New Stanek WND.com column, “Republican pro-life paradigm shift”
Yes, the Republican Party is the pro-life party. But the abortion issue often seems like its red-headed stepchild.
For example, the 1994 House GOP Contract with America, which provided a Republican roadmap out of that decade’s liberal abyss, completely omitted any mention of abortion….
This week I’m happy to report the 2010 House GOP Contract with America is now anticipated to address the abortion issue….
I also wrote last week the pro-life political projectile right now is the tea party. Some disagree, complaining tea partiers don’t necessarily want to spotlight our issue either, because it’s “too divisive.”
But pay attention to the sterling pro-life candidates the tea party is giving us. As John Avlon wrote at The Daily Beast Sept. 20:
But the soothing big-tent implications offered by those who say the GOP should de-emphasize social issues only seem to go one way. There is no concurrent sense of tolerance for candidates with liberal or libertarian social positions. Where are the tea party candidates who are pro-choice?…
MSNBC liberal host Rachel Maddow incredulously pointed out last week that five GOP tea party-backed U.S. Senate candidates are pro-life with no exceptions: Sharron Angle of Nevada, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Christine O’Donnell of Delaware and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
This is huge…. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards understands, hence her frantic email alert Monday calling this development, “not just crazy – truly frightening.”…
And, of course, there is the superfluity of pro-life female candidates, causing many to proclaim this “The Year of the Pro-Life Woman.”…
Continue reading my column today, “Republican pro-life paradigm shift,” at WorldNetDaily.com.
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 respectfully (and I stress ‘respectfully’) disagree that Rand Paul is pro-life. For many weeks at the beginning of his campaign, his position was ‘no’ on a Human Life Amendment and ‘yes’ to his father’s so-called “Sanctity of Life Act” which basically says that, yes, the unborn are persons, but states can allow abortion anyway. It is rightly termed a ‘pro-abortion’ bill and it is still the preferred legislation of Rand Paul. It flies in the face of our Fourteenth Amendment which is an important part of our pro-life plank. Further Rand Paul’s comments on the Fourteenth Amendment on other issues indicate that he still believes what his campaign spokesperson told me from the outset of the primary campaign, that the amendment doesn’t cover anyone but freed slaves and their children, hence it does not cover the unborn.
We should have learned by now about the dangers of calling people “pro-life” when they are clearly pandering. This is how the Stupaks of the world are made. I will be casting a protest vote in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race because neither candidate is pro-life. Unfortunately, Rand Paul and others like him have the power to affect our platform, whereas Jack Conway, his opponent, though pro-abortion, at least would never be able to have any impact on our platform and it’s fourteenth amendment provision. Further, if Rand Paul wins in Kentucky, you can be sure the Campaign for Liberty will run a libertarian in the GOP primary against pro-life Mitch McConnell when he is up for re-election. As a pro-life Kentuckian, I will do my part to make sure that if there is an opponent to McConnell, he will be solidly pro-life.
Unfortunately, the “tea party” is more concerned about right-wing ideological purity than pro-life principle. They’ve ousted many viable pro-life candidates in favor of inexperienced, unknowledgeable, and unelectable morons. John McCain sold his soul and created a monster by picking a clueless oaf like Sarah Palin as a running mate. It’s regrettable that he felt compelled to make this desperate move to placate the talk radio crowd, despite his strong pro-life voting record. In doing so, he alienated many pro-life moderates and independents, handing the presidency to Obama. A similar outcome is likely this November.
I would not call Sarah Palin a “clueless oaf”. I would say that she is very sly about not revealing her actual positions on abortion regarding what she would do as a matter of law. People have it in their heads that her personal life proves she’s pro-life. Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are both well-known as being (or having been, in Kennedy’s case), “personally pro-life” and each a parent of five children. Responsible pro-life voters ask the question, what would you do to END ABORTION, as a matter of LAW? If Palin can’t answer that question with a pro-life answer, she’s no more pro-life than Pelosi and Kennedy.
lisa,
It sounds like you would vote for Stupak if he told you he was for a personhood amendment. You need to use more discernment. Elect conservatives and things will take care of themselves.
I work to elect pro-lifers. That’s who I work to elect, and if any Democrat would end abortion as a matter of law, I would vote for him/her over a Republican who isn’t pro-life. The far right really should learn a bit about the Catholic vote. 54% of Catholics voted for Obama and 44% of Catholics voted for McCain. But here’s the thing — 90% of Catholics voted on issues related to human dignity. The ones who voted for Obama got it wrong….but they at least thought they were voting based on human dignity. No one is elected president without getting at least a majority of the Catholic vote. It’s just a fact. I”m working hard to educate my fellow Catholics on the Left that abortion is more important than other human dignity issues. The far right is not helping me in this goal of mine when they work to undermine the life issues out from under me as I”m trying to pull the Catholic Left to our side on dignity. If you want a conservative President, he has to be pro-life or 90% of Catholics are going to give you a Democrat for President.
I call troll on Huck…
On the topic of pro-choice Tea Party candidates, wasn’t Scott Brown one of the first candidates supported by the Tea Party?
