Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hocndoc
Interesting. Presumably he's making this announcement now not only because he believes in the pro-life position but because he thinks (as I do) that it's a WINNING ISSUE.

I have followed with interest comments from Texas Freepers on the other two possible candidates mentioned. Strayhorn appears to be a loose cannon. Kay Bailey Hutchinson appear to have considerable approval. But I am bothered by this statement in the article, if, as it seems, it is true:

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.

Say, what? This statement seems to say that there is a universal, presumably constitutional, right to abort babies right up to the time of viability. Maybe the first six or seven months of pregnancy, maybe even eight or nine if interpreted liberally (as it would be), and that the state should only be permitted to put parental consent or notification restrictions on that right.

That's a huge exception. I don't see how any pro-lifers could possibly support her candidacy if this is true. Keep in mind the history of another Texas lady, Sandra Day O'Connor, who seemed to be reasonably conservative but who has proven to be a flaming liberal on the Supreme Court, strongly favoring abortion, a fundamental right to sodomy, and the use of foreign laws as precedents for SCOTUS decisions. We don't need any more of that in the future.

4 posted on 01/15/2005 10:15:17 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Cicero
All three candidates for Governor have expressed pro baby killing positions.
9 posted on 01/15/2005 10:33:10 AM PST by IronMan04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero
Say, what? This statement seems to say that there is a universal, presumably constitutional, right to abort babies right up to the time of viability. Maybe the first six or seven months of pregnancy, maybe even eight or nine if interpreted liberally (as it would be), and that the state should only be permitted to put parental consent or notification restrictions on that right.

Not being argumentative or even justifying KBH's position, but is there that much variation in the definition of viability? I've heard that viability is typically considered to be about 21-22 weeks.
12 posted on 01/15/2005 11:01:02 AM PST by Akira (Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero

Senator Hutchinson signed on with Specter, Kennedy and Feinstein in asking the President and in sponsoring a Bill in the Senate to allow funding for embryonic stem cells and (supposedly) a cloning ban (Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)S 303) as long as the embryo is destroyed after 14 days.

Last summer, the Senator also gave an interview to reporters after her speech at the Texas Republican State Convention reassuring them that she supported "the right" to an abortion until viability.

Senator Hutchinson has done well to vote on the pro-life side, except for her vote to affirm Roe v Wade as the law of the land in the middle of the Partial Birth Abortion ban debates in the Senate and a vote that would have allowed abortions on military bases. I do wish that she could see how these votes and the push for cloning of human embryos that would then be killed and her comments to the reporters last summer is harmful to the inalienable right not to be killed of all human beings.

Besides, what a way to make herself stand out as a leader in the Senate -- as a prolife leader!


15 posted on 01/15/2005 12:01:42 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Cicero; Theodore R.
Interesting. Presumably he's making this announcement now not only because he believes in the pro-life position but because he thinks (as I do) that it's a WINNING ISSUE.

Ha, ha! Kay Bailey's chances just flew out the window!
27 posted on 01/15/2005 5:42:02 PM PST by demkicker (I'm Ra th er sick of Dan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson