Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 01/15/2005 9:58:29 AM PST by hocndoc
Abortion foes tap governor
Web Posted: 01/15/2005 12:00 AM CST
Peggy Fikac
Chief, Express-News Austin bureau
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, who may face a re-election challenge from within his party next year, plans to headline a Capitol rally next weekend on an issue of importance to GOP primary voters — abortion.
"Join pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry!" says a Web posting by the Texas Alliance for Life touting next Saturday's Texas Rally for Life.
"We've been putting it (the rally) on for about 15 years. This is the first time a governor has appeared. We're just ecstatic about that," said the alliance's Joe Pojman.
Pojman is among conservatives whose endorsements have been touted by Perry, who may face a challenge in next year's GOP primary from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Neither has announced.
The group invited Perry because his track record showed "this was something he was very interested in," Pojman said, and because it's a way to highlight abortion legislation that if passed by lawmakers will go to Perry for consideration.
Perry "is currently and always has been very strong on the life issue," Pojman said.
Pojman said the possibly contested primary was a consideration: "I thought we'd give him an opportunity to speak to a big part of his constituency that participates in the primary."
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said by e-mail that the governor "has spoken to pro-life groups in years past" and that he over the years "has taken a consistent stand in advocating for the protection of human life."
Perry opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Strayhorn holds the same position.
Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb but supports states' ability to impose restrictions such as parental consent or notification for minors.
"His position is unchanged. You always evaluate appearances based on what's going on. If he is likely to face a primary opponent, it is a smart appearance. It's smart politics for him," said lobbyist and consultant Bill Miller. "In a Republican primary, the right-to-life faction is strong and active and they participate in a big way."
Republican consultant Royal Masset said, "It's a core issue. The abortion issue is 10 to 100 times more potent than even, say, the gay marriage issue."
In this legislative session, Pojman lists as a top priority a push to require parental consent before an underage girl can have a pregnancy terminated.
The move is one that Perry supports, although not all abortion opponents agree it is needed. Current law requires that parents be notified, but not that they give their consent.
Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, plans to file a bill to require parental consent and also plans to appear at next weekend's rally.
A Perry supporter, King said that in the GOP primary, the issue of abortion "has always been a very important issue. It's not the only issue. And you've got a number of people in the Republican Party it's not a big issue to at all."
pfikac@express-news.net
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA011505.1B.perry_abortion.bb79bb2.html
(Disclaimer: I'm on the Board of Directors of a couple of the sponsoring organizations).
It appears from all the gov's activity that he is trying to knock out any opponents early before they really have a chance to get some momentum going...
Right, amazing what politicians will do around election time.
Now if he would take a stand on illegals I will really be impressed.
All tho as a pro-lifer I am glad he is doing this regardless of his real motives.
I have followed with interest comments from Texas Freepers on the other two possible candidates mentioned. Strayhorn appears to be a loose cannon. Kay Bailey Hutchinson appear to have considerable approval. But I am bothered by this statement in the article, if, as it seems, it is true:
Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb but supports states' ability to impose restrictions such as parental consent or notification for minors.
Say, what? This statement seems to say that there is a universal, presumably constitutional, right to abort babies right up to the time of viability. Maybe the first six or seven months of pregnancy, maybe even eight or nine if interpreted liberally (as it would be), and that the state should only be permitted to put parental consent or notification restrictions on that right.
That's a huge exception. I don't see how any pro-lifers could possibly support her candidacy if this is true. Keep in mind the history of another Texas lady, Sandra Day O'Connor, who seemed to be reasonably conservative but who has proven to be a flaming liberal on the Supreme Court, strongly favoring abortion, a fundamental right to sodomy, and the use of foreign laws as precedents for SCOTUS decisions. We don't need any more of that in the future.
Please bump your lists.
P.S. If the governor is announcing his strongly pro-life position now because he thinks that's the winning position to take, more power to him.
In fact, I'm delighted. If the voters and the politicians can be persuaded that the right to life is a political winner, so much the better. For too long the media and the liberals have tried to persuade us otherwise. Some voters vote their consciences, others like to be on the winning side. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be on the winning side if your cause is just.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Therefore, all a woman has to say is that, "if I cannot have an abortion, I will kill myself" and the Perry would permit her to kill her baby.
However, Kay Hutchison will be formidable, if she enters the race. Perry's got all the Texas money lined up, so Hutchison will have to go out of state for cash, and to the Democrats.
If Perry can get a revamped school funding program through the legislature that does something about property taxes, he's a shoo-in.
Perry has always taken the same stand as GW as far as illegals go - the more, the merrier.
He is not a pro-life candidate, but he's as close as we're going to get.
pro life and pro responsability!!!!
Look at it this way, if Hutchison does run, she will likely be replaced by a pro-life conservative (Congressman Henry Bonilla, hopefully). And Senators have more influence over the issue of abortion and life than governors do.
Senator Hutchinson signed on with Specter, Kennedy and Feinstein in asking the President and in sponsoring a Bill in the Senate to allow funding for embryonic stem cells and (supposedly) a cloning ban (Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)S 303) as long as the embryo is destroyed after 14 days.
Last summer, the Senator also gave an interview to reporters after her speech at the Texas Republican State Convention reassuring them that she supported "the right" to an abortion until viability.
Senator Hutchinson has done well to vote on the pro-life side, except for her vote to affirm Roe v Wade as the law of the land in the middle of the Partial Birth Abortion ban debates in the Senate and a vote that would have allowed abortions on military bases. I do wish that she could see how these votes and the push for cloning of human embryos that would then be killed and her comments to the reporters last summer is harmful to the inalienable right not to be killed of all human beings.