Lisa:
Please don’t cast a “protest” vote in the Kentucky Senate race. We need to elect a Republican Senate. I know it is not the be-all and end-all, but it is the best realistic alternative right now. Protest votes help keep the Democratic Party in power and of course the Democrats are the abortionists’ puppets. A protest vote then can help keep the abortionists in power and keep their killing machine going.
We have to stop making the perfect be the enemy of the good. Someone like Rand Paul, who supports unborn human rights, is much better than his Democratic opponent and can be reasoned with. He may be persuaded to support 14th Amendment rights for unborn children.
It is critical to try to elect a Republican Senate, because if Barack Obama gets to “make” one more “appointment” to the Supreme Court (I don’t think he is a true constitutional and lawful President. but rather a “President”) we will have five militant abortionists on the Court and that will be devastating for the unborn.
Our highest strategic goal should be not to STAND ON PRINCIPLE (as important as that is) but to STOP THE KILLING OF UNBORN CHILDREN.
I’m casting a protest vote in Kentucky’s Senate race because one candidate is pro-abortion and the other is a pathological, megalomaniac liar who would gut our party’s pro-life plank given half a chance….and there are many pro-lifers in Kentucky who understand this reality all too well and who are in agreement with me. I’m protesting in that race as are many other pro-lifers in Kentucky. Jim Demint, who WRONGLY endorsed Rand Paul in the primary, agrees with me at least that principle trumps majority status. Let’s keep the GOP literally Republican, as Abe Lincoln intended, and preserve our fourteenth Amendment. Paul people hate Abe Lincoln. They call him a “war criminal”. I am making a principled protest as a dignity-loving Abe Lincoln Republican pro-lifer.
Lisa, while your protest vote might help you feel as though you kept your principles, the fact remains that either Paul or Conway is going to win. The time to make a statement was before the primaries, which I’m sure you did. Conway could win because people who saw Paul as the lesser of two evils (even the slightly lesser of two evils) refused to vote for either candidate, and then what are you going to have? The greater of two evils. “Protest voting” isn’t going to keep both Paul and Conway out of office at this point.
Marauder, you’re operating on the failing presumption that one is better than the other. Neither of these men is pro-life and one can impact our platform. It’s an easy decision.
Control of the Senate is VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT than the meaningless platform (which Rand Paul will not control and he probably does not want to change it anyway).
Your casting a protest vote will not help the unborn in any way.
Ask NARAL and Emily’s List if they would like to see Rand Paul defeated and the Senate remain in Democratic hands. They will say “YES!” and “Thank you, protest voters”, for keeping the Senate Judiciary Committee firmly in the hands of the abortionists.
Not according to Jim Demint. He’s right that principles trump majority status every time. I”ve given my argument and, believe me, I’m sleeping good at night knowing I’m doing what’s BEST for the pro-life movement. I don’t care about other issues. I couldn’t care less. If anyone thinks we can solve the greed problem without addressing the murder problem first, they are part of the problem, as far as I’m concerned.
I’m sorry but the “Tea Party” are just over-reactionist crazy people. Just look at their candidates, half of them are not even educated let alone qualified. Most have no idea how our government even works. I mean the physical mechanics of governance seem to escape them completely. They are endorsed by a half-term governor/weather girl/beauty pageant contestant from Alaska…. I mean Alaska… LOL
The Tea Party is the political party for uneducated scared white people. Who are they trying to take the country back from?… the other half of its citizens? Someone needs to explain to them how democracy and our constitution work beyond a grade school level.
You don’t like your town’s mayor so you hire the town idiot to do his job instead?
Tis the season for Republican candidates everywhere to talk about their love of babies and goals of getting rid of abortion. They just can’t wait to see pro-lifers line up at the polls so that they can win and get back to normal life – making strong ties with people with lots of money and forgetting about all the promises made during the campaign trail.
Republicans would be better off losing races – they are at their strongest when they are in the minority. What do you call Republicans when they hold a majority? Democrats.
Yup – and there you go. CNN has the GOP ‘pledge to America’ – which only mentions that people shouldn’t have to pay for abortions. 21 pages – nothing about banning abortion, working to ban abortion, limiting abortion, or anything else close. Maybe there will be a revised copy coming tomorrow…we’ll see.
I’m a bit more hopeful than Ex-GOP Voter above, but pretty much in agreement with both those comments.
Lisa,
Sarah Palin has been touring the country all year as a guest speaker at pro-life events and giving all the funds raised from ticket sales to these pro-life organizations that host her. And you question her dedication. Snap out of it girl. Do you remember the buyers remorse for the people of Michigan who put their trust in a Democratic politician named Stupak who sold the pro-life cause out in exchange for government funds for his town? I do not have to doubt Sarah Palin’s pro-life convictions cause she has proven herself by donating her time and energies to the pro-life cause. She has walked the walk for women and their babies. That should be a much more reliable guage of a person’s pro-life convictions then what a politician says they will do or what a party puts on their platform. Don’t get fooled again. How many crisis pregnancy centers have you ever known that were organized and funded by Democrats? I know of NONE. I pray in Jesus’ name that the Holy Spirit guides you.
RINO asked, “What do you call Republicans when they hold a majority?”
Answer - “a turniquet”
And RINO, Bush guaged his position on the wars according to what was best for America and for the troops. Have you heard anything about the new book Bob Woodward put out today on Obama and how he came to his policy position on the Afghan war? Obama told Woodward and all his advisors that the reason Obama insisted on an exit strategy from Afghanistan within two years was so he wouldn’t lose all the Democratic votes That is a new low even for a Democrat.
