Posted on 06/06/2004 5:48:24 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Sen. Hutchison lays out stance on abortion issue before GOP
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican considered to be a potential candidate for Texas governor in 2006, said Saturday she supports a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before a fetus is viable outside of the womb.
Hutchison, speaking with news reporters after her speech to the Republican state convention, said her stance on abortion has remained consistent through the years.
"My position is I think there can be an ability for a woman, until viability, to make a choice," she said, adding that the state should have the right to impose abortion restrictions such as parental consent or notification.
Hutchison told GOP convention delegates she values "the dignity of human life." She said she opposes late-term abortions, often referred to as partial birth abortions.
"We have our differences, but we have a fierce loyalty to each other," she said in her speech.
The state Republican Party platform calls for protection of all "innocent human life" from fertilization until natural death. It urges the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.
Hutchison's spokesman, Dave Beckwith, said the senator supports current Texas law, which requires notification of the parents of minors seeking abortion and requires a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion.
"In my presence, she called the partial birth abortion murder ... but that's after viability," Beckwith said.
Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who would be running for a full second term for governor in 2006 when Hutchison might run, has said he opposes abortion except in the case of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother.
Hutchison wouldn't say Saturday whether she will run against Perry.
Hutchison was at the center of a fight at the state GOP convention in San Antonio in 1996 when anti-abortion forces targeted her for defeat as a national delegate because she supports a woman's right to an abortion in some cases. She barely won election then as a delegate.
I fully understand. "Senator" Hutchison needs to go back to whatever abortion hell-hole she came from.
As far as I know, Hutchison doesn't do much except occupy space.
Folks who want to see abortion restrictions at 9.9 or 10 (and I saw a lot of 'em in San Antonio during the convention) ought to keep in mind that until the legislature is considering passing a restriction that the courts will allow which is greater than another Republican supports, that other Republican is on their team, and not let the fact that they would disagree about a bill that isn't going to come up for a vote anyway turn them into enemies.
I had no idea. I think MS Hutchison needs to see one of those new 4D ultrasounds of a pregnancy. Watch an abortion while the ultrasound is on. Face up to what she supports! All supporters should do so.
Then tell me the baby isn't "viable". Who is she to say that it is okay to kill another humanbeing?
She needs to read the words of Ronald Reagan on the subject:
"Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life— the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life......
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to—any more than the public voice arose against slavery—until the issue is clearly framed and presented.
What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn."
I like what the Pope said about abortion and homo rights: he basically said that these are selfish decisions wrapped up as "rights". " Be careful, and let no man deceive you".
Her speech on Saturday was very impressive. She had me reconsidering. I believed from her speech that she was capable of going back to Washington and supporting our Platform and upholding life.
It is very concerning that she could make a speach praising our Platform, decrying the blockage of the partial birh abortion law and praising the Unborn Protection Act, and follow up with her own views that "viability" was some sort of marker for bestowing the protection from killing.
I want this woman to lead the nation and especially the women in the US Senate in protecting the unborn and all human lives from deliberate *elective* killing.
Slavery was an issue whose effects were virtually identical to the evil produced by abortion. In order to justify an institution from which he derived an income, the slaveowner was forced to rationalize away the very humanity of the slave, in spite of the fact that that humanity manifested itself before his very eyes. Such a lie becomes institutionalized and ingrained to the point where the desirability of truth becomes suspect, and truth is no longer valued for its own sake. Abortion produces the same effect. Truth becomes stigmatized, and everybody suffers.
Why make any distinction?
If it's not a child, it doesn't matter when, how, or why you kill it.
If it is, then it may not be electively killed, period, ever.
What is so hard about that? Other than that it requires five consecutive seconds of rational thought?
Dan
I want this woman to lead the nation and especially the women in the US Senate in protecting the unborn and all human lives from deliberate *elective* killing.
What? That's not what she said at all: she is an all-out supporter of Roe v. Wade as constitutional fiat.
In spite of an easy "out" in the form of time pressure caused by the run away fleas, Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst and Speaker Craddick moved not only the Defense of Marriage Act, but the Woman's Right to Know Act and the Prenatal Protection Act *and* the Cloning Ban out of Committee and onto the House Floor. The first 3 were passed, moved to the Senate and then to the Governor and signed into law. (The Cloning Ban never got a hearing on the Senate floor, I'm afraid, because it never passed the House - largely because my own Representative Carter Casteel begged the House not to pass the Ban.)
Senator Hutchison has done a fair job on pro-life votes, but she does say things such as those quoted in this article (and the one in the SA not-newspaper http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA060604.14A.GOPMain_.139e0d01e.html ), but she and her staff are firmly pro-abortion -- citing and voting that Roe v. Wade is the "law of the land" and that it is the woman's "choice" whether any human life is worthy of equal protection under the law.
The dilemma we all face - I guess some of us more than others, since I have Casteel, Hutchison, and Jeff Wentworth to decide on - is whether we will take the increments that we can get, whether 70%, 80%, or whatever is the passing grade that we will accept from our elected officials. Will I vote for a candidate that votes pro-life 99% of the time, but doesn't quite work to advance the right of all humans to be protected from intentional killing by other humans?
I will support Carter Casteel and Kay Bailey Hutchison the same way they do the Platform of the Republican Party of Texas, and the right to life of humans: I'll vote for them if there is no other choice, but I'll tell my own "stance" opportunity I get, and will not work to advance their cause in any way behind the scenes.
I understand that. I was expressing a wish. A pie in the sky wish, perhaps, but one that I communicate to her and her staff as often as possible.
How about a quote from Lincoln on the subject, speaking of our founders:
"This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages."
JUDGES knocked down that beacon!
As a matter of fact, they have torn down the very premise of the formation of our nation: The right of the people to rule themselves. We no longer have that right. Instead we have allowed tyranny to rule in the United States. Tyranical judges now tell the populace how to run the country! Tyranical judges impose their will on us, and we allow it!
We never voted on the issue of abortion. Our representatives never voted on the issue of abortion, before 1973. And when we put forth referendums and our governments go through the required steps to make a law....judges strike it down! And so, the practice was forced on a nation which did not want it, and believed that it was immoral! Our constitution guarantees the right of conscience.
The majority was forced to accept the unacceptable by a very small minority. Thus self rule by the people ceased to exist in 1973.
We have our money taken from us to support a Tyranical authority, (judiciary) and are denied our Constitutional right of representation!
Without a shot fired. The revolutionary war was fought for nothing. We allow it. We allow some appointed judges to rule over us, when God and our forefathers provided us with a government of self rule.
Now, the same thing is happening with the homosexuals.
When is Bush going to kick the tyrants our of the USA?! When do we get a government run by the people, again?
"but men love darkness more than light"....
Just read the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Replace the word "slave" for "unborn baby" and you have our fight!
Unfortunately there are a score of others.
As far as I am concerned, she is just another limousine Republican, catering to the country club set--you know the ones--the theme dressers who show up at the convention only to show off their latest red, white, and blue outfits!
When I called a radio show on KTSA in San Antonio some years back questioning her on her support of abortion when the state Republican platform opposes it, she told me she didn't need pro-life votes to win. She was unfortunately right, but I've never voted for her since. How she can support abortion when she adopted a little girl and knows how long it takes to get a baby is beyond me.
I didn't hear her say that before the convention.
The key is to reelect President Bush and more Republicans to the Senate. We need more judges confirmed from President George W. Bush nominees, not fewer.
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.