview was the Stossel interview. Put the two interviews together, and Cain is nothing if not consistent in saying he is personally pro-life but politically pro-abortion.
Herman Cain is correct in saying that he can not reach into a private situation and tell a woman what to do. I see no inconsistency with this statement and his claim that he is pro life. I am confident that he will do exactly what he states (veto legislation, appoint pro life judges, etc.) Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and all abortions were declared illegal, women will still seek out providers of, and continue to have abortions – this is because when the rubber meets the road, at the final moment of decision making, it is the mommies who choose to kill their babies, not the politicians.
It is also not inconsistent with being pro-life/anti abortion to recognize the very limited and very rare need for therapeutic abortions (in the strictest clinical sense of the term), confirmed ectopic pregnancies being one of those rare situations. In cases of rape and incest, Mr. Cain has clearly stated, “no abortions”.
The political arm of ‘pro life’ is vast. Seizing upon Mr. Cain’s inarticulate expression of his pro life stance and ignoring his clarification for political expediency is just not right. Politics notwithstanding, there will always be elective abortions. Glaring evidence that the scourge of abortion on demand is not a political problem, it is a moral problem. No legislation is going to change this fact.
The first interview is confusing. He’s answering the question, “raise that child (the rapist’s) as her own?” with “It’s not up to anyone but that family what they choose to do”. So is that in the sense of “if she aborts or not”, or is he saying “whether she raises him as her own or adopts him out”? If you’re 100% convinced he’s pro-life, then it’s the latter. But if your suspicious, it could be the former.
The problem is he is, unintentionally or not, arguing in common euphemisms for abortion which confuses pro-lifers used to debate with pro-aborts. So does he mean just his words, or what they would mean if he were pro-abort?
The last interview is pretty damning and way more confusing though;
“If a woman is raped she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?”
Cain- “That’s her choice. That is not governments choice. I support life from conception.”
“So abortion should be legal?”
Cain- “No abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.”
So….. what????
From his reply to the Susan B Anthony pledge he appeared to be a very 10th amendment kind of guy, like he would be a thoroughly 10th amendment president. So maybe that’s what he means? Sorta? From an incrementalists stand point moving the abortion decision to the states would be a start because so many states show alot of pro-life tendencies. His statement about the judges shows he understands the Constitution doesn’t protect prenatal murder.
So, though he’s raised some major suspicions…. I’m going to watch and wait for more evidence, less confusing evidence, to make my decision whether to withdraw my support from him. I’ll write him a letter asking about it….
I don’t know how many have voted your pro-life president poll, but for Mitt Romney be far and away the leader shows quite a few people are uneducated in one of his more famous flip-flops. There are quite a few youtube videos on this. Unfortunately, Herman Cain is apparently another politician trying to have it both ways on a life or death issue and treating it nothing more than a political position. How dissappointing.
I think Chris nailed it – Cain is pro-life and he had a hard time in the moment to say it succinctly and well. Learn from others who do that for a living Mr. Cain. If you are truly pro-life, as I believe you are – then making a logical, coherent argument – even when people like Piers Morgan throw in another question before you had time to answer the first one.
One the topic of two topics, I thought that Cain was going to say ‘ having the child and raising the child are two different things, and the family should make it’s decisions on the raising of that child (parenting or adoption)” But he did not do that, and I think that muddied things for a while.
Practice, practice, practice. These things have to be said precisely, or the news media will rip it to shreds, as they did. Precision counts here. Soundbites count and intention counts… ;)
Given that the majority of people support abortion in some, most or all circumstances I can’t see that anyone who resolutely and truthfully claims to be 100% against it in all situations is going to win any political office of real impact.
Just about every policy is incrementalist to some degree. The outcome is never quite what was originally proposed.
Link please, Reality.
YOU are in the minority supporting abortion in any and every circumstance.
http://www.lifenews.com/2008/10/14/nat-4446/
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/24/poll-majority-of-americans-say-theyre-pro-life-on-abortion/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-05-18-abortion_N.htm
Thanks again, Jill. Great analysis.
The links you provided are just fine Carla. They support what I said, just like the stats often provided on this site do.
Bobby Bambino,
how about a incrementalist ban on abortion with exception for rape or incest?
I am not sure about Cain..but I am sure about Rick Santorum. I know him personally and I would swear to the fact that he is the only one I trust to be 100% prolife. Also I would like to add..Bobby..when it comes to rape or incest..a very evil thing we must consider what was it that the innocent child in the womb did that would make it worthy to be dismembered in such a gruesome way as abortion. I know it would be difficult for the mom but there is adoption. I am adopted and my daughter is adopted and her son is also adopted. Also think of the mom’s who gave their lives for their babies..the recent case where the mom with cancer refused chemo in order to save the life of her child. Think again my friend.
