Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: MrLeRoy
Will he protect more or fewer babies than Arnold?

The irony here may be that Arnold would do more for pro-life than McClintock, by advancing the abortion restrictions he's in favor of, because it would behoove him to please the social conservative base that is suspicious of him. While McClintock doesn't have that problem and would likely fear the reaction of the liberal California press if he, the avowed pro-life champion, were to move to restrict abortion.

The fact that McClintock, like Simon before him, is now openly admitting that he would do nothing about abortion does not surprize me. He is now, in essence, operationally pro-choice. Purists please take note.

238 posted on 09/15/2003 10:01:37 AM PDT by BearArms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]


To: BearArms
The irony here may be that Arnold would do more for pro-life than McClintock, by advancing the abortion restrictions he's in favor of, because it would behoove him to please the social conservative base that is suspicious of him. While McClintock doesn't have that problem and would likely fear the reaction of the liberal California press if he, the avowed pro-life champion, were to move to restrict abortion.

Interesting speculation---but I am aware of no evidence that slightly anti-abortion candidates protect more lives than more firmly anti-abortion candidates.

The fact that McClintock, like Simon before him, is now openly admitting that he would do nothing about abortion

I'll believe that when I see his words to that effect.

242 posted on 09/15/2003 10:05:04 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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