And when his advisors told him that his plan would leave a power vaccuum in Afghanistan and the vaccuum would be filled by our enemies he said that is ok, America could absorb another terrorist attack and we would be fine.
truthseeker, when Sarah Palin was serving on the Wasilla City Council, I was serving on the legislative committee of Ky Right to Life. I’ve been doing this a long time, see? It’s nothing personal against Sarah Palin as a human being. I would trust her with watching my own children, but I’m not talking about voting for one’s favorite neighbor or baby-sitter here. I’m talking about the office of President of the United States. Her positions on abortion are not at all in keeping with our party’s pro-life plank and its call for a Human Life Amendment and legislation which recognizes that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the unborn.
I plan on writing about this more today on my blog, if possible.
truthseeker, one more thing. Do you know what a RINO is? It’s someone who does not defend the traditional and founding principles of the Republican Party or our party platform. In other words, Sarah Palin is a RINO.
I’ll take one Sarah Palin who actively “lives” pro-life then two who talk the personhood amendment and go about their lives without actually spending their days helping women to be able to choose life.
Lisa, tell me exactly what parts of the Republican party platform you think Sarah Palin does not defend? Or is your GOP litmus test based solely upon a personhood amendment? Do you base your opinion on votes she has cast in the past or upon something she said? Cause judging by the way she lives her life I don’t think you would lose her vote if ipersonhood ever came up and she had a chance to actually support it.
Lisa, tell me why Sarah Sarah Palin chose to life for her baby with Downs Syndrome if she did not believe said baby was a person? Can’t you see the disconnect in your logic?
“Red-headed stepchild”? I was hoping people were over using that phrase. Since I AM one….OUCH!
Is Sarah Palin Pro-Life? <— Kinda tired of talking to Palin supporters individually, so here’s an answer easily accessible to all of you.
So where is the breaking news on this site that the GOP doesn’t care much about abortion again – the “pledge” is out, and for all the lacking details, one of interest seems like it would be the lack of abortion talk (at least after pro-life sites said there would be some abortion talk).
I bet everyone is mad enough to rush off and vote for the same GOP again this fall!
Yawn.
Not me. I’m voting only for candidates I know I can count on. Do good research folks!
RINO and Lisa – it will take several election cycles to accomplish all of our goals. Cutting government spending (including defunding Planned Parenthood and returning all the unused Stimulus and TARP funds to pay down the debt) and repealing obamacare and making any new bills pass constitutional muster before they are made into law is a great start and a lot to do in the next two years. This is just the first wave of the coming monsoon. Democrats have shown there arraogance and lack of respect for the will of the people and they are going to be still be getting punished in 2012 and beyond. You can hop on the wave then but you will only be slowing the process towards successful implementation of our pro-life platform if you wait to join in.
And Lisa, thank you for all your pro-life work. You remind me of Sarah Palin in the work you have done going around the country supporting pro-life organizations and you also remind me of the people I have been in contact with from Colorado’s personhood movement. They vote against any legislation that restricts abortion cause for them it is personhood or nothing. Their thinking is that to vote against say government funding of abortion is wrong because it insinuates that non-government funding of abortion is ok. You may want to look them up cause they seem very like-minded to your way of approaching pro-life activism. God bless you in your efforts to protect the unborn.
btw Lisa- if Sarah Palin ran for president as the Republican nominee I trust you would not vote against her if doing so meant Obama remaining president and selecting more people to the SCOTUS. Cause if you did then you would be working direclty against any personhood amendment being implented as law.
Pamela,
Here’s to the red-headed stepchild. And Erin go Bragh!
truth – that is a super interesting view to me. So you are okay with abortion taking the back burner for many years so that we can more quickly recover some funds and dial back health care coverage? So you are fine with abortion being number 5-10 on the list of priorities?
I just wouldn’t have guessed that.
GOP just said “nope, you aren’t a priority”, and the most passionate pro-life people are saying “good for you, that is fine – come back to us another decade!”
Wow.
truthseeker, here’s some truth for you. There are COUNTLESS WAYS to be involved in politics apart from voting. I do plenty of screaming about taxpayer funding of abortion, believe me. But the only way a candidate is going to earn my vote is by being a strong supporter of a Human Life Amendment and our Fourteenth Amendment. Candidates need to know there are people out here who are not going to vote for them if all they’re promising is to stop subsidizing it. They won’t get me vote if they’re not interested in banning it. Period.
Perhaps you think it’s okay to vote for a candidate who is a megalomaniacal, pathological liar who panders to the pro-lifers but supports a pro-abortion bill, because he has an “R” after his name and promises to cut spending……but that’s not a pro-life vote and never will be a pro-life vote.
