http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4
I’m not a fan of the Huckster, but I’m glad someone is saying this. You could sign the bill Reagan signed and still be considered “pro-life”.
Earth to ed, Ronald Reagan is not running for office!
Romney is a liberal and so is Rudy.
Mike Huckabee is a socialist. He would destroy our party.
Please, let’s stop calling it “pro-choice.” It’s “pro-abortion” It’s like the fraud known as “affirmative action” or calling homosexuals “gay”.
If Romney paid Rollins more than Huckabee is paying him, he’d be saying the opposite. I wouldn’t trust any of the three.
LLS
He seem to have a propensity to make an ass of himself. Let him talk!
Rollins is a paid mouthpiece for Huck now.
In 1967, a democrat state lawmaker (Beilenson) pushed to liberalize the laws for just three reasons: to allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or where the baby might be deformed. ...Governor Ronald Reagan's first response was "Here's an emotional problem that has so many facets of consideration. It is not only spiritual, but also legal... when does life begin? What right does the unborn life have? What legal right? I'm not prepared to answer now."
In subsequent statements, Reagan took great exception to the portion of the law addressing the possibilty of deformity. "I am satisfied in my own mind we can morally and logically justify liberalized abortions to protect the health of a mother. I cannot justify the taking of an unborn life simply on the supposition that the baby may be born less than a perfect human being... [this kind of thing] wouldn't be much different from what Hitler tried to do."
The deformity provision was dropped shortly thereafter. The final statute permitted abortions in the case of forcible rape, incest, statutory rape if the victim was under 15 years old or if there was a "substantial risk" that continued pregnancy would "gravely impair" the "physical or mental health" of the mother.
Several months before Reagan signed the final bill, Colorado passed similar legislation (thus, California was not "the first" as some have asserted.)
Yea, that position is not pro-choice. If a woman is going to kill herself because she’s nuts and the pregnancy is driving her over the edge, then if she commits suicide, both people die. Reagan made the decision I would hope: the only time it’s acceptable is when it’s to lose one life instead of two.
Although I have to admit, if I had a wife and her life was threatened by childbirth, I think that I may not want a woman who would make that decision.
The people who disparage Ronald Reagan to puff up their own candidate REALLY irk me.
If you and your changing positions can’t stand on your own two feet, you shouldn’t be running for president.
Romney: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”
Romney is not now and never has been a Reagan-school conservative. He’s just one of many who have transformed the Republican Party into the Democrat-Lite Party.
Is there something bad about changing from pro-ABORTION to pro-LIFE? Not in my book. I hope everyone changes to pro-LIFE. I think it will happen. There was a time when large numbers of white Americans, and Europeans, and Africans, and Middle Easterners thought it was OK to enslave black captives from Africa. Speaking as a white American, it seems to me that the number of persons agreeing with the concept of slavery here in America is almost zero. Here is hoping that the numbers of all Americans believing that it is appropriate to MURDER babies will reach zero in the near future. I don’t think I will be voting for Romney, but I’m glad he is now pro-LIFE.