Posted on 02/23/2015 8:29:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
* In October the Wisconsin governor pledged to support legislation focused on 'safety' during abortions
* 'The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor,' he said in a campaign ad
* This month he's telling potential donors that he supports a 'personhood' amendment, which insists that life begins at conception
* He boasted in January that he had 'defunded Planned Parenthood,' America's wealthiest and most politically savvy chain of abortion clinics
* Walker is busy beefing up his conservative bona fides in advance of a brusiing GOP presidential primary that may not favor blue-state moderates
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is learning that major leagues pitchers throw harder than in the minors, as journalists are piling on the newly minted Republican front-runner – first with gotcha questions and now with questions about an abortion flip-flop over a period of just four months.
The New York Times highlighted on Monday a campaign ad Walker made in October as he fought through a tough re-election contest.
'I'm pro-life,' he says in the video, but Walker also announced his support for 'legislation to increase safety, and to provide more information to a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.'(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I see on this thread that our Romney posters are jumping behind Walker, that is troubling.
On getting an antiabortion bill passed in a purple state?
Jeeze, he's a freekin hero for that.
Who else?
Someone who passed nuthin and saved not one babies life but barked bow-wow like Giuliani did last week.
Disgusting.
So winning is everything? You ought to get behind John Conyers, John Dingell or Charlie Rangel then. They’ve won many more elections than Scott Walker.
Of course they are. You didn’t expect they’d back Ted Cruz, did you?
He got a significant bill passed that closed one of four remaining abortion clinics in Wisconsin and made sure any woman who wanted an abortion had to have an ultrasound and that the abortionist had to have admitting privileges at a hospital.
I’m sorry his rhetoric wasn’t strong enough as he moved a solid, pro-life bill through the legislature in a purple state. You have to work carefully to get enough support to pass a bill and avoid getting the law struck down by the courts.
I did not realize it was this bad with Walker and the social issues.
Well, yes, including this article. Of course it could be political maneuvering, a drive to find a "nuanced" position acceptable to the widest audience.
But the fact is that nearly everyone I know with regard to this issue had The Moment. For me it was opening an embryology text in 1972. At that point you know, and you can't un-know, although you can lie to yourself about it. That's a living human being.
I would not presume to speak for Walker, he can speak for himself. How he deals with that publicly without being sucked into a thousand clever journalistic traps is going to be a challenge. But when you finally figure it out and have to face it, that's not a "flip-flop".
The idea that surrendering the principle of God-given, unalienable, EQUAL rights saves any babies is ludicrous, since those concepts are the only moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion on demand.
The lesson I learned a long time ago is that if you can’t trust them to provide equal protection for helpless little babies you can’t trust them on anything, really, once the political pressure is on. Which it always is.
Walker is a joke when it comes to providing equal protection for the supreme individual right. Which makes it unsurprising that he has also surrendered on marriage, judicial supremacy, and immigration.
Notwithstanding whatever new rhetoric he and his hacks may come up with this week.
Politics is about getting the best result you can get. Language is language, laws are laws. He got a good law through that pushes to the edge of what the courts will allow.
The result was good. It closed an abortion clinic, women will have a chance to see their unborn baby before they make a decision. That should help some number of women make the right “choice.”
If he had used more aggressive language, he would have alienated a lot of voters in Wisconsin, which is still very socially liberal.
Bottom line, a good pro-life bill was passed and signed into law.
You know how Obama got elected twice? He lied about his true positions to appeal to the center. But the lib base knew what he truly believes so they just accept the lie. Take, gay marriage for example. He lied about believing in traditional marriage. Low-info voters bought it. His base didn’t care because they knew what he really believed.
If people want to know what Walker truly believes, look at the abortion legislation he passed in Wisconsin.
Although he is wrong on immigration his career has not been one of a moderate republican. He has been generally a conservative leader, who when he wants to, can get necessary things done that conservatives (and a majority of people) want done.
Summary: Not perfect, not as conservative as I am, but not moderate.
Two things I’d want to see him do: Get right on the illegal immigration issue, and fight the hard existing battles that need to be fought and won in WI and on the national level instead of trying not to do anything controversial and avoid having to take flak and stand up for those beliefs.
I can see what he believes in his own words, from his own ad.
“Hi, I’m Scott Walker. I’m pro-life. But there’s no doubt in my mind the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy is an agonizing one. That’s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. Now, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens.”
“The decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy”?
“A woman considering her options”?
“The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor”?
Sorry, that’s disgusting pro-choice horse manure.
Just what is it that is so “agonizing” about a “decision” whether or not to dismember and slaughter your own offspring anyway?
No, you’re not bashing Scott Walker. He needs to be vetted and at least on two issues, immigration and abortion, it looks as though he’s been inconsistent. Before the “purist” conservatives among us start burying Walker on this issue we should flashback to an earlier post about one of our most beloved presidents and how he dealt with abortion as the governor of California.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1959005/posts
It's amazing how often the first refuge of the "impurists," whose guy won't protect life, is the invocation of what Ronald Reagan himself called the worst mistake of his life, one that immediately led to the yearly butcher of more than one hundred thousand little babies in the State of California, and helped blow away the obstacles nationally to abortion on demand, leading directly to the slaughter of more than 50 million innocent children in our country.
That hardly seems to be a good selling point to any real conservative for Walker.
Don’t start with the anti-Reagan efforts, 1967 has nothing to do with Walker.
You compound it by posting a bizarre and sickening, several effort to create a false myth about Ronald Reagan being “adamantly pro-choice”.
The question is, who is Fleet Street in cahoots with.
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.