I’m casting a protest vote in Kentucky’s Senate race. I’m voting Republican in all other races…and btw, Louisville pro-lifers, you need to get behind Todd Lally NOW. Perhaps Fox News should have listened to those of us who said PRO-LIFE Trey Grayson would be a stronger candidate before they told Kentuckians to vote for Rand Paul. Kentucky is now a toss-up according to Cook Political Report. Some of us are not okay with candidates who pander on the abortion issue (Rand Paul), candidates who are apologists for Islam (Rand Paul), candidates who think North Korea is aggressive because we send them food (Rand Paul), candidates who put WIC funding on the chopping block (Rand Paul), candidates who think store owners have a Constitutional right to hang up a “whites only” sign (Rand Paul). For Pete’s sake, how hard is this?? At the same time, Jack Conway is okay with the “death” part of the PARTY OF DEATH. Protest vote!
RINO,
I am not ok with “waiting to overturn Roe V Wade”. I just understand that the Roe V Wade problem will not be fixed in one election cycle and in order for it to be fixed pro-life people will need continue to do what we can in each election cycle. 2010 is just a first step, and a necessary step towards that goal.
truthseeker, do you know what anchor babies and unborn babies have in common in our Constitution?
They are both endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Good for you. And they are both protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The reason they are both protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is because the Republican Party, which created the Fourteenth Amendment, places human dignity above property rights and states rights. Slaves were “property” in the Confederacy and the Confederate states claimed “states rights” over human dignity……hence the Civil War was fought. Now, today’s confederates fight for property rights and “states rights” over human dignity. If you are a GENUINE REPUBLICAN…..you know that human dignity should never be placed over property rights and so-called “state rights”. I say so-called because states do not have “rights”. ONLY PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS. States have “powers” …. and the Fourteenth Amendment limits state powers over the rights of human beings. That’s what a REAL Republican stands for. Real Republicans of today include Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Those who want to alter the Fourteenth Amendment are placing property rights and “states rights” over the rights of human beings. Real Republicans are being drowned about by the RON PAUL/SARAH PALIN movement which is, admittedly, stronger than than genuine dignity-loving Republicans. I don’t care if I’m the last one of us breathing, I’ll defend our Republican Party’s foundational principles til the day I die.
The above comment of mine also explains why genuine Republicans do not hold to abortion being a matter for the states. That’s a confederate position! States don’t have rights. PEOPLE have rights. We must work for a federal end to abortion as Republicans and not let others take over our great party and change its core values on human dignity for political expediency.
I understand what you are are saying Lisa. And thank you for pointing that out to me. To overturn Roe by giving the states the right to pass laws legalizing abortion instead would be unconstitutional. That would also mean it would be prohibited by the Republican party’s new Agreement with America.
Should have said that the Republican party’s new ‘Pledge to America’ would prohibit overturn Roe by giving the states the right to pass laws legalizing abortion instead because it does not pass constitutional muster.
I looked at the Pledge only enough to realize it’s silent on these principles.
This is from pledge:
We will adhere to the Constitution and require every
bill to cite its specific Constitutional Authority
The problem with that is that, as with the Bible, not everyone interprets the Constitution the same way. Rand Paul’s campaign spokesperson told me at the beginning of his campaign (before he started pandering to various groups) that he believes the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to free slaves and their children. In other words, Rand Paul believes a state has the right to take away your freedoms. Sarah Palin, likewise, believes states have absolute power on the abortion issue. This is not a Republican view of the Constitution. People have different interpretations of the Constitution. Would you buy a house from anyone based on a written pledge from the owner that the house is good? Or wouldn’t you prefer to get a good look at the house before buying? Everyone should ignore this pledge for the most part and look at their individual candidates. Do research as if your own life depends on it…..because it just might.
Let’s say you’re not that worried about abortion. Maybe your issue is gun rights. Are you okay with states having the power to take away your God-given right to own a gun? I’d say not….and you can thank the Fourteenth Amendment that it won’t happen. See the Supreme Court’s recent decision McDonald v. Chicago wherein the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment enjoins on the states that they must apply the Bill of Rights for all of their citizens. No state may ban guns because the FEDERAL bill of rights is enjoined on them …..BUT ONLY thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment. Remove the Fourteenth Amendment and guess what. You can lose your right to own a gun if your state legislature passes a statewide gun ban.
It’s not enough to say “we support the Constitution”. You have to know what the heck you’re talking about when you say that. The Paul interpretation would not protect your right to own a gun……or start a newspaper….or do any of the things the federal Bill of Rights guarantees the federal govt must abide by.
I have heard Sarah Palin state that Roe V Wade should be overturned because abortion law should be a decision made by the states. This was a McCain position that I heard her espouse during the 2008 camaign.
It is true that the Bible is open to interpretation but I still have not found anybody (including the most mind-bending of liberals) that can find a Bible passage to support a pro-abort position.
“Overturning Roe” is another example of knowing what one is talking about when they say they want Roe overturned. Sarah Palin and I both want Roe overturned…..but her preferred decision is not the Republican vision and mine is. Allow me to explain.
In Roe, it was noted that if the unborn child is deemed to be a “person” then the child is automatically protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, thus abortion would necessarily be banned nationwide. Watch this VERY SHORT VIDEO with actual audio from the Court proving my point. When I say “I want Roe overturned”, I mean that I want the Court to note that the child is a person protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
As you noted, Palin says she wants Roe overturned, but she wants the decision to be that the matter is left to the states as it was before the Roe decision. That is not the Republican view.