“The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.” Learn more by downloading the free Personhood Booklet at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/about-personhood.html
Listen to the entire interview people!!! He says he is for defunding Planned Parenthood and making abortion illegal. Can’t get more pro-lfe than that. I agree I think he needs work on how he shares his thoughts but I think so many are to fast to write him off. As a pro-lifer, sidewalk counselor, and volunteer he still has my vote.
Jill, I agree with you 100%! Having been conceived in rape and targeted for abortion, but legally protected in Michigan at the time I was in utero, Cain’s remarks are personally disappointing. Every time he’s been challenged on the rape issue, he’s failed that challenge and exposed his true views on abortion and the role of the government with this issue. I’m so glad that you, me and Abby Johnson are speaking out on this issue when other pro-life leaders are inexplicably defending Cain. He’s either personally pro-choice, but politically pro-abortion and trying to maintain the pro-life vote, or he is a seriously confused, inarticulate, unintelligible man. Whatever the deal is, those are not good qualities for a President.
Jill, how does this Life News story by Steve Ertelt about Cain fit in with your allegations? Is it possible that you could be mistaken?
Link:
http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/13/nat-2583/
Quote:
“With the balance of power in Congress hanging in the air, a leading African American businessman says black voters in the United States should put their historical pro-life values above political party. That means voting for pro-life candidates rather than supporting Democratic candidates across the board.
Herman Cain is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He is a political commentator and was a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
“More and more African Americans are pro-life,” Cain said in a statement LifeNews.com obtained. “Our message to African Americans is simple — it’s time you vote for candidates who support our values.”
Cain will underscore that message with a $1 million advertising campaign in key states and congressional districts targeting black radio programs and urban radio stations young African Americans enjoy. Some of the ads focus on abortion.”
Watch the interviews again and keep in mind that Mr. Cain is neither a polished politician nor an experienced debater but rather a very literal and matter-of-fact business executive. I’ll admit that the first time that I watched the Stossel interview, I was very tempted to come to the same conclusion that many of you have come to, but I decided to withhold my judgment until after I had watched the clip again. On the second viewing, I came to a different conclusion – one that is more consistent with Mr. Cain’s character. Here’s what I saw:
The clip begins with Mr. Cain stating that he is pro-life from conception. Mr. Stossel then asks whether there are any cases in which abortion should be legal, and Mr. Cain responds by saying that he doesn’t believe that government should make that decision.
Let’s pause there for just a moment and consider exactly what was said during this part of the exchange. Listen to Mr. Stossel’s question again and keep in mind that Mr. Cain is literal almost to a fault. Mr. Stossel did not ask if abortion as a whole should be legal or illegal. He asked if there should be certain exceptions to a complete ban against abortion. Mr. Cain gave the correct answer to that question. The government should not decide to have exceptions to laws against abortion. His answer was a very literal and specific answer to a question that most of us heard in a very general sense.
As we continue the video clip, we hear Mr. Stossel ask if people should be free to abort the baby, at which point Mr. Cain shook his head and reemphasized that people should not be free to get abortions. Mr. Stossel expressed his confusion and asked if the victim of a rape should be allowed to end a pregnancy. Mr. Cain replied that that is her choice not the government’s choice.
Let’s pause again and consider this segment as well. Most of us would consider the two questions in this segment to be equivalent, and I am certain that Mr. Stossel intended for them to be so. However, they actually appear to be very different questions when they are considered literally. The first is a question about freedom which makes it a legal question, but the second is a question about permission which makes it a personal question. When considered in that light, Mr. Cain’s answer to each question is revealed to be correct. No one should ever have the legal freedom to abort a baby, but in America, we have such freedom of choice that we do not have to seek the government’s permission before making a decision. We do have to suffer the consequences of wrong decision that we make, but we do have to ask permission before making that decision.
Believe it or not, this is actually a very important distinction for a politician to be capable of making. The difference between freedom and permission is an important component of American jurisprudence, and discussions of it figured very prominently in several early Supreme Court cases.
Let’s play the video again. Mr. Stossel asks directly if abortion should be legal, and Mr. Cain replies that abortion should not be legal. Mr. Stossel states that he doesn’t understand and that if it is the woman’s choice, then abortion must be legal. Mr. Cain emphatically denied that conclusion, and stated that a woman should not have an abortion even if she is raped because we must protect the sactity of life.
It is obvious from this segment, that Mr. Stossel is completely baffled, but the problem is that he is not considering the literal implication of his own words. In his opinion, passing a law against something is the same thing as denying someone the right to choose to do that thing, but that is not how the American legal system works.
