Posted on 11/09/2007 6:02:11 AM PST by Reaganesque
It is when you're in a bluer-than-blue state with an 85% Democrat legislature.[Spiff]
Yeah, I can hear it now. MR wins the nomination. Somehow (maybe due to a Clinton scandal), he wins POTUS.
Spiffy spinners would then come on board telling us that the Romney administration maintained the pro-abortion status quo because he was dealing with a bluer-than-blue Congress and 85% high-level Democrat judges around the nation.
Yeah, I know. The “status quo” is, unfortunately, abortion on demand. I don’t want someone defending it and maintaining it, I want it reversed.
OK, if this rookie "pro-lifer" is our champion pro-life crusader--this rookie who w/in a half-yr's conversion touted his committed "pro-choice" stance (5/27/05) & then signed compulsary healthcare w/an abortion component into law--then it's time for us to have that whispered conversation with wombs all across America.
We don’t have evidence for Paul or his foundation getting money.
He also spoke with these groups.
The Heritage Foundation was working with him on the medical insurance plan. Their support of that work would be based on their work with it, and with Romney, not a small amount of money they gave.
Beyond the appearance of Romney looking to burnish his credentials, I see nothing to suggest these groups are suspect.
It’s like the NRA thing. Did Romney join because he suddenly felt he was drawn to the group? Most likely, he wanted “NRA member” on his resume. Does that mean that the NRA has sold out? No.
But the NRA did work with Romney on the AWB, to minimize the damage to be caused by a liberal democrat legislature. Could that make the NRA more sympathetic to Romney? Yes, if they liked how he responded to them and how he handled the issue. If they then said nice things, would it be because he joined their group, or if he gave them money? It would be more likely it was because of the work they did with him.
I’m not without misgivings, about every candidate who has a chance. I just don’t see how attacking traditionally conservative organizations without any evidence helps the cause of conservatism, or is an honest addressing of issues.
I’ve never met a Mormon who took the “god-to-be” or “god-in-embryo” as any kind of messiah complex. Doesn’t mean there aren’t some, just that, like most religions, the average followers don’t necessarily adhere to the strict interpretation of the tenets.
There are many tenets of specific christian churches that the average follower doesn’t buy, but I’m not going to list them because the ones who DO buy them will be upset with me attacking their religion.
It’s so hard to trust those pro-life groups, they are always going around endorsing abortionists.
Oddly, when the Thompson is pro-abortion threads first started, the pro-life organizations endorsement of him from that time was used to prove he wasn’t.
Of course, there’s a few here who don’t buy that either.
actually, I think they’d say it was because the Supreme Court doesn’t allow us to accomplish any more than we already have. If Romney maintained the current status quo, it would be much better than if Hillary wins and reverses PBA ban, fed funding for abortion, fed funding for embryonic stem cell research, foreign aid to abortionists, etc.
What is the next non-judicial federal fight on abortion, as you see it? Maybe if we knew what it was, we could ask Romney how he feels about it.
We know that he supports the federal human life amendment, which has no chance of passing and which the President has no say in. Anything real in terms of legislation that we are pushing?
Re: "average followers"...Since 80% of Mormons are either deemed non-temple worthy or are outright "jack Mormons," I suppose you might be able to make the case of what you said about "average followers" if you are drawing from the 80% of the pool.
But that still leaves 20% who are deemed "temple-worthy" and therefore would remain "god-worthy" re: their goal of what they call "eternal progression" to the highest level of heaven--what they call "the celestial kingdom." This is not some "follow-the-yellow-brick-road-to-the-Wizard" myth to this pool of devout LDS. You don't commit 10% of your wealth to what might be considered as a "dreamy maybe."
Mitt, a former 2-time LDS bishop, is in that 20%. He is NOT your "average follower."
First, unless you are a strict-prolifer, you would support abortion to save the life of the mother, in which case you would want medical insurance to cover that. I’m not saying you SHOULD or WOULD, just pointing out that there are pro-lifers who support a life-of-the-mother exception.
