Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Governor Perry Vows Texas Will Pass Ban on Late-Term Abortions
life news ^ | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 07/07/2013 5:20:04 PM PDT by Morgana

Governor Rick Perry appeared on a Sunday current events television show and pledged that the Texas legislature will pass and he will sign the bill that bans late-term abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

A Texas state House committee approved the bill last week and more legislative action is expected on Monday and Tuesday.

The last attempt to pass the bill was halted in the state Senate with a pro-abortion filibuster but state Sen. Wendy Davis says she will not filibuster the bill a second time.

In his interview, Perry defended comments he made about pro-abortion lawmaker Wendy Davis.

“She was a teenage mother herself,” Perry said of Davis last month. “She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate. It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters.”

From Perry’s Sunday television appearance:

“We have a special session with some important issues in front of us. We’re going to pass some restrictions on abortion in Texas so that Texas is a place where we defend life. That’s the powerful message here, that’s what we’re focused on,” Perry said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We can be in and out of here in another 10 days… we will get this done and get Texas back focused on the economic interests.”

Perry also defended remarks he’d made that it was “unfortunate” that Davis, a single mother, “hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to reach its full potential and that every life matters.”

“Those comments were meant to be a compliment to her for what she’s accomplished in her life,” Perry said by way of explanation. “My point was that saving a life and letting that life come to its fulfillment and all the good things that happen, you never know who’s going to be considered to be an extraordinary individual.”

The Texas governor also doubled down on criticism of protesters who flooded the state senate’s balcony during the filibuster to shout their support for Davis and opposition to the bill.

“It was the gallery that was out of control, literally out of control… anyone who watched that would consider it to be mob rule,” Perry said. “Rules were followed on the Senate floor. It was the decorum of the Senate chamber that was put in a bad light.”

Perry said he expected disruptive protestors would be removed from the building during the second session.

“The taking of life after twenty weeks is what this is about,” Perry said. “The killing of babies that are viable outside their mom’s bodies after twenty weeks is what this is about. A lot of folks really don’t want to talk about that. They would like to focus on practically anything rather than to say we support that process.”

The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion clinics accountable by making them meet basic health and safety standards that have closed facilities in other states that are unable to comply. The bill also requires all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety regulations as an ambulatory surgical center, requires a doctor providing abortions to secure admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and lastly, requires a doctor to personally administer the abortion-inducing drugs to the patient.The hearing saw the halls packed with over 2,100 people wanting to testify on the bill — with most of them pro-life and supporting it. The final count on the bill was 3,543 who registered a position with the Texas government computer system — 2,181 supporting the bill and 1,335 against it.“In terms of witnesses, the system has never seen overload like this,” said Rep. Helen Giddings, the vice chairwoman of the House State Affairs Committee.The state House is expected to debate the bill on July 9 after the Texas legislature returns from its Independence Day recess.

Perry issued a call for a special session of the Texas legislature to pass the bill that a pro-abortion mob prevented the legislature from passing it.

“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas. Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state,” Perry said. “Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn. Texans want a transportation system that keeps them moving. Texans want a court system that is fair and just. We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do.”

Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst addressed the National Right to Life Convention in Dallas, Texas, on Saturday, affirming his commitment to passing protective legislation for mothers and their unborn children in the upcoming second special legislative session.

“I am not discouraged. We will pass this bill out of the legislature,” he said.

The filibuster was not the only impediment to passage of the bill — a noisy group of abortion advocates made it impossible for members of the Senate to conduct business and that may happen again — making it so Dewhurst will need to step up and regain control of the chamber so the bill can be debated and a vote taken.

Texas legislators on Monday filed a new bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion facilities accountable for breaking health and safety laws after a pro-abortion mob derailed the previous bill.

Abortion advocates protested at the state capitol but pro-lifers drowned them out with signing of Amazing Grace. The paid protesters opposing the late-term abortion ban in Texas are also doing more than rallying outside the legislature against the pro-life bill. They’re threatening pro-life state legislators and their staffers.

Call and email YOUR Representative and Senator starting on Monday with a simple message, “Please speak, stand, and vote FOR HB 2. My support will be significantly determined by the vote on this bill.” Visit this link to confirm your correct Representative and Senator: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; moralabsolutes; obamacare; prolife; rickperry; texas; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

1 posted on 07/07/2013 5:20:04 PM PDT by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Important days are tomorrow, tuesday and wednesday. I will be there Monday for certain. I may be there Tuesday and Wednesday depending on how things go.

If you are interested in going to the Capitol, send me an email and I’ll help you get in touch with folks.


2 posted on 07/07/2013 5:25:04 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

If I was in the Texas legislature, I would vote “nay.”

The bill is immoral and unconstitutional.


