Posted on 01/15/2005 9:58:29 AM PST by hocndoc
Abortion foes tap governor
Web Posted: 01/15/2005 12:00 AM CST
Peggy Fikac
Chief, Express-News Austin bureau
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, who may face a re-election challenge from within his party next year, plans to headline a Capitol rally next weekend on an issue of importance to GOP primary voters — abortion.
"Join pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry!" says a Web posting by the Texas Alliance for Life touting next Saturday's Texas Rally for Life.
"We've been putting it (the rally) on for about 15 years. This is the first time a governor has appeared. We're just ecstatic about that," said the alliance's Joe Pojman.
Pojman is among conservatives whose endorsements have been touted by Perry, who may face a challenge in next year's GOP primary from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Neither has announced.
The group invited Perry because his track record showed "this was something he was very interested in," Pojman said, and because it's a way to highlight abortion legislation that if passed by lawmakers will go to Perry for consideration.
Perry "is currently and always has been very strong on the life issue," Pojman said.
Pojman said the possibly contested primary was a consideration: "I thought we'd give him an opportunity to speak to a big part of his constituency that participates in the primary."
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said by e-mail that the governor "has spoken to pro-life groups in years past" and that he over the years "has taken a consistent stand in advocating for the protection of human life."
Perry opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Strayhorn holds the same position.
Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb but supports states' ability to impose restrictions such as parental consent or notification for minors.
"His position is unchanged. You always evaluate appearances based on what's going on. If he is likely to face a primary opponent, it is a smart appearance. It's smart politics for him," said lobbyist and consultant Bill Miller. "In a Republican primary, the right-to-life faction is strong and active and they participate in a big way."
Republican consultant Royal Masset said, "It's a core issue. The abortion issue is 10 to 100 times more potent than even, say, the gay marriage issue."
In this legislative session, Pojman lists as a top priority a push to require parental consent before an underage girl can have a pregnancy terminated.
The move is one that Perry supports, although not all abortion opponents agree it is needed. Current law requires that parents be notified, but not that they give their consent.
Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, plans to file a bill to require parental consent and also plans to appear at next weekend's rally.
A Perry supporter, King said that in the GOP primary, the issue of abortion "has always been a very important issue. It's not the only issue. And you've got a number of people in the Republican Party it's not a big issue to at all."
pfikac@express-news.net
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA011505.1B.perry_abortion.bb79bb2.html
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
There are no terms limits for any constitutional offices in TX. It is just a coincidence that few have ever served more than six years in the governorship. John B. Connally, Jr., the most successful in terms of state governance of modern TX governors, stepped down after three two-year terms.
Hutchison has a lot of independent and Democrat support for whatever office she may seek.
Hutchinson has the backing of the pro-abortion side, too. Including the WISH List
http://www.thewishlist.org/
Senator Hutchinson's page on the Wish List site:
http://www.thewishlist.org/Hutchison.htm
Good for him. He needs pro-lifers, too, to beat Hutchinson.
Texans need to be very, very careful. Thanks in part to tacit support from the President, we now have a pro-abortion U.S. Senator (probably Senator-for-Life) from Georgia. I would hate to see Texans saddled with a pro-abortion governor, who could do even more harm.
Actually, a Catholic theological analysis of the life of the mother exception would be that the baby was unavoidably killed as a side-effect of saving the mother. That might be the case, for example, in an ectopic pregnancy.
Similarly, it would be illegitimate in traditional Catholic teaching for a married person to have an operation explicitly intended to render him or her sterile, in order to avoid having children while enjoying carefree sex; but it would be perfectly legitimate to have such an operation if necessary to remove a cancer, even though it had the further side effect of rendering the person sterile.
As another example, it would be wrong to remove your arm because you thought you looked better without it, but it would be legitimate to remove it because it was incurably infected with gangrene, so as to save your life.
Perhaps to some this sounds like hair-splitting, but I believe it's the right way to approach such questions.
Also, what you have described here is really common sense!
It's HUTCHISON, but hardly anyone can get it right.
Yes, I understand, and should be more careful, especially with the problems with my last name.
I hope the Senator can "get it right" when it comes to protecting human life.
I discussed the "exceptions" in this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320881/posts?page=48#48
The baby is her baby. He or she is just as much a possessor of the inalienable right not to be killed as she is. If the infant does not have the right not to be killed - an inalienable right not dependent on any circumstances - then how to justify the right not to be killed of any unborn child???
[The next bit sounds very unemotional and clinical, but that's the only way I can contemplate this question, by attempting to be "clinical." I base my discussion on comments by Gilbert Meilander in his book "Christian Bioethics, a Primer." I'm still opposed to the finality, the irreversibility of death and am convinced that we humans are more adaptable and able to survive horrible circumstances as long as there is life.]
The only exception would be is when a woman considers the pregnancy a continuation of the assault. This might happen in cases where the woman perceived that her life was actually at risk during the rape. Consider a woman beaten or injured, or one who is held at gunpoint, or one who is believes that she has been exposed to HIV. There are also the women who are truly endangered by pregnancy. And the ones whose husbands can't bear the fact that she has been raped, much less that she is carrying the rapist's child.
Back to what *I* believe: I'm afraid that the reason for the exception for rape is actually a response to those who want to forget that she was raped, possibly, especially, her husband and father. In the days where women belonged to their husbands or fathers (and in the parts of the world where this is true), the male reaction is to kill the child of the rapist who stole "their" property - the woman's sex, fertility, and offspring.
All too often we want to take a look at the consequences of the woman when when something like rape takes place. (In other words the rape needs to be dealt with, and so lets destroy the baby...)
Rape is horrible no doubt about it, but to want to destroy the unborn for this despicable act, seems to make a grave problem even worse. You're right... lets look at adoption as the alternative.
Did anybody at this rally bother asking Rick why he appointed abortionist Elizabeth Ames-Jones to the Texas Railroad Commission that week? Didn't think so...
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.