In America, we have an unalienable right to liberty. That means that each individual is free to make his own choices in life whether those choices include obeying the laws and living peacefully or breaking the laws and suffering the penalty. Everyone has the right to choose, and no one is punished for making a choice. The penalty is only applied when someone acts upon the wrong choice.
I realize that this is a very narrow distinction, but it is an important distinction nonetheless. It is the difference between being convicted for robbing a bank and being convicted for deciding to rob a bank.
In the area of abortion, a woman would still have the right to choose to have an abortion even if it were completely banned throughout America. She would have that right because the decision to have an abortion is not the same thing as the actual action of having an abortion. Many women make the decision to have an abortion and then change that decision before going through with the actual act.
At the end of the clip, Mr. Cain made a statement that I’m sure baffled the world when he raised his hand and said “Real clear.” I doubt if anyone watching the show live would have agreed with that comment, but when we examine the conversation literally, we can see that Mr. Cain’s position is not only “real clear” but exactly right as well.
Oofah!
It’s hard to believe Cain could have been so inarticulate. He’s still relatively new to campaigning, but he does have several years as a talk show host under his belt.
Some candidates just have specialized interests, and they neglect other topics. Foreign policy and social issues are just not “his thing”, so he is prone to put his foot in his mouth on non-economic questions.
I believe he is pro-life, but awkwardly holds this issue at arms’ length and tries to put it up on a shelf. It’s not in his comfort zone, and he cllearly has not given it enough thought.
Otherwise he would not have stumbled so badly as to say it’s “their choice” as if he were saying it’s their choice to jump off a bridge or steal a car. I chalk this up to nervousness. Not being ready for primetime. And to being thrown for a loop when the question got personal.
Michael Dukakis made a similar mistake on the topic of rape punishment. I must say, I don’t remember him personally attacking the question.
Bill,
You may well be right. But Mr. Cain has to learn that saying “it’s their choice” is dismissing it as if he were saying: “It’s no skin off my nose!” It makes him sound as unserious as a “personally opposed” politician.
His lack of campaign funds has left him perilously short on advisors.
This is politics, if you want the real deal you need to pay attention and get the facts yourself. If you vote by whatever you hear on the left wing media, well then Cain said exactly what you needed to hear! Why on earth pro-lifers would want to give publicity to the left-wing media and cut down one of their own who is taking the hot-seat to accomplish what the pro-life movement has not been able to in 40 years, is beyond me. If we don’t get Cain elected we don’t have a shot at getting pro-life justices appointed. All the phone calls and faxes and are useless with the current leadership. This isn’t musical chairs, this is politics. If you don’t think it’s fair than you probably don’t know the rules. If you can’t play with the big boys then pick up your skirt and run home. Babies lives are on the line and we need to do whatever it takes. As a woman I’m appalled, I’d like to know what Judith (from the bible) would do with the likes of you.
I understand Jill’s concerns but I agree with Mariangela. This is just what Satan wants… pit prolifer against prolifer so that we are in confusion and not united. And then who are we left with as a presidential candidate? This is politics, not a conclave. We’re never going to have a Pope St. XYZ as a candidate. Heck, even under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church has occasionally chosen a less than holy leader.
We’re not electing him to be a sidewalk counselor but to defund Planned Parenthood (which he says he’ll do), to appoint Constitutionalist judges (which he says he’ll do) and to support prolife legislation (which he says he’ll do). That sounds way better than that other (Mc)Cain I had to vote for.
As I watched the clips it did occur to me that perhaps Cain was separating the “legal” question and the “rape” question because even if abortions are made illegal in the U.S., women still have the “choice” to travel to where they are legal, or seek out an illegal abortion. And because he’s against abortion perhaps he didn’t want to mention the possibilities of how an abortion could still be accomplished.
The primary starts in just about 2 months. It may well be decide within the first 30 days. Romney has plenty of money and organization. If we don’t consolidate on a non-Romney we may end up with him because he will outlast the others.
I am solid pro-life, person at conception. I would rather back Cain now while he is rising than risk yet another non-Romney like Newt to gain sufficient traction, and money to face Romney. I read a inside source that Cain may have raised $5 million in Oct. Although they indicate it “might” be closer to 10. Newt will not have time to raise that kind of money before January 1st. Perry is too badly damaged.
I honestly think Cain is being a rookie. But a non-rookie, experienced politician, solidly pro-life got elected president and appointed a pro-abortion Supreme Court justice, Ronald Reagan. He didn’t do his homework on O’Connor.
Cain doesn’t appear pro-abortion like a democrat (may actually be as pro-life as claimed) and is a much better choice to Romney with an actual shot at the nomination. At this point, its more important to vote against Romney as a block. If we don’t, Romney will win, not out right, but by outlasting everyone else.
I think the odds are at about 70/30 that it will be Romney vs Obama
I could vote for Romney – I mean, not the talking part of Romney, but the way he actually governs (so the flip, not the flop part of him).