The Republicans are responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment but it wasnt’ enough for the amendment to become law for America to automatically understand and defend human dignity. For instance, it took Rosa Parks action on the bus to cause a challenge to bring about civil rights for blacks. The law is the law, but America is not following the law yet. We have to work FOR the human dignity which Republicans have always stood for. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican and here is why he was. We need to make a stand for the real Republican values of human dignity or we will devolve into a sort of confederacy, a rebellion, as before the Civil War. In this age of creeping Sharia, it’s never been more important to uphold human dignity over other issues.
Both McCain and Palin have also stated publicly that they believe life begins at conception. I have very little doubt that Palin would NOT fight against personhood. Her stance probably came more from the perspective of wanting to use the states as a tool to protect the unborn from a federal government who had already written abortion into law. That position does not preclude Sarah or any other pro-life person from supporting personhood for the unborn.
Lisa, have you spent any time thinking through the implications of personhood for the unborn? I have always said that if it becomes the law of the land then any abortionist would get time in jail for murder and the mother would be sentenced to mandatory counseling comparable to what we would give to a suicidal person.
When the slaves were freed, many of them had nowhere to go. I remember listening to an interview with an old black woman that was done back in the twenties. She had been a slave. She said “It was like they’d let out cattle.” Many slavemasters just set their slaves out “like cattle”…..with nothing but the clothes on their backs and sometimes not even clothes. Can you imagine what that would be like? There were many negative consequences to the freeing of the slaves…..far more than I can even name here, let alone describe….but who would now argue that it was the wrong thing to do? Do you not understand the gravity of your positions? The cost in human life and to the soul of our country? We may not do evil so that good may come of it. We may not allow slavery in order to save some who would be set out like cattle, naked and with no hope, but only to taste of freedom. We may not allow abortion in order to prevent the jailing of some who defy the law.
In regard to your statement about Palin, everything she has done in regard to the LAW has been the opposite of what you suggest. Do you think that perhaps this is why she wasn’t endorsed by Alaska Right to Life rather than the excuse she gave in her book?
Lisa, you do your arguments a disfavor when you use phrases like “everything she has done”. Put out the evidence. What specifically is it that you are referring to that Palin has done in relation to the law that has been so negative to the pro-life cause?
Lisa,
You completely avoided answering my question about wether or not you have given any thought to the implications of personhood. From your response you seem to be saying that you really have not given this any thought and the reason you haven’t is because you are willing to dismiss the repercussions to pregnant women due to the gravity of the evil being perpertrated by abortion. I realize as much or more than you do the evil of abortion. But I also understand the evil for all of society (born and unborn) if we give the government control of our bodies. We have a responsibility to look at these repercussions prior to passing any law.
Of course I’ve given thought to the implications, but it is true that the ends do not justify the means. The Left believes the end justifies the means. That is how the Left operates. Believing that the ends justifies the means is what leads to gulags and concentration camps. If you study Marxism, you will understand that. Islam also teaches that the ends (Muslim domination) justifies the means (slaughtering the infidel). I know of no Christian denomination that teaches it is okay to allow evil to do some other “good”. We Christians stand quite alone in that belief. So if you want to make the argument, go ahead. It’s your right to state that argument, but it’s not a Christian one. Are you comfortable with saying we should allow abortion to continue because if we do not, some women and doctors will be jailed for breaking the law? Is that your position? Perhaps you should join the Democratic Party where so many believe we should open up the prisons and release them all because jail itself is ‘unjust’.
Regarding Palin, we are referring to the law here, and you say you believe that Palin would support personhood. What do you base that on? Her record on the law shows otherwise. She has not endorsed any of the personhood initiatives and has plainly stated that she is for states deciding the abortion issue. She’s not at all what you are characterizing her to be and her record shows that. You want me to believe she would support personhood while you argue against it yourself. If you believe she would support personhood and it’s such a horrid thing to you, apparently, then why are you here giving her defense of a sort in this argument?
Your arguments lack clarity, are opposed to the foundational principles of the Republican Party, misstate Palin’s clear record in an attempt to defend her, are in keeping with the agendas of the Left and are anti-Christian in nature. I’m not sure who you are, actually. Could you clarify for us all?
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock…. time ticks away and still no answer to a direct question. What specifically is it that you are referring to that Palin has done in relation to the law that has been so negative to the pro-life cause? Is it her lack of voting for personhood or did she vote spefically against personhood? Please be specific as to any vote and include the date it took place.
thanks for the discussion. I am going to pray with my children now. I look forward to your specifics about Palin.
There are three wings of pro-life activism:
Education: Palin has been supportive
Outreach: Palin has been supportive
Legislation: Palin is not supportive
Being pro-life is supporting all of these. We each have different gifts. Some of us are involved in education, some in outreach, some in legislation, but even if we are active in one area, the pro-life movement in America supports the other two branches motivations and work in every way they can. Palin does not.
I. Palin supports the abortifacient morning after pill, CBS Evening News interview with John McCain and Sarah Palin
II. From among two choices for Supreme Court, chose a Planned Parenthood board member over one who opposed her environmental policy, Anchorage Daily News; This is where her glowing announcement originally appeared, but then it was scrubbed from SarahPAC, but it was saved by a pro-lifer (.pdf file here) for posterity. For the record, I defended her on that decision because of the fact that she would have had to resign in order to avoid the appointment, but when she later resigned over something far less serious than child murder, I was troubled. Why not resign over the Supreme Court appointment instead? I was wrong for defending her on that back then. If two known child molesters’ names had been given to her, would she have appointed one of them? Or resigned in protest? Conservatives silent about Palin’s decision attacked Governor Blunt when he appointed a liberal judge under the same rules in Missouri. Why does Palin get a pass and not Blunt?
