In her own words. . .
A July 15, 2001, article in the Detroit News quoted Jim Blanchard (another pro-abortion candidate for governor) as questioning Granholm's position on abortion. Later in the article, Granholm is quoted saying,“It's a shame that Jim Blanchard is deliberately lying about my position. I am prochoice.”
Later in the same article, Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY's List, said that she and her staff “had thorough conversations (with Granholm), and I am convinced that Jennifer Granholm is pro-choice and, more importantly, will act that way as governor.”
In other words, Jennifer Granholm will veto any prolife legislation.
During an April 16 on-line “chat” session arranged by MLive.com, an Internet effort of Booth Newspapers, Jennifer Granholm said, “I have a personal opinion on abortion, but that is my personal position, not one that I would force on anyone else. That is the beauty of being pro-choice.” She would, however, force taxpayers to pay for someone else's choice.
After she was endorsed by EMILY's List, Granholm's response was, “I have always believed in a woman's right to choose and am so proud of this endorsement and what it stands for (Lansing State Journal, September 7, 2001).”
Proud of her decision to defend a dangerous procedure that hurts women, emotionally and physically? Proud of being in the small, extreme group of people who think partial-birth abortions should remain legal? Proud of supporting, Roe v. Wade, which has led to the deaths of more than 40 million unborn children?
In an article in FAITH Magazine, Granholm is quoted as saying that her central purpose is to be “the voice for the voiceless, and the advocate for those rendered powerless by forces beyond their control.” Clearly, being a “voice for the voiceless,” is not a goal for Granholm when unborn children are considered voiceless.
Tell a friend about this site
Send a postcard
What do pro-abortion politicians Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein have in common with Jennifer Granholm?
They are all endorsed by the extreme pro-abortion group EMILY's List. Every election year EMILY's List works hard to funnel money into the pockets of female Democratic candidates that agree with their radical positions.
What does it take to be endorsed by EMILY's List?
An utterly callous disregard for human life. In recent years, EMILY's List has rescinded their previous endorsement from politicians who don't meet their outlandish positions.
Example: According to a 1994 news article, “A national pro-choice women's organization (EMILY's List) that pumped money into U.S. Rep. Karen Thurman's 1992 campaign has dropped its support for her because she backed restrictions on the use of federal Medicaid money to pay for abortions.”
Does this mean Jennifer Granholm is in favor of your tax dollars being used to pay for abortions?
It must. In September of 1994, the National Journal reported, “Wyoming Secretary of State and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathy Karpan also is bitter that EMILY's List and other women's groups aren't supporting her because of her position on abortion. Karpan said that she favors abortion rights, but not unequivocally. Karpan said 'I flunk the litmus test because I do not believe in including abortion in any health care reform.'” This must mean Jennifer Granholm is in favor of your tax dollars being used to pay for abortions.
Does this also mean that Granholm is in favor of partial-birth abortion?
Yes, again. EMILY's List also reported in December of 1999 that two senators, endorsed by EMILY's List, who voted to ban partial-birth abortions, voted contrary to EMILY's List choice criteria. It was also noted that both senators no longer meet EMILY's List criteria and will no longer be eligible for EMILY's List support.
This must mean that Jennifer Granholm is in favor of partial-birth abortions and would veto any legislation attempting to ban this horrible and painful procedure.
It seems Granholm thinks that an unborn child isn't really a child, but a choice, and taxpayers should be forced to pay for this choice.
Failing in her job to stand up and defend the law
Jennifer Granholm also revealed her stance on life as Michigan's Attorney General. As Michigan's Attorney General, Jennifer Granholm is the chief law enforcement officer of the state. It is her job to enforce and defend laws that are passed by Michigan's elected lawmakers.
On one occasion, Jennifer Granholm decided not to fulfill her obligations as Attorney General. She decided that she would let her defense of abortion affect her professional duties as Attorney General. In May 2001, Jennifer Granholm decided that she and her office wouldn't challenge a decision by Judge Arthur Tarnow. Judge Tarnow blocked Michigan's Infant Protection Act, a law designed to stop the tragedy of partial-birth abortion, from being enforced. He based his opionion on Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban, even though the wording in the two laws is completely different.
Nebraska's law declared partial-birth abortion illegal. Michigan's law stated that a live infant partially outside of the womb is not a fetus nor potential life, but a person, an infant, deserving the same protection and respect as other born individuals. This law declared that partial-birth abortion wasn't really abortion but infanticide; therefore, it doesn't need to meet the abortion on demand standards of Roe v. Wade.
In deciding not to challenge this ruling, Jennifer Granholm failed to protect a law that was passed by an overwhelming number of Michigan's elected lawmakers and favored by a large majority of Michigan's citizens.
In an Associated Press article on May 23, 2001, Granholm said, (in terms of the Infant Protection Act) “I can see no way to credibly argue that it is unconstitutional.” There were many ways to argue the constitutionality of this law, yet Granholm decided to overlook them so she could get the support of pro-abortion groups, such as EMILY's List.
Later in the same article Granholm said she also was concerned that Michigan's law would criminalize all abortions, even though the bill was written specifically to ban partial-birth abortions. This law was not designed to criminalize all abortions, something that is impossible to do at this point in time because of Roe v. Wade, but rather to provide protection for those who are partially born.