There are also a subset of pro-lifers who support rape and incest exceptions.
And another impure group who would support a real health-of-the-mother exception.
There are some who oppose abortion, but only after a period of gestation. Since abortion is mandated by the court, we don’t dwell on the differences here, but we will confront them at some point.
I do not think that an individual buying a policy in Mass. is required to get insurance that covers abortion.
However, in all my years with health insurance through my employer, I’ve never had access to insurance that didn’t cover “medically necessary” abortions.
Did I consider not getting coverage? No. Sorry.
Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo — none of them are going to change the federal government’s health care to remove medically necessary abortions (medically necessary unfortunately as defined by liberals who are pro-abortion).
Current medicaid rules require coverage for abortions for the life of the mother, and for rape and incest. I haven’t heard any candidate calling to change that, rape and incest were added in 1993.
I don’t like that tax dollars pay for abortions. I don’t like that mandated coverage includes abortions, although when it’s paid for by private funds it’s slightly less onerous.
I think an exception should be offered, but practically speaking, few people are going to sign up for medical coverage that specifically excludes a subset of abortions. The cost of coverage will be identical — the cost of abortion is low relative to the cost of health care, and it wouldn’t pay for a medical plan to have separate paths of coverage for a few pennies difference.
So while it’s a complaint, it’s one with limited scope. It’s like moving the deck chairs on the titanic. Fun for the purists who think the ship should look nice as it sinks, but, like so much we argue about here, on the fringe of the real issues.
I’d hate to see a pro-Roe supreme court pick because pro-lifers were too upset over private insurance coverage for abortion so they stayed home and allowed a Democrat to win.
This isn’t about compromising on our own principles about saving life, it’s about us realizing the reality of what can and can’t be done, what has the most value and what is window dressing, and making difficult choices for the best good. We move down the road.
When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination (OK, except if they are picked up by a serial killer :-)
Not so. The old axiom applies: "Follow the $" The Judiciary has absolutely nothing to do with our taxpayer $ propping up Planned Parenthood domestically & internationally.
Rudy G's given $ to Planned Parenthood throughout the 90s. Ann Romney gave $ to Planned Parenthood. Romney's healthcare plan for MA made sure that the abortion industry was a "player" in the plan. The abortion industries weren't cut (and were probably increased in funding) during the 2003-2006 Massachussetts years and the New York City years under Rudy. (Both states are among the national leaders of aborting our next generation).
Where were the line-item slashing pens of these GOP leaders?
Hey, when you have such "leaders" "lead" by invisible ink in the areas where true pro-life leaders can make an active difference, then their invisibility as true leaders is obvious to everyone but those who'd rather look the other way.
Just HOW MANY mormons have you met? Have you lived in a predominantly mormon area? Do you have mormon relatives? Just what makes you think the ones you DO know are telling you ALL of what they believe?
There are those here who are very familiar with all facets of mormons and mormonism, and in our experience, your statement is misleading. "Messiah" complex is an over-dramatization (purposeful?) of the automatic acceptance of those who "know" that their destiny is to be the god of their own planet. That is so ingrained that that acceptance of such in POTUS would be very troublesome.
Are YOU a mormon?
OK, you need to take a closer look @ the MA healthcare plan. You'll see that it involves the abortion industry much more than you've been led to believe.
I do not think that an individual buying a policy in Mass. is required to get insurance that covers abortion.
No, but if you don't have coverage, then you are required to buy into the state plan, which DOES include it.
However, in all my years with health insurance through my employer, I’ve never had access to insurance that didn’t cover “medically necessary” abortions.
OK, let me set something straight here. There's REALLY only a few medically "necessary" cases for abortion. An ectopic pregnancy, for example. NO babies survive an ectopic pregnancy. They are doomed for a womb death. In this case, it is pure self-defense because an ectopic pregnancy will also result in the Mom's death.
Other than cases like these, there is no basis for what the insurance industry calls "therapeutic" abortion. Hello! Abortion is NOT THERAPY. Hello! The baby is NOT a disease!!!