III. Palin on Roe v Wade: Palin would take no position as governor but says it would be “up to the people” whether or not abortion would be banned in Alaska if Roe sent the issue to the states. She was responding to a question asking “should” it be banned, not “how” it should be banned. Despite what she said about the people deciding in regard to abortion, when the people voted against same-sex marriage benefits, Palin vetoed the law.
IV. As noted, she has not endorsed any state personhood initiative.
V. In a Facebook note regarding her selection of Judge Christen, Palin claimed that she is pro-life from”cradle to grave”. Babies must first be born before they can be in a cradle.
VI. Palin only opposes use of taxpayer funds for “elective” abortions, On the Issues, but most abortions in America and abroad are considered to be “therapeutic” abortions (not “elective”) since an abortionist can refer to an abortion as “therapeutic” using such criteria as “mental stress” which would occur in any crisis pregnancy situation. In other words, according to her officially known position, she would not oppose taxpayer funding of most abortions that are performed in America today.
VII. May have “Gone Rogue” on whether or not to pull out of Michigan, but caved in and endorsed McCain’s support for embryonic stem cell research. Washington Post
VIII. Palin respects “people’s opinion on this” regarding supporting abortion in cases of rape, CBS interview, but no word yet on whether or not she “respects the opinion” of those who burn and maim born children.
IX. Palin has endorsed Rand Paul who began his campaign with the same “states rights” position of his father which is closer to Sarah Palin’s known position than the Republican platform.
Note: Not only the Fourteenth Amendment but also the Fifth Amendment protects the right to life of the innocent.
That took some work but there’s plenty to prove that Sarah Palin is not pro-life. No time to proof-read so I hope there are no typos.
Lisa,
you do have some noteworthy things to say about Palin but you should resist your tendency to ‘stretch’ the truth. For instance, I. you could say that she does not think abotificients should be illegal, but it is dishonest when you say she SUPPORTS abortificients. II. She nominated a FORMER (13 years prior) board member to the Alaskan Supreme Court, I do not have any biography on the nominee so I do not know if she had a change of heart regarding PP somewhere along the way. III. She believes that the law of the land regarding abortion should be left up to the people and that as a person in high government office she would not ban abortion against the will of the people. IV. Kinda goes along with #3 cause if she were to understand that a baby in the womb is deemed a person by the 14th amendment then she would (or at least should) be willing to ban abortion unless our constitution were to be amended. V. A baby’s first cradle is his mother’s womb.
VI. You are correct about the word “elective” being vague but I have a good idea it don’t think ’mental stress’ would qualify in Palin’s opinion. VII. I looked at the article and I did not see any mention of Palin supporting stem cell research…in fact it stated just the opposite. VIII. Like Sarah, I respect peoples opinion on this rape issue also. I understand that they have been put in this position by brutal force and in these cases of rape the women never had a choice. Constitutionally that may give these mother protections that would not necessarily be afforded to the ones that get pregnant through consentual sex. I am not a constitutional expert but don’t we all have a constitutional right to self-determination? IX. I have not followed Rand Paul closely but I just looked at his Wikipedia and it says that he support a Human Life amendment which in effect would overturn Roe and take the issue off the table for the states also and effectively ban abortion. And since Sarah supports him doesn’t that mean she would also support a Human Life amendment?
Thanks for taking the time to respond Lisa. I wanted to let you know that I find it odd that Sarah has no record of support for any personhood amendments.
And for nominating a PP board member to any position of government authority due to her pro-contraceptive mentality; well Palin definitely has some splainin to do there.
truthseeker, I think that the people who generally read this blog who vote on these issues understand my points pretty clearly. I also think they can all see from your comments that you aren’t a pro-lifer yourself because of some arguments you give that are pro-abort talking points.
If someone says they are not opposed to the morning after pill, this means they support it. You’re either opposed to it or you support it. How hard is that?
How do you think a former board member of Planned Parenthood is going to decide abortion cases? As a pro-abortion judge, of course.
She said she was for the will of the people but vetoed the will of the people when they voted against benefits for same-sex marriage couples. In other words, she’s only for the will of the people when she agrees with the will of the people. When she doesn’t agree with their will, out comes the veto pen.
Palin didn’t make such a statement about “cradle”. The term “cradle to grave” is a liberal Democrat term for their social programs. They support taking care of people from “cradle to grave”, but certainly not in the womb. If she meant something different from what it has always meant in our political discourse, she should have said so.
Pro-lifers who are educated on abortion know that doctors constantly classify abortions as “therapeutic” (not elective) for reasons such as “mental stress” and they are able to do it because the Roe court used the very broad term “health” in stating when abortions could be performed in the third trimester. “Health” means anything at all that could even remotely be considered “health” including “mental stress” which is why there are abortionists in America who are able to perform abortions in the third trimester for almost any reason even though a layman reading Roe might thing they’re somehow limited in the third trimester. This same broad use of the term “health” helps abortionists to get taxpayer funding for almost any abortion they perform, because they can call virtually any abortion “therapeutic” under this broad definition. So when Palin says she’s against taxpayer funding of “elective” abortions, she’s still supporting the funding for the vast majority of abortions in America. Whether she has one clue what she’s talking about, I don’t know, but that’s reality.