3 posted on 07/07/2013 5:26:47 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

“Late Term Abortion” = Killing the child with only its head sticking into the mother’s vagina. Baby killers view this as abortion simply because the entire head of the child hasn’t been seen. There is no medical reason whatsoever that necessitates killing children like this. None.


4 posted on 07/07/2013 5:33:30 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“The bill is immoral and unconstitutional.”

Care to explain how it is immoral and unconstitutional?


5 posted on 07/07/2013 5:34:26 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

Go Texas!


6 posted on 07/07/2013 5:35:36 PM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The bill is immoral and unconstitutional.

Like CodeToad said, please explain how preventing the murder of a child is "immoral".

7 posted on 07/07/2013 5:50:39 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Prayers up for you and ALL who are speaking up for the unborn.


8 posted on 07/07/2013 5:52:43 PM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs stay silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Sure. Though I probably don’t have time to cover all the ways.

First, it fails the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection test.

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The bill uses an arbitrary, capricious “pain” test, without ever explaining any logic for such a test being in any way pertinent. I call this the “don’t worry they won’t feel a thing” codification of permission to kill little babies. One must wonder if, to be consistent, they’re going to “legalize” killing paraplegics. After all, they won’t feel a thing! Or, if you give Grandma enough morphine, is it alright to do away with her? Won’t feel a thing! In any case, personhood is the only legitimate moral and constitutional criteria, not pain nor age.

This legislation actually serves to create a new class of subhumans. Those who they claim can’t feel pain.

And the bill would be piling bad code on top of already bad Texas code.

Ten years ago in Sept., in the wake of the Lacey Peterson murder in CA, Rick Perry and the Republican legislature passed a bill that rightfully recognized the obvious personhood of the child in the womb, which is line with our nation’s core principles and the imperative equal protection demand of our Constitution. Sadly, though, they included another paragraph that provided explicit permission for abortionists to kill innocent little persons.

Folks forget that it was Texas lawmakers, and their failure prior to 1973 to explicitly provide equal protection for the unborn that opened the door to Roe vs. Wade.

They’re continuing in the horrible tradition, sadly.

If they really care about ending abortion, it’s very simple. Provide equal protection for all persons. Simply strip out the 2003 language that gives “legal” permission to kill babies. Since they also recognized the individual personhood of the child in the womb at the same time, in the code, abortion will then be illegal everywhere in Texas, as it should be.


9 posted on 07/07/2013 6:06:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
Like CodeToad said, please explain how preventing the murder of a child is "immoral".

It doesn't protect a single child. It simply says 'kill 'em on schedule,' or, failing that, get the mass murdering abortionist, or the person hiring them, to lie.

And in exchange for no protection, you get to sacrifice the laws of nature and nature's God, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, all of the clauses of the stated purposes of the Constitution, and the explicit equal protections of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

What a deal.

How would you like it if YOUR rights were "protected" in this way? How about a law that says it's okay to kill "jeffc" as long as you do it by Sept.? Would that be just, or legitimate, or moral, or constitutional?

10 posted on 07/07/2013 6:11:38 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“This legislation actually serves to create a new class of subhumans. Those who they claim can’t feel pain.”

Gotta agree there.

Why is Perry pushing so hard to get this? I was under the impression it at least banned late term abortions by banning anything past 20 weeks. Not enough for me, but it’s a start.


11 posted on 07/07/2013 6:13:25 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

The bill also promises to nullify itself, once its restrictions are found to impose an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle” in the way of ANY pregnant woman in her ability to have an abortion.

In effect, the bill pledges to enable every woman to have an abortion.

This is just more phony NRTL theater. And very bad “law.”


12 posted on 07/07/2013 6:16:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

P.S. I agree with your ENTIRE post. Well said.


13 posted on 07/07/2013 6:16:27 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Why is Perry pushing so hard to get this?

Because NRTL was meeting in Texas, and he needed to grandstand.

14 posted on 07/07/2013 6:17:43 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

probably designed to be struck down in court


15 posted on 07/07/2013 6:19:18 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

?


16 posted on 07/07/2013 6:19:54 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Perry gets a F- for this one. This isn’t supporting children and banning abortion. This is nothing but a sneak attack on further pro-abortion legislation.

I have often asked people, “Why do YOU, personally, need to have abortions? Why? What need is it of yours to kill your baby?” Never a response. They tend to look away in shame.


17 posted on 07/07/2013 6:20:29 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

you mean its unnecessarily bloated with pap?

I can buy that


18 posted on 07/07/2013 6:22:30 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I messaged you and didn’t hear back.


19 posted on 07/07/2013 6:28:00 PM PDT by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

It’s an incremental process. The same way we got to where we are today.

The first step is getting laws on the books that recognize arbitrary termination of a pregnancy is wrong, even if it is at 20 weeks. Then you move on to the next step.

Going after the whole pie hasn’t worked; this time the activists are trying the “one piece at a time” approach.

After 40 years of setbacks, the pro-life movement needs some wins, no matter how small they may seem.

IMO.


20 posted on 07/07/2013 6:28:31 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
probably designed to be struck down in court

It is.

And, since the Republicans are a bunch of judicial supremacists, and not actually constitutional republicans, that will be that.

They'll get their fake pro-life credentials burnished again for the next election, NRTL will get it's fundraising copy, and abortion on demand will continue unabated. The babies will continue to die en masse.

21 posted on 07/07/2013 6:29:41 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; GeronL

“They’ll get their fake pro-life credentials burnished again for the next election”

That don’t amount for a hill of beans when they stand before God. That is unless in their hearts they really meant it. I want to believe some of them do.


22 posted on 07/07/2013 6:37:06 PM PDT by Morgana (Always a bit of truth in dark humor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
It’s an incremental process. The same way we got to where we are today. The first step is getting laws on the books that recognize arbitrary termination of a pregnancy is wrong, even if it is at 20 weeks. Then you move on to the next step. Going after the whole pie hasn’t worked; this time the activists are trying the “one piece at a time” approach. After 40 years of setbacks, the pro-life movement needs some wins, no matter how small they may seem. IMO.

Your post just doesn't bear with reality. We've seen these sorts of morally and constitutionally compromised bills for forty years. NRTL will do anything except face the core of the matter: the self-evident personhood of the child and the required equal protection that our Constitution absolutely demands.

These bills sacrifice every moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion. They are a surrender, right up front, every single time.

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

23 posted on 07/07/2013 6:39:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bratch
The first step is getting laws on the books that recognize arbitrary termination of a pregnancy is wrong, even if it is at 20 weeks. Then you move on to the next step.

That doesn't make any sense. These lawless "laws" actually grant explicit "legal" permission to kill certain disfavored classifications of human persons. There is no next step after that. You've destroyed the foundations for law in America at that point.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

24 posted on 07/07/2013 6:43:04 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

But (respectfully because we both are after the same thing) your way has been tried, over and over, since 1973 and the abortion laws have become more and more liberal.

It’s time the pro-life movement start moving the pendulum in the other direction, even if it is incrementally.

Again, IMO.


25 posted on 07/07/2013 6:49:11 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

Nonsense. My way has not been tried. Your way, a way that is both morally-flawed and strictly unconstitutional, has been tried again, and again, and again.

The National Right to Life strategy should have been recognized as the utter failure it is years ago. It’s time for sincere pro-lifers to reject them, and to return to self-evident truth and eternal principle. That’s the only thing God is going to bless.


26 posted on 07/07/2013 7:01:11 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

If you have the governmental power to regulate child murder, you have the power to stop it entirely.


27 posted on 07/07/2013 7:02:20 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Halls

Lots going on.. Let me message you again! :)


28 posted on 07/07/2013 7:21:30 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

So, you think Texas should just banish abortion in the state instead if this bill? Do you think this could easily be done?


29 posted on 07/07/2013 7:23:06 PM PDT by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I will be there. I encourage all the prolifers to come out and help us here, we need everyone we can get

This is a significant step forward towards the ultimate step of the elimination of abortion altogether.

The most significant part is clinic standards are being stepped up. This is dire for abortion clinics here which do not receive any public funding since Perry cut them off.

So, I’ll tell all the prolifers here. If you can come, please do.


30 posted on 07/07/2013 7:27:23 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Halls

Yes. Strip one paragraph out of the existing code, the section Perry and the Republicans put there ten years ago, which explicitly authorizes the murder of innocent, helpless little persons.

Texas Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19, Sec. 19.06., to be precise:

Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:

(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;

(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;

(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or

(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


An odious bit of lawlessness, that...

Of course, even after you do that you need executive branch officers who have the courage and the commitment to fulfill their sworn oaths to support the Constitution of the United States.

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


31 posted on 07/07/2013 7:29:19 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Doesn’t Iowa still do abortions?


32 posted on 07/07/2013 7:29:54 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
This is a significant step forward

No, it is making a bad state code even worse.

33 posted on 07/07/2013 7:30:14 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

They do, thanks to the “pro-life” “Republicans” who continue to push bad legislation at the behest of National Right to Life.

My representative, who understands his oath, offered a bill that went straight to the murder code to protect ALL persons, as the Constitution explicitly, imperatively requires.

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The GOP “leadership” shot it down, of course. They were too busy cutting deals to once again fund abortions via the Medicaid bill, and pushing immoral, unconstitutional legislation just like the bill Perry is pushing in Texas.


34 posted on 07/07/2013 7:34:55 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

bump


35 posted on 07/07/2013 7:35:25 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

How does it compare to the current state code in Iowa?


36 posted on 07/07/2013 7:38:50 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“The GOP “leadership” shot it down, of course.”