Cain was the flavor of the month but has no chance.
A careful, thoughtful, circumspect analysis of Herman Cain’s rhetoric on the abortion issue. We need to look at all the evidence and make careful decisions and statements:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/is-herman-cain-pro-life-does-herman-cain-have-a-pro-life-record/
This post covers:
– An analysis of his comments on CNN
– Cain’s 2011 speech to the NRLC
– Cain’s 1 million dollar donation to pro-life cause
– Cain’s strong opposition to Planned Parenthood
– Cain’s denunciation of Margaret Sanger as a racist
This is a serious discussion which is critical to have. Now is the time to sift and examine, and not to cover over and put a bow on something that raises concerns. I think it’s reprehensible to chastize pro-life leaders who, in good faith, have raised a legitimate issue which was caused by the repeated use of pro-choice rhetoric by a pro-life candidate.
Santorum unfortunately is NOT 100% pro-life. He supported pro-abortion Arlen Specter because the GOP told him to. He put his political party above the lives of unborn children. THAT is not pro-life. I have voted Democrat because they were pro-life and the Republicans were pro-abortion. I will NEVER vote for someone who says abortion is okay. Parties mean nothing to me at the end of the day. Life is the issue that matters most to me. Unfortunately to many politicians its all about votes not what is right.
Just so that everyone sees it, National Right to Life has specifically vouched for Herman Cain’s pro-life credentials.
That article was published on the 21st and has reassured me a great deal on the subject. However, I will be seeing him on the 28th, and if I get the chance, I plan to ask him about exactly this. I’ll let y’all know how it works out.
The way I understood the question was that the interviewer asked him if the president could direct a woman to RAISE her child conceived in rape or incest. Cain said this was a decision the family would have to make. He didn’t say the other option was abortion.
Also the interviewer kept interrupting him before he could answer about the exceptions.
I agree his answer taken out of context sounds very bad. But here is his record.
Herman Cain has given over a million dollars of his own money to encourage blacks to choose life. He also made abortion with NO exceptions the centerpiece of his campaign for Georgia Senate.
I have no idea why he slipped up on this question, but I am sure his position has always been 100 percent pro-life, no exceptions.
Alice,
I’m hoping to speak to Mr. Cain on the 28th as well. Lord willing, I will be able to get my Personhood Booklet into his hands and obtain a promise from him to read it and communicate back with me.
Re: Herman Cain,
I’m one of the most steadfast Personhood advocates here, I didn’t vote for McCain because he wasn’t pro-life, and I’m a huge skeptic of GOP politicians. But I can prove without a doubt that Herman Cain’s statements were not only pro-life, but even consistent with Personhood. He never made a mistake, he never made a misstatement — we just understood his words differently from how he meant them (which is still partly his fault, but still…)
The following points reference this video interview with John Stossel where it seems Cain is contradicting himself over and over, but he’s not if you’re paying attention.
<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uhgi-Ja3HbM” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uhgi-Ja3HbM</a>
When Cain says government shouldn’t make “that decision,” he’s actually agreeing with pro-lifers like myself and Alan Keyes (who wrote a WND article about this) that government has NO AUTHORITY to abrogate the inalienable rights of unborn children to life. Therefore, government shouldn’t be involved in a decision about which they have no authority.
A “decision” assumes they have some standing to decide policy. Cain is saying exactly what we’re saying — these are inalienable rights, which must be guaranteed by the government, but about which the government has no say and no standing to make policy.
Stossel and that other guest were dumbfounded, as was Keyes and the rest of us, because we were so surprised to see someone say on national TV that it’s not up to the government to decide what our rights are — our rights were given by our Creator and cannot be taken away. We understand that, but Stossel doesn’t, so he had no context from which to understand what Cain was saying.
At first glance, it looks like he was contradicting himself, but if so he did so repeatedly and completely, several times. No one does that. In reality, he wasn’t contradicting himself.
When he said, “No, people shouldn’t be just free to abort,” as well as other times when he asserted that abortion should not be legal, period, Cain is expressing a pro-Personhood sentiment.
When he said women have a choice to abort, he’s saying they can choose to break the law. How do we know that’s what he meant?
Because look at the exchange about drugs — mind-altering drugs are already illegal, but when the other guest suggests he and Stossel should have the choice to get high, Cain says they already do. How can that be possible if drugs are illegal? Only if he’s saying they have a choice to break the law.
So I believe Cain’s problem is not one of knowing where he stands on abortion — it’s one of communicating clearly what that stand is, in a way that the general public (and even us!) cannot misunderstand.
I’ll credit Bill Fortenberry of Personhood Alabama for realizing this before I did. His article is also worth reading: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/herman-cain.html