On stem cell research, I don’t think you read the article. Read the article, not the headline. Palin came on board with McCain’s position on that, but went “rogue” on other things and she wants to be seen as being one who will stand up against “the machine” whenever it’s “the right thing to do”…..but she came right on board with embryonic stem cell research. She was not willing to “go rogue” on that issue, whereas I certainly would have….because I’m pro-life.
On “respecting people’s opinions”, do you “respect the opinions” of those who say that a child is dependent on his mother until the age of four and, therefore, the mother has the right to kill the child until then? Would any of our great statesmen of old have “respected” such an opinion? There is leadership and there is capitulation. Palin’s record on this has been one of constant capitulation.
As for Rand Paul, his preferred legislation is the legislation his father authored. It is called “the Sanctity of Life Act”. It defines the unborn child as a “person” from the moment of “conception” and allows that states may allow abortion. In other words, “Yes, it’s a person, and states may allow this person to be murdered”. That is pro-abortion, not pro-life, to say that innocent “persons” may be legitimately murdered if any state legislature deems it’s okay. This speaks to my earlier point, that genuine Republicans do not believe states have power over people’s lives. The Pauls both believe in “states rights” so strongly, they’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water and put “states rights” before the rights of the people. As I said earlier, states don’t have “rights”, they have “powers”. PEOPLE have rights. It is opposed to human dignity to have a so-called “sanctity of life act” which says “Yes this is a person and states may allow abortion anyway”.
Dr. Alan Keyes has written well on this:
According to the principles of the US Constitution, people institute government (at any level) in order to secure the unalienable rights given to each person by the Creator, God. It is therefore not legitimate (lawful) for government at any level to use its delegated powers to destroy the security of those rights. The term “limited government” refers in the first instance to this just limit on the use of government power. It makes no sense for politicians to proclaim themselves to be staunch advocates of limited government, but then espouse a position that rejects the premise of limited government when it comes to perhaps the most vital and dangerous power of government, the power to decide who should be put to death. Yet this is exactly what Palin, Rand Paul and other “pro-choice for states” politicians are doing.
What I have found in my dealing with Palin supporters is that 90% don’t bother to research the law, her positions, and their implications in regard to abortion. They are more interested in whether or not Bristol made the cut on Dancing with the Stars than they are in discussing the unborn and the laws of our country in relation to the unborn.
Thank You, Thank You, Lisa for this eye-opening information.
I was a Palin supporter but ASSUMED (I know, I know) she really was prolife.
Thank You, Thank You, Lisa for this eye-opening information.
I was a Palin supporter but ASSUMED (I know, I know) she really was prolife.
I haven’t unsubscribed to this because the debate has been so interesting – thank you folks for that.
Can’t we just assume though that Palin is making good money now, which interests her the most, and she’s never going to run anyways? So who cares about her views? Furthermore, if she ran she’d never be elected – her negativity ratings typically read higher even than Hillary, and quite frankly, and I’m saying this as nicely as I can – the lady is dumb as a box of rocks, so thinking she could get through an election season of events that are often times not highly planned and handled (everything she does not is massively controlled) without looking like she’s dumb as a box of rocks – it just isn’t going to happen.
Palin high the jackpot. Unknown – into a ticket where she crashes the nominee – comes out mostly unscathed and now can literally make millions a year in events that make her look good. She’s living the American dream…why give that up?
I can get behind Mike Huckabee or Mike Pence at this point. I’m not sure of anyone else but there may be some others willing to take a stand for Republican principles. Any of them, at this point, would be able to earn my vote.
“If someone says they are not opposed to the morning after pill, this means they support it. You’re either opposed to it or you support it. How hard is that?”
Lisa, I am not opposed to a person’s right to get divorced and remarried. But I do not support people getting divorced and remarried and would never encourage it. It is really not difficult a concept to grasp. Think about from your own point of view and maybe it will make it easier for you to comprehend. Isn’t there anything in life that you would not do personally but you would support other people in their right to do it?
“ I also think they can all see from your comments that you aren’t a pro-lifer yourself because of some arguments you give that are pro-abort talking points.”
lol.. lets see here. I volunteer my time for CPC’s. I vote for pro-life candidates. In protest outside Planned Parenthood. I pray for America to outlaw abortion. Hmmm…. are you always that poor a judge of character or do you just like to rant?
“Of course I’ve given thought to the implications”
Then tell me SPECIFICALLY what you would have the government do to insure pregnant women do not hurt their babies?
Why do you ‘support’ government taking control of the care of our children in the womb? Logically would you not extend your support to the government being in charge of our children outside the womb too? I am opposed to taking away a mother’s right to make decisions what is best for her child and giving those rights to the government instead.
“I’m saying this as nicely as I can – the lady is dumb as a box of rocks”
But a bag of rocks is smarter that any Democrat.
I’m not interested in having a discussion on this with someone who is obviously using pro-abortion talking points while claiming to be pro-life.
