Posted on 06/05/2011 10:07:28 AM PDT by jobim
As a Candidate whom Many Pro-lifers Would Like to Support: her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience in that Sarah Palin:
- happily appointed in 2009 a Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court
- indicates that chemical abortifacients that kill the youngest children should be legal
- distinguishes between her "personal" and public pro-life views (personally pro-life means officially pro-choice)
- rather than fighting for protection, Sarah indicates support even for public funding to kill some unborn children - whitewashes other candidates misleading millions to believe that pro-choice politicians are pro-life
- allows her name to be used in ads promoting even tax-funded embryonic stem cell "research"
- harms personhood by holding that "equal protection" should not apply to unborn children
- has never announced support for any state's personhood amendment nor the Federal Human Personhood Amendment
- opposes personhood by claiming that the majority can decide to legalize the killing of children.
In her vice-presidential acceptance speech Sarah said, "there is a time for politics and a time for leadership."1 During the above, which time was it for her? Sources below document Sarah Palin's tragic record and political rhetoric.
Summary:
Sarah Palin claims to be personally pro-life but her words and actions prove that she is officially pro-choice and stands against the God-given right to life of the unborn. Even if Roe v. Wade were reversed, Palin says she would still leave the decision to kill children to others.
(Excerpt) Read more at prolifeprofiles.com ...
The state constitutions also require the protection of all innocent human life and the provision of the equal protection of the laws. Most often using language that is a mix of Declaration language and Constitutional language.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Really? I just went to the article, and counted 61 linked footnotes.
First, it would clarify and affirm the amendments you mentioned.
Second, America is turning more and more prolife everyday. If the trend continues a Prolife Amendment and its acceptance in the hearts of Americans and its enforcement will follow.
In the meantime the overturning of Roe v Wade with the acknowledgment that abortion is not a Constitutional right will have to suffice. THEN, or perhaps already in a decision overturning Roe the amendments you mention will be clarified and affirmed.
Claiming Palin is not Prolife and thereby hurting her chances of election does nothing to help the prolife cause because as President she will appoint Judges to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v Wade.
I never said any of that
I suggested that the article was written by a RomneyBot
Next they will accuse Gov Sarah Palin of employing illegal aliens and supporting gay pride parades
goota level the playing field for unqualified Mitty dontcha know
She’s “pro-life” in exactly the same way that Stephen A. Douglas was “anti-slavery.” Personally against it, thought it was bad, but thought the states could allow it if they wanted.
Clarification is fine. Go for it. But don’t tell me I have to meet the high hurdle of amending a Constitution whose highest purpose has always been the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable rights of the people.
I could care less about “overturning Roe,” in the same way I could care less about “overturning” Dred Scott. It’s ancient history of bad judging. But it isn’t the law of the land. The Constitution is.
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
All we need are officers of government who will follow the Constitution. And as this supreme matter demonstrates, Sarah Palin isn’t one who is committed to doing that.
Which, as I said, is patently ridiculous.
By the way, since Romney decided to run for president, and started lying about his abortion position to do so, he has since adopted the Palin-Paul-McCain-Ford pro-choice for states position himself.
Mitt Romney: Let States Decide Abortion Law
Which isn't surprising. This position is the perfect cover for someone who has no intention of stopping the abortion holocaust to hide behind politically.
So, thanks to Sarah Palin's wonderful "leadership," her supporters are now put in the position of defending Mitt Romney's position on abortion. And arguing against Ronald Reagan's personhood, Fourteenth Amendment position which has been in the GOP platform for the last 27 years.
Oh, so you 'could care less'? That means you care. Yet your argument states just the opposite. Which is it?
Methinks you meant that you "couldn't care less"...
Actually, Roe V. Wade is the LAW OF THE LAND as it now stands. So, to say that all we need are officers who will follow the Constitution is both simplistic and delusional.
RvW must be overturned. Let it go back to the states. Then, let the people work within their states to have abortion nullified across the land. It will take years, nay decades. But it will happen. But, I'm no longer sure you care whether that happens or not. You don't want to lose an issue you can use to beat someone over the head whom you don't like.
It's not optional. In order to keep their oaths to the U.S. Constitution and their own state constitutions, they MUST ban abortion. Until they do, they are in breach of their oaths.
If the judges don't like it, impeach them. Their breach of their oaths to uphold the supreme purpose of government disqualifies them in a way nothing else ever could. It's that serious.
It's my belief that the very survival of this republic turns on this.
“rhetoric is shocking to the conscience”
Oh, the drama........
That's clear from the post I responded to. This 'all we need are officers who will follow the Constitution' stuff. The implication is clear. RvW can stand.
Well, that proves his argument is a straw dog for sure. Palin is terrible because she's not pro-life (even though she claims to be). Yet, we don't need no Constitutional amendment. Let the law stand. We just need people who'll follow the Constitution. So what if there's a law in place for years that makes abortion legal. Who cares? It's really all about Palin, nothing about abortion.
As I wrote; delusional. Oh, I forgot, and biased to the core.
Okay. Produce the text from our Constitution that gives courts the power to make laws.
My copy, in Article One, Section 1 says this:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Which part of "all" do you fail to understand?
I also see no veto power for the judiciary, or the power to amend constitutions.
You've fallen for the judicial supremacist lie, just like Sarah Palin has.
Courts have no power at all except in individual cases brought before them, to judge ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DULY PASSED LAWS THAT ACCORD WITH IT.
If they won't do that, they are no longer on good behavior and need to be tossed from the bench.
Wow. What a twisting of everything I’ve said.
And still, not a single Palin supporter can explain what other unalienable rights the states can “decide,” other than the right to live, of course.
On what basis would you “overturn Roe”? Make your argument.
Do you believe your wrangling trumps the saving of lives? The simple overturning of Roe would do that. As you know the SCOTUS can reverse prior decisions. That is within their Constitutional powers is it not?
All your railing about the Constitution is stupid, dumb, and unhelpful in the extreme. We have to deal whith RvW at the Federal level first, then at the state level. It has to happen. And doing that will be no less difficult than your inane idea that all we need is officers to uphold the Constitution. Just how long do you really think it will take to get to that point, huh?
Give it a rest. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a long time.
Government can not take a life (both born and unborn) without due process, government can not take your guns away from you,...etc.
It is up to the people in their states to prevent private citizens from taking the life (both born and unborn) of another private citizen. The same is also true with guns...etc.
Again, the BOR protects citizens from abuse by government. If you wish to have the BOR protect citizens from abuse by other citizens then you would have to amend the constitution.
I twisted nothing. I merely restated your words. You're not about the Constitution or abortion. You're all about Palin. That's it. Period.
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.