Posted on 10/12/2004 2:40:07 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
You could have knocked me over with a feather, but what was George W. Bush's best moment in the town hall debate on Friday? Why, his answer to the question on taxpayer funding of abortion, that's what. The question was asked by audience member Sarah Degenhart, whom I mention because she deserves credit for eliciting a rare moment of genuineness and spontaneity from these overprogrammed debate formats (and kudos to moderator Charles Gibson for including it). It had edge: "Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
My fist went towards the ceiling as I yelled a hearty "YEAH!!"
I thoroughly enjoyed it as Kerry tried to spin his way out of answering the question (he never answered it, but it was obvious that he didn't) and then had to sit back and listen as Bush was direct and straightforward about it.
"Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise."
This statement clearly shows how Kerry's mind works!
Kerry obviously believes that the constitution obligates the government to tax others in order to buy certain things for poor people, including but not limited to abortions.
Based on this remark, it's clear Kerry does not understand our system of government! There's nothing in the constitution that says the government has to create a dole for poor people, much less that the government ought to tax people to pay for other people's abortions!
Abortion and all its other little spinoffs is absolutely tax payer funded. When I went to PP, they offered you free birth control pills. When I said I pay my own bills, I got a strange look. They charge it back to the county (tax payer) and while I'd be essentially paying from my own tax money, any one of the college students living nearby can get it for free even though they don't live in Nassau and are not paying property taxes. As someone who does pay the property taxes in Nassau (the highest in the nation), I am wholeheartedly AGAINST funding any cosmetic abortions and other reproductive measures women can do without if they'd only close their legs.
My letter to the Editor of a paper in John Edwards' home state of North Carolina:
Much of the following I cannot take credit for, but the sentiments expressed in this article provide an interesting insight to Senator John Edwards' conficted stand of partial birth abortion. The comments are from a 2/05/04 article called Kate's Take: Crossing Over from Kate O'Beirne, the Washington Editor for National Reveiew.
Ms. O'Beirn states, " Back in 1985 a younger John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl." The child, whose words Edwards shared with the North Carolina jury, suffered brain damage that Edwards hoped to pin on the obstetrician who failed to heed a fetal heart monitor's distress signals."
Ms. O'Beirn references a New York Times front page story about Mr. Edwards' performance. The New York Times article states, "Referencing the hour-by-hour monitor readings, Edwards told the jury, "She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.'...At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'" His closer: "She speaks to you through me...I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
Edwards's clients won a $6.5 million verdict in that cerebral-palsy case.
I, therefore, find it particularly repugnant that Senator Edwards, himself a no-show to vote on The Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 on October 21, 2003, publicly defended Senator Kerry's no-vote on this bill and Kerry's discussion in Debate #2 concerning partial birth abortion on a round of Sunday morning talk shows.
What was the specific wording of the Senate Bill that Kerry voted against and Edwards conveniently avoided? "The Congress finds and declares the following: 1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the other, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
The argument that Senators Kerry and Edwards withheld their support of this ban because it did not contain a provision for the life/health of the mother is ludicrous. I will concede that in some cases, a pregnancy may jeopardize the life of the mother. But how can anyone assert that inducing labor and then pausing the birth process long enough to puncture the child's skull and remove its brains will in any way contribute to the physical or mental health of that mother? Post delivery there cannot possibly be any correlation between the baby's viability and the mother's condition. Could we not give that baby a chance at survival?
Again according to Ms. O'Beirn, "Since being elected to the Senate, John Edwards has obviously not heard such desperate little voices given his vehement opposition to any restriction on abortion, even the gruesome partial-birth-abortion procedure."
But then maybe he only hears their voices crying for life when there's a contingency fee involved.
Senate Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ105.108
Please feel free to pass this along - particularly if you live in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa or Wisconsin.
I'm smarter than George Bush, and probably most of you, too. That's one reason I'm the richest man in the room. Only intelligent people agree with me, which is the most significant sign of superior intelligence. The reasons are painfully obvious. The rest are obviously the kind of idiots who have lost their minds and will vote for the man sitting right there."
Humble, humble man.
Unfortunately, a lot of taxpayer money is going to pay for abortions. In California, in 2002, $19,619,000 of Medi-Cal funds went to pay for abortions. That is up a couple of million dollars from the previous year.
But PP's profits are in abortions.
Keep an eye on your local United Way, and make it clear to them that you will not donate if donations go to Planned Parenthood.
He's so smart he knows about parts of the Constitution no one else has ever seen.
You wrote: "Kerry obviously believes that the constitution obligates the government to tax others in order to buy certain things for poor people, including but not limited to abortions."
I agree; that's exactly what he said. It would have been lovely if the questioner could have followed up with:
"So, Senator Kerry, does that mean that if the Supreme Court were to unequivocally rule that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense, that you would support a federal program to buy guns for those who could not afford them?"
Boy, it would have been fun to watch him try to doublespeak his way out of that one. :-)
But that would logically remind viewers that ALL Federally funded medical care and medical research is unconstitutional, and neither of the candidates wants to go there ...
Nassau? Long Island? I live there too. You're right about those property taxes!
When you think about it, the Gag Rule is Pro-Choice. Those taxpayers offended by abortion are not forced to pay for it. Those taxpayers who support it can donate their OWN money to abortion programs.
Yep, thanks to the OPM spending politicians past and present *lol* To think that they wanted to make Hempstead into a CITY like Long Beach. As if the few tax payers that exist in the village don't pay enough already. Not that I'm complaining or nuthin' :-)
Did you catch that town hall meeting on TV a few weeks ago? It was all about the high cost of living on LI and how so many people were leaving? Most of my relatives have already left for cheaper places and I sure don't intend on dying here either. Our house got re-assessed and the school tax went up by $500.
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.