Besides, what a way to make herself stand out as a leader in the Senate -- as a prolife leader!
I still can't figure one thing out:
Perry will have been Governor for 6 years, he'd only normally be governor for 8, why doesn't he just let Huchison be Governor, and run for her Senate seat? It's more important that Senators be pro-life then governors anyway.
Not quite. There's a lot of history behind this statement of belief.
It is very significant that the Governor's position is not "for the *health* of the mother. It is to save the life of the mother.
Don't you believe in self-defense?
Personally, I don't believe that any but the 3rd reason is justifiable. The only reason to kill a human is in defense of life. (Even that statement is a very simplified version of thousands of years of philosophy.).
The issues are evidently pretty fancy national politics, the power of seniority, and even a concern about the effects of the primary on the actual election of a Republican Senator.
I also like Attorney General Abbot and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst for Senate candidates.
I *would* like to see a pro-life woman step up to the task of teaching our nation about the sanctity of life and the right of all our children, as well as our brothers and sisters who can hire lawyers, *not to be intentionally killed.*
Doesn't Bonilla have the same abortion position as Hutchison? Correct me if I am wrong.
It would depend on whether you were talking about viability in cases where you take extraordinary measures. I don't know how meaningful it would be to expect someone seeking an abortion to take extraordinary measures to preserve a premature child's life. As it is now, however, with a lot of late term abortions the aborted child accidentally survives, maybe with an arm or a leg cut off, and in many hospitals the custom has then been to set the baby aside until it conveniently dies by thirst, starvation, or exposure, and can be disposed of.
Rape, life of the mother, and incest also could be large loopholes, depending on what the politician's real attitudes are. That was how George Bush described himself during his first campaign, but in office he has been pretty forcefully pro-life, from the very first day.
Life of the mother is very different from health of the mother, if that is really the guideline being followed. I agree with those who argue that abortion is wrong in the case of rape and incest--because in what way is the baby at fault for what was done by others? Why should he be killed? If the mother understandably couldn't deal with the trauma, then the baby could be offered for adoption.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
There are no terms limits for any constitutional offices in TX. It is just a coincidence that few have ever served more than six years in the governorship. John B. Connally, Jr., the most successful in terms of state governance of modern TX governors, stepped down after three two-year terms.
Hutchison has a lot of independent and Democrat support for whatever office she may seek.
Hutchinson has the backing of the pro-abortion side, too. Including the WISH List
http://www.thewishlist.org/
Senator Hutchinson's page on the Wish List site:
http://www.thewishlist.org/Hutchison.htm
Good for him. He needs pro-lifers, too, to beat Hutchinson.
Texans need to be very, very careful. Thanks in part to tacit support from the President, we now have a pro-abortion U.S. Senator (probably Senator-for-Life) from Georgia. I would hate to see Texans saddled with a pro-abortion governor, who could do even more harm.
Actually, a Catholic theological analysis of the life of the mother exception would be that the baby was unavoidably killed as a side-effect of saving the mother. That might be the case, for example, in an ectopic pregnancy.
Similarly, it would be illegitimate in traditional Catholic teaching for a married person to have an operation explicitly intended to render him or her sterile, in order to avoid having children while enjoying carefree sex; but it would be perfectly legitimate to have such an operation if necessary to remove a cancer, even though it had the further side effect of rendering the person sterile.
As another example, it would be wrong to remove your arm because you thought you looked better without it, but it would be legitimate to remove it because it was incurably infected with gangrene, so as to save your life.
Perhaps to some this sounds like hair-splitting, but I believe it's the right way to approach such questions.
Also, what you have described here is really common sense!
It's HUTCHISON, but hardly anyone can get it right.
Yes, I understand, and should be more careful, especially with the problems with my last name.
I hope the Senator can "get it right" when it comes to protecting human life.
I discussed the "exceptions" in this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320881/posts?page=48#48
The baby is her baby. He or she is just as much a possessor of the inalienable right not to be killed as she is. If the infant does not have the right not to be killed - an inalienable right not dependent on any circumstances - then how to justify the right not to be killed of any unborn child???
[The next bit sounds very unemotional and clinical, but that's the only way I can contemplate this question, by attempting to be "clinical." I base my discussion on comments by Gilbert Meilander in his book "Christian Bioethics, a Primer." I'm still opposed to the finality, the irreversibility of death and am convinced that we humans are more adaptable and able to survive horrible circumstances as long as there is life.]
The only exception would be is when a woman considers the pregnancy a continuation of the assault. This might happen in cases where the woman perceived that her life was actually at risk during the rape. Consider a woman beaten or injured, or one who is held at gunpoint, or one who is believes that she has been exposed to HIV. There are also the women who are truly endangered by pregnancy. And the ones whose husbands can't bear the fact that she has been raped, much less that she is carrying the rapist's child.
Back to what *I* believe: I'm afraid that the reason for the exception for rape is actually a response to those who want to forget that she was raped, possibly, especially, her husband and father. In the days where women belonged to their husbands or fathers (and in the parts of the world where this is true), the male reaction is to kill the child of the rapist who stole "their" property - the woman's sex, fertility, and offspring.
All too often we want to take a look at the consequences of the woman when when something like rape takes place. (In other words the rape needs to be dealt with, and so lets destroy the baby...)
Rape is horrible no doubt about it, but to want to destroy the unborn for this despicable act, seems to make a grave problem even worse. You're right... lets look at adoption as the alternative.
Did anybody at this rally bother asking Rick why he appointed abortionist Elizabeth Ames-Jones to the Texas Railroad Commission that week? Didn't think so...
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.