Replies

And I think that's what he will do, even if he agrees with the result of Roe. I think you can be pro-choice, without supporting imposing a nationwide solution.

This is almost as confused as Rudy's own position. Sadly, I think you're sincere and he actually knows the flimflam he's selling you. No doubt, we'll debate this on other threads.

Isn't overturning Roe v. Wade one of the goals of the pro-life movement? What would you have them do, if you think that a US without Roe will have the exact same results?

The pro-life movement knows better than to expect any pro-choicer to do us any favors at all.

NARAL-endorsed candidates can never be our friends unless they utterly repudiate their support for infanticide in a convincing way that they can never take back again.

This is almost as confused as Rudy's own position. Sadly, I think you're sincere and he actually knows the flimflam he's selling you. No doubt, we'll debate this on other threads.

No doubt. But since many issues have been resolved, sometimes temporarily, through allowing states to make their own decisions, I can't see why anyone - pro-life, pro-choice - cannot be in favor of something like that.

The pro-life movement knows better than to expect any pro-choicer to do us any favors at all.

In 2003, the last time the Harkin amendment came up in the Senate, affirming Roe v. Wade, it passed by 52-46. If the others had been present, it would have been 53-47. Now, weren't those 7 pro-choice Republicans doing the pro-life movement a favor by being a Republican? They were voting for the pro-life leadership of the GOP, and that helped the pro-life movement to set the agenda.