So what you are saying is your way was tried and it failed to pass. Thank you.

We’re trying and winning. This is a winning argument and we are going to get this bill passed and save babies. We are already saving babies, because the opposition has revealed it’s extreme position.


37 posted on 07/07/2013 7:40:40 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

In order to put in a clean code section, one that would protect every single person, from conception, it was necessary to go in and strike large sections of anti-personhood, anti-equality language that has been put there by the “pro-life” “Republicans” over the course of many years.

Telling, that...


38 posted on 07/07/2013 7:41:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
We’re trying and winning.

You don't win anything by surrendering.

And this bill surrenders the commands of God, the natural moral law, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, every clause of the stated purposed of the Constitution, and its explicit, imperative equal protection requirements.

39 posted on 07/07/2013 7:43:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
So what you are saying is your way was tried and it failed to pass. Thank you.

Blocked by your allies.

Besides, right and wrong are not determined by temporary success or failure.

Are you a Christian, or a Utilitarian? Can't be both.

40 posted on 07/07/2013 7:44:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Your way has been tried before. It didn’t work. So what do you do? Do you keep trying something that didn’t work?

Do you stop what you are doing and wait for favourable winds?

Or do you get cracking and get to work with what we have today?

I hear you. The legislation is not ideal. Absolutely I agree with you here. However, it is an opportunity to reach out to a whole horde of hurting people who believe that abortion is their best option. We can reach out to these folks and convince them of the absolute truth that the unborn is a human person.

Some will not turn. Some will. I was one of those folks 10 years ago when someone shoved graphic pictures in my face and showed me the truth about abortion. And I try to do what I can, *today* to go save some babies.

I am going to be sitting out on the legislature steps all day tomorrow. And hopefully helping out on Tuesday and on Wednesday. Why? Because I believe this bill will save babies. Today. Not some far off time when the winds are favourable. Today.


41 posted on 07/07/2013 7:46:07 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Would you support a bill that explicitly granted positive “legal” permission to shoot paraplegics in the chest?

They won’t feel a thing, right?

Isn’t that the “reasoning” in the current Perry bill?


42 posted on 07/07/2013 7:47:17 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“Besides, right and wrong are not determined by temporary success or failure.”

“Whatsoever you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me.”

We are not called to be successful. We are called to try. And that means making the best we can with what we have here.


43 posted on 07/07/2013 7:47:49 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

You’re not going to convince folks by giving up the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against abortion. That’s a mirage.


44 posted on 07/07/2013 7:48:38 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
We are not called to be successful. We are called to try. And that means making the best we can with what we have here.

But you're trying something that has failed over and over again for forty years. As it had to, because it was not morally, constitutionally, or legally sound.

45 posted on 07/07/2013 7:50:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Ahhhh! I see your point now.

Sorry, I mis-interpreted what you were saying. It seemed as though you meant a woman should be able to kill her child and and any law preventing such is "immoral". My mistake, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.

46 posted on 07/07/2013 7:51:48 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

If it meant shutting down a substantial portion of the paraplegic euthanasia clinics, absolutely, yes I would.

And then tomorrow I’d be right out there calling to end the killing. Same as I was yesterday, except now there’s fewer people dying.

It’s not either/or, EternalVigilence. Just because one supports Perry’s bill doesn’t mean that I cannot support a bill banning abortion tomorrow.


47 posted on 07/07/2013 7:53:04 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“You’re not going to convince folks by giving up the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against abortion. That’s a mirage.”

Again, it’s not either/or. How we go about eliminating abortion is a prudential judgement and while you are permitted to disagree, you are not permitted to actively work against those who are choosing to help here.

End stop.

Are you going to be on the steps of the legislature first thing tomorrow morning? Yes or no? If no, then you have no say into what is being done here. You can either get on the train or you can choose not to board. That is your decision, not mine.

As for me, I’ve made my choice. I’m standing with Perry here. These are substantial restrictions and they will result in fewer children dying. A successful vote today will save babies. It won’t save all, but it will save some.


48 posted on 07/07/2013 7:56:49 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
It’s not either/or

When you're talking about life and about equal protection, it is "either/or," intrinsically. That's what you don't get.

If you're not alive, you're dead. If the laws treat certain classes of persons unequally, there is no equal protection.

There are no gray areas in these most crucially important areas that the founders of this free republic placed before anything else, and described as the very raison d'etre, or reason for being, of government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

That, sir, is the foundation of American constitutional, republican self-government. Without it, the whole edifice of American law and civilization will inevitably collapse.

That's a lot to sacrifice for a bill that is nothing more than political theater in the first place.

49 posted on 07/07/2013 8:08:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“That’s a lot to sacrifice for a bill that is nothing more than political theater in the first place.”

I see. I take it you voted for Romney then?


50 posted on 07/07/2013 8:11:49 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson