Posted on 09/26/2012 10:14:59 AM PDT by Morgana
Over the years I’ve learned that you can see some really amazing stuff on the Today Show at 7:30 in the morning. A week or so back as I puffed away on the tread mill, I spotted actress and director Penny Marshall being interviewed by Matt Lauer about her new book, “My mother was nuts.” Most remember her best for co-starring in the television comedy “Laverne and Shirley” and as the director of films such as “Big” and “A League of Their Own.”
Marshall is legendary for, shall we say, living the drug culture of the 1970s to the fullest, which apparently takes up a lot of time in her book. More importantly for us (thanks to the always helpful pro-life site Jivinjehoshaphat), I learned that I had missed an allusion Lauer made to the abortion that Marshall writes about in her book.
After reading the transcript from the Today Show, I went to an interview Marshall gave Reuters.
“She is also vocal about her support for abortion rights after her own experience with unplanned pregnancies,” writes Andrea Burzynski. “Her first pregnancy with her boyfriend-turned-husband resulted in her daughter, Tracy. Her second, following her second marriage and divorce to Hollywood director Rob Reiner, resulted in an abortion.”
Notice what follows next. Marshall says, “I’m pro-choice. But I’m glad that there was no choice back then, because I have a wonderful daughter and three grandchildren.”
What a remarkably revealing statement, wouldn’t you say? Because she was not able to abort, Marshall’s been blessed with a daughter and three grandchildren.
Put another way, the better angels of her nature were allowed to take wing because she did not have the “option” to abort. A great lesson.
Yea, that blows me away. Years ago my oldest daughter called me to say that she had miscarried. I fell on my knees and cried. Someday I'll meet that grandchild.
Envision the “Basilica of Satan” in Hell.
Envision the Barack Obama stained-glass window in that basilica.
One of the pieces of glass in that window is labeled “punished with a baby”.
I beg your pardon?
Ms Marshall, I wouldn’t give you a Penny for that brain of yours.
I know the history. I was there. I fought against it. I wept over it when he signed it. I received a letter from Reagan explaining his position right after he signed it. I rejoiced when he recanted AFTER he left office as Governor (5 or 6 years later) and threw his hat into the ring for President. I’m glad that he ultimately admitted his mistake, but I shall never forget what he did in the first place and the shock that reverbrated throughout the state at the time. All the pro-lifers were sure that the SCOTUS would over turn it eventually, but history shows that that did not happen.
That Bill will be a stain on California forever. I’m glad that I do not live there any more. There is no point in denying that it ever happened.
I did not say it did not happen, I said you do not know the history.
That is just BS. I happen to know that he was deluged with telegrams and letters from every Catholic Church in CA asking him not to sign it and warning him about the outcome. If he "didn't take time to consider it" that means that he was just giving the back of his hand to all the Catholics in California, in addition to the other religions who oppose abortion as a matter of conscience.
In my own parish, the priests furnished us with directions on how to send a telegram the Sunday before he signed it into law. Can you imagine the lily-livered Pastors doing that now? "Oh, Lord, they'd say. The IRS will take our tax deductions away, or maybe a parishioner will stop giving to the building fund."
We didn't have much money then and 4 little children, but my husband and I sat down and drafted a telegram designed to put our thoughts within the 10 word limit for the cheapest rate. Others wrote lengthier treatises.
As a matter of fact, in the letter which he sent me weeks later, he claimed that he had "considered it carefully". So who are you going to believe? Someone who was there and involved, or somebody who writes about the past with rose colored glasses? Was he lying then, or are his biographers lying now?
But, I DO know the history. I suspect that you do not know the history. I’ve gone around with you about this before. Were you there, an adult, and active in politics at the time? It’s easy to gloss things over from the perspective of time — particularly when you are writing about a hero. Ronald Reagan did many onderful things for our country. His signature on California’s abortion Bill was not one of them.
I get that we have had this discussion before.
Yes, I was in California, in fact my senior project was this very subject.
I know the history, I was involved.
I did not say it did not happen, I said you do not know the history.
For reasons known only to you, it is important to make this single act evidence that RR was something he was not and never was.
Pro-life and pro-choice were not even terms used at that time, they came later.
Huck Follywood
You wanna bet? Obviously, I was older than you and more aware, if you were a student (and probably influenced by the leftist professors at the time.) I was a mom of 4 small tykes, surrounded by the leftist, libertine, elements at UC Bezerkley. I sent the telegram. I received the letter from Reagan claiming that he’d considered all sides carefully and that he felt that he had to sign the bill for those poor girls who’d been raped, or incested. I kept that letter for years because it looked like it actually bore his signature. Finally, I discarded it during a move after I realized that they used signature machines for that sort of thing. No, the newspapers made up the term “pro-choice” to stop the pro-life factions from saying pro-abortion. They even tried to get everyone to attach the moniker “anti-choice” onto the pro-lifers. I imagine Plan Parenthood still uses that term in California.
I was a Goldwater Girl and campaigned for the team, it is not relevant.
I am not having this conversation again with you, you want Reagan to be something he never was, I do not know why it is so important for you to believe this about Reagan. So have a nice life believing what you want. ta ta
The term "pro-life" was coined by U.S. leaders of the right-to-life (anti-abortion) movement following the January 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade
This is the last word. It is YOU that wants to believe that Reagan was something he never was.
Either Reagan did not know his own mind and could be pushed around by his staff — even to the point of sending letters offering his “well considered” reasons for signing the legislation at the time, or he really did consider all sides of the issue and signed the Bill anyway. Take your choice. He certainly wasn’t “tricked” into signing.
I understand that, considering the conversations swirling around CA at the time. There was vociferous support for the Bill from all the elites, including Reagan’s personal friends and politicians from both Parties. There was also a concerted effort by the media to publicize sob-stories (always without disclosing any names, of course) about poor girls who were abused by their fathers and/or brothers, or who were raped by strangers through no fault of their own. And whispered accounts about how somebody’s sister, or aunt, was advised that she would die if she gave birth. This generated unbelievable sympathy from the public. Catholics were portrayed as anachromisms left over from the middle ages — hopelessly ignorant.
Of course, when the stats finally came out — there are few abortions performed because of rape and incest compared to the number that are performed because pregancy is “inconvenient” and therefore harmful to the MENTAL health of the mother. And gynocologists have stated that the idea that there is no way to deliver a baby without killing the mother is ludicrous.
Reagan never anticipated that the “health of the mother” clause would be interpreted as loosely as it was/is. I believed him on that when he later said that he was sorry that he’d ever signed the Bill. However, it took him nearly 8 years and a lot of dead babies to finally say that.
But, I remember what he said at the time, because I received a letter from him about it. That did not stop me from supporting and working and voting for him in every election he ever was a part of — even after we moved away from CA. There was no alternative who was any more pro-life at the time. There is no candidate in any election who offers absolutely everything a voter wants, unless it is himself.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Catholic voters favor Obama; Church guide favors Romney and GOP platform
CHICAGO - Almost 24 percent of America’s 301 million identify themselves as part of the Catholic Church. How that voting bloc votes in 2012 could very well determine the outcome of the Presidential race if Catholics are motivated to go to the polls.
According to a poll released Thursday, Catholic voters are siding with re-electing President Obama. In June, Obama held a slight edge over Mitt Romney among Catholics (49-47 percent), but since then, Obama is surging ahead, and now leads 54-39 percent, according to a Pew Research poll conducted on Sept. 16....
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.