Lisa, at times I was playing Devil’s advocate but I was genuinely interested in your answers and how far you had thought this through. I am a lot closer to your point of view then you think but I don’t often back own when somebody comes at me looking for a fight.
I explained at length that I have thought it through. There are things that are objectively evil and things that are not objectively evil. Abortion is objectively evil. Jailing someone for participating in abortion is not objectively evil. I explained about the very negative consequences which occurred when the slaves were freed and why it was still important that they be freed despite those negative consequences. I explained that it is a Leftist (Marxist) view to claim that “good ends” are enough to justify evil means….and that this is opposed to Christianity. If you wish to disagree, that’s your right, but to suggest that I have not thought it through when I explained that I have and that it is a moot point morally speaking is disingenuous on your part.
How about a pregnant woman who doesn’t go on bed rest when the government says she should and she suffers a miscarriage? You may think it is a moot point but to give government control of our children at any stage of their life would open a Pandora’s box of objectively evil consequences upon the family as God intended it to be. And when you are willing to perpetrate said evil for the greater good of ending abortion then according to your own logic it is your position that would be anti-Christian.
That is not direct murder. It’s an apples/oranges argument. Direct killing is always inherently evil and the scenario you offer is not an intended abortion. So yes, it is a moot point.
To go even further to demonstrate my point, removal of an ectopic pregnancy is also not direct killing because the intention is to save the mother’s life, not to kill a child. It is when someone has the intention to directly kill that we are referring to in an abortion ban. This is not rocket science.
The position you describe is straight from a Catholic moralistic teaching so you are right that there is no rocket science in that. I hear Catechists describe those same parameters and exceptions when the death of a child is acceptable and I agree with those positions from a moralistic standpoint. But who is to say that the government would make their law according to Catholic teaching? And it is also likely that if you give government that authority over your womb today, even if they made today’s law just the way you wanted; they could change that law tomorrow and make other laws that trump your will for your baby tomorrow; even in ways that you won’t necessarily like (thinking China).
I’m not going to debate whether or not it’s okay to be pro-life. What I am debating here is whether or not Sarah Palin is pro-life.
As for Catholic teaching, here’s a dose of political reality for you. No one can win the presidency without at least 50% or more of the Catholic vote. It’s impossible. John Kerry lost because Catholics preferred the more social conservative George Bush. George Soros was pretty angry about that, so he pumped MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars into “fake Catholic” groups, like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, to convince Catholic voters that it is Catholic to vote for social justice issues that are separate from the abortion issue. Enough of them bought it that they voted for Obama 54% while 44% voted for McCain, thus ensuring Obama’s election. I’m working very hard to educate my fellow Catholics that life issues are our top priority as Catholics, not other issues of social justice. If those of us Catholics who are trying to educate our fellow Catholics about this fail in this endeavor, Obama will get four more years. About 90% of Catholics vote on social justice. Our job as faithful Catholics is to convince them that life issues are the preeminent social justice issues. If the Republican candidate for President is not VERY CONVINCINGLY PRO-LIFE on the abortion issue, Obama will get four more years. This is a political reality because no one can win the White House without at least 50% of the Catholic vote and there is no way any candidate is going to get 50% of the Catholic vote if he/she isn’t pro-life.
The positions you describe above are simple Catholic moralistic teaching so you are right that there is no rocket science in that. I hear Catechists describe those same parameters and exceptions when the death of a child is acceptable and I agree with those positions from a moralistic standpoint. But my miscarriage analogy was not given to make a moralistic point. And who is to say that the government would make their law according to Catholic teaching? And if we give government that authority over our wombs today, even if they made today’s law just the way we wanted; they could change that law tomorrow and make other less moralistic laws that trump our will for our baby tomorrow; even in ways that we won’t necessarily like or agree with but it will be too late cause we will have given up control of our wombs to the government.
See my comment above about the Catholic vote. You have every right to disagree, of course, but as a Catholic, I’m voting according to my Catholic Faith. It just “is”.
Me too Lisa. And like I said previously. We probably won’t be that far apart in our votes. But as far as the Catholic vote theory goes; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are Catholic aren’t they. Ugh
Lisa, Reid is actually a Mormon. And if Pelosi voted for Obama that would not count as a Catholic voting for Obama because she has excommunicated herself by her actions when voting on abortion.
Yes, Pelosi is Catholic. Talking about individuals is changing the subject, though. It’s just a fact that no one, at least in the past MANY presidential elections, has won the presidency without the Catholic vote.
“This is a political reality because no one can win the White House without at least 50% of the Catholic vote and there is no way any candidate is going to get 50% of the Catholic vote if he/she isn’t pro-life.”
I have heard that theory before but due to the number of CINOs (Way less than 50% of Catholics even go to Sunday services) you can’t really track the “Catholic” vote. I think it is more accurate to say you need to win the Independent vote to win the White House.
Hmmm, maybe a really large percentage of the Independent voters is CINO’s
One note on all of this that I don’t think has been brought up.
Bush actually lost the Catholic vote in 2000 to Gore, 50 to 47 (according to Pew).
Catholic vote pretty much holds up outside of that one though.
Nine of the last ten presidential winners had 50% or more of the Catholic vote.