No need to turn to more violence. All we need is representatives who will actually keep their oaths, first and foremost to provide equal protection for the supreme individual right.
I’ve move on to D .. but first those Congressman
1. All 5 congress critters in CT have made a oath to NARAL.
2. The opposition candidates receive no institutional support from ANY church denomination in the state. Not the Diocese, not the Traddies, not the Evangelicals, not the Baptists, not the Pentecostals. If anything, they spew venom at those who suggest they have a civic duty to show up to fill out their ballot.
how many stayed home in Aug 2012 when the pro-lifer was defeated in that vital and close primary? 80% or more.
D. regarding Duty of members of Congress .... let’s look at the duty of pro-life citizens. Hanna of NY was unopposed in NOV 2014. Unopposed. If Right to Lifers cannot get a Right to Lifer on the COnservative Line or other line and keep them there ... groups that don’t participate in the process don’t have much influence beyond that.
Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and that lady from IND deserve General Election opponents, not just primary opponents in 2016. Or our we all bark? All talk, no action.
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Walorski of Indiana
Ellmers of NC
all need general election opponents, not just primaries.
Get ramped up!
E.
“horsetrade to exchange the lives of a small number”
“codify abortion “rights” “
“codifying permission to kill babies”
“grants explicit permission in the statute to kill babies”
Abortion was not a federal crime before R v Wade ... does that mean abortion was codified? Nothing has codified abortion in federal law. Criminal laws do not mention actions that are legal or that remain legal. States have the authority to ban abortions, nothing in this bill prevents that interferes with their authority.
Abortion rights have been codified over the past 40 years by the state legislatures ...
at the state level, modifying those laws is not codifying abortion rights.
-those quotes at the beginning of this post are false statements.
Example: Federal Kidnapping Act
does not apply to all kidnappings ... does that mean it codifies kidnapping rights? What law school teaches this gibberish? Is there a name for this philosophy?