Posted on 09/05/2007 3:43:28 PM PDT by papasmurf
The influential Arlington Group, a coalition of prominent leaders of the so-called "religious right, has decided to withhold their planned support for the fledgling campaign of former Senator Fred Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at update08.foxnews.com ...
BTW, I never did get an answer I asked a LONG time ago if Paul ever received a paycheck from a hospital that performed abortions? Hey, if Paulites can ask those type of questions of other candidates, why not ask it of him..
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
I don't care if you criticize Paul on foreign policy. But if you want to spin that he's somehow pro-abortion based upon a few votes then I have nothing further to say to you on this subject.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
Email his campaign.
See post #62
Inded it is. And your priority is to enlist the federal government into a "culture war", and you don't want anyone asking questions about whether that's supposed to be their job.
Contrary to big government social 'conservative' nanny statists, morality falls under the 'ordinary course of affairs' and concerns the 'lives, liberties, and properties of the people'
Give me a break. He has always made the pro-life issue his priority. He has spoken to many pro-life organizations and addressed the Kansas City convention earlier this year. He even delivered babies while still a member of Congress during his first stint.
his priority seems more to be making political points than to make pro-life points
Would you rather have him not play up his pro-life beliefs like the vast majority of GOP candidates do?
Your misrepresentations and mischaracterizations are catching up to you. You ain’t foolin’ nobody.
Drawing comparisons between hunting (& McDonald’s???) and traditional marriage is just clutching straws.
Come on, man. You can do better than that.
I don’t see your point at all. We already have a Federal Defense of Marriage Act. All a Constitutional amendment does is codify that existing law in a form that a radical federal judge can’t overturn. There’s no regulating or banning whatsoever in the process.
Opposing this amendment on federalist grounds is just dumb.
I seen it and pretty much destroyed it.
Thompson is apparently trying to steal log cabin republican votes from giuliani.
>>>The fact is that federalizing morality has led to the wholesale legal slaughter of unborn children.<<<
Not exactly.
The fact of the matter is that FEDERAL JUDGES federalizing morality led to the wholesale legal slaughter of unborn children.
And they can do it again with this marriage issue, regardless of what the various states think.
So if states legislate morality, are they "nanny states" or does this epithet only apply to the federal government?
Any state can be a "nanny state", and will if you let them.
Yeah but if the people don’t protect those moralities, someone has to. If the feds are all that’s left, so be it. I don’t think banning gay marriage on a federal level due to every states’ failure to do it is a nanny state.
What did Mr. Madison say in the quote I provided? What does the 10th Amendment say? If I have a problem with the state I live in, I address that issue at the state level. As intended
Don't laugh, one of the 'conservatives' currently running advocates that very thing. I don't care if you like it or not. I don't like it. As a Christian I believe homosexuality to be a sin. But no matter how much I may abhor a certain action, I will not advocate legislating the issue at the federal level
The Constitution of these United States was intended to be a limitation on the federal government alone. It's not a list of rights or anything else. The last time an Amendment was passed banning an action of the citizens of the separate and sovereign states, it was overturned in short term.
Thank you for pointing out that legislating morality is a proper role of state governments.
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.