Current medicaid rules require coverage for abortions for the life of the mother, and for rape and incest. I haven’t heard any candidate calling to change that, rape and incest were added in 1993.
Well, some rules are meant to be intentionally ignored. (For example, South Dakota doesn't comply & will do so for life endangerment only). This matter of funding is more Congressionally determined (vs. executive).
I’d hate to see a pro-Roe supreme court pick because pro-lifers were too upset over private insurance coverage for abortion so they stayed home and allowed a Democrat to win.
OK, again, you're not getting a comprehensive pix of abortion industry funding. The insurance industry is only funding one slice of the abortion industry. And the govt via Medicaid is even a smaller slice than that.
There's all kinds of federal Title $ that goes to the abortion industry, especially under things not directly related to abortion. There's also all kinds of $ funnelled under population control and contraceptive handouts to international entities like Intl Planned Parenthood.
A POTUS could wean the abortion industry off of taxpayer dollars. And when now we have GOP candidates like Rudy & Mitt whose wives have personally funded these industries (and Rudy himself has done so), then the issue goes well beyond Medicaid & insurance funding.
When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination (OK, except if they are picked up by a serial killer :-)
Well, I like your analogy, because it does represent exactly where we are: Certainly you can make the case that voter (road) beggars can't necessarily be choosers (tho I BEG to disagree with the primaries, where, yes we DO have more of a choice than recognized). And, yes, as you realize, a serial killer in control is only going to add to the mayhem, not solve it.
If your daughter is stuck out on the freeway, it's better to "stay home" in her car in our culture than to "thumb it." Therefore, pro-abortion candidates like RG & phantom pro-life candidates like MR will only result in larger # of "stay home" stranded voters.
“When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination “
When you have spent years of your life hitchhiking around the United States you learn not to take just any ride.
There are exits, types of exits, even cities to avoid getting dropped off at, Tucson and the western outskirts of New Orleans are nightmarish.
Even the freshest rookies (stupid ones) soon learn not to give up a prime on ramp, for an on ramp on the outskirts of town that has almost no one getting on the freeway, that is going a great distance.
Smart hitchhikers become very choosy about accepting rides.
Anyone that claims different is not an experienced hitchhiker.
When is the national primary?
The primary election is won state by state. Mitt leads in Iowa, NH and now South Carolina. Probably MI as well. He has moved into second place in FL.
It's Mitt vs. Rudy and Mitt is the one with upward momentum. Rudy is struggling to maintain his lead (down 10 pts. in CA) while Fred is tanking.
Yes. Any analogy that consists of 3 sentences can be better explained in a dozen.
If I were to try to apply the distinction (which I understand, you don’t want to be dropped off where you have little chance of getting picked up), the suggestion would be that there are some places “on the way” from abortion on demand to banning all abortion where, if we stop, we’ll never get to start again.
Except it was just an analogy, politically there are no “bad on-ramps”, no places where if you get to you can’t go further.
In fact, that extension of the analogy might lead one to believe we’d be better with a LESS pure person, because maybe going just a LITTLE way will make it much easier to go further later, where if we get an 80%-er, maybe after going that 80% there will be no political will to go further.
That’s not an inapt analogy I guess, but whenever I’ve discussed the “compromise problem” it’s always been that if we compromise, we don’t want to get TOO FAR to where we want to go, because the more we get, the less pressure there is to get more.
Which would argue for a less faithful, not more faithful, candidate.
My point was simply that we are so far down the road that over the next 4 years we don’t need much from our president to make gains. We really just need them NOT to support any reversals, and to put good judges into the court system.
For some reason we have several mormons working on the project I work on. Some are good friends of mine.
And I’m a guy that talks religion.
I’m a presbyterian (PCA).
Bttt!
“When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination “
Wrong, the writer is posing as knowledgeable on a subject that he doesn’t know.
Well, once you have dealt for years with more than “several” and some who are NOT good friends, you can post an informed opinion.
Have your friends told you about this? From Joseph Smith's First Vision:17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
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.