Here's the deal. We had Reagan 1 (pro-life), Reagan 2 (pro-life), GHW Bush (pro-life), Clinton 1 (pro-death), Clinton 2 (pro-death), GW Bush 1 (pro-life), GW Bush 2 (pro-life)...and we still have abortion.
Why do we have an abortion litmus test when apparently a POTUS can do absolutely nothing about abortion?
I see this attack on Rudy constantly and it has never made sense to me.
Hello my FRiend.
There ya go again Sofa, clouding the issue with common sense and logic!!!
Here’s the deal. We had GHW Bush (No fed payments for abortions), Clinton 1 (fed payments for abortions), Clinton 2 (fed payments for abortions and fetal stem cell research), GW Bush 1 (No fed payments for abortions fetal stem cell research), GW Bush 2 (No fed payments for abortions nor fetal stem cell research)...and we still have abortion.
Why do we have laws against murder, since it occurs anyway? The point is that we have to have someone at the top that espouses the principal that abortion is killing a life, even if we all know abortion is going to happen anyway. Rudy has a problem because he is pro-choice, and he is telling us pro-life conservatives to compromise our beliefs in order to win in 2008. Liberals do that all the time; they have no principals to stand on. Why should I abandon by principals just for Rudy Giuliani to win? That is what doesn't make sense to me.
I'm pro life, but I don't see how the president making a phone call to those assembled at a pro life rally has had any significant impact on abortion in America.
I am fully aware however, that it is the president's Supreme Court appointments that can lead to a change in the abortion debate...from a national debate, to 50 state debates--should Roe ever be overturned.