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

To: campaignPete R-CT
From his campaign site on abortion:

"While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion."

If a candidate for the United States Senate cannot defend our most fundamental God-given unalienable right to Life, then which other of our unalienable rights will he not defend? Will he stand firm against abortionist judges?

36 posted on 01/08/2010 12:26:36 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Join the TEA Party Rebellion!! May God and TEA save the Republic!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Robinson

Well he could pull a reverse Arlen Specter and move conservative after in office


44 posted on 01/08/2010 12:36:30 PM PST by ksm1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
I don't think Ted Kennedy would take that position. Its pretty much where Americans stand on abortion. Americans think women should be able to do what they want with two caveats: the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for abortions and no late term abortions. Plus parental consent and notification requirements for teens. The Left wants abortion on demand. The American people are opposed to it. Seems to me that's fairly radical for Massachusetts. Elsewhere its just common sense.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

46 posted on 01/08/2010 12:42:00 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson

In our efforts to build a permanent 51-vote majority to stop all future Sotomayor’s, I’m convinced that Indiana, Arkansas, and Montana are more promising places to elect such senators. It sure isn’t in the cards in looneyTunesAchusetts.


54 posted on 01/08/2010 12:50:36 PM PST by campaignPete R-CT ("pray without ceasing" - Paul of Tarsus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
If a candidate for the United States Senate cannot defend our most fundamental God-given unalienable right to Life, then which other of our unalienable rights will he not defend? Will he stand firm against abortionist judges?

If he loses, and ObamaCare is rammed right through on 60 votes, then abortionist judges will be the very least of our problems, because government will sooner or later be forcing you to pay for other people's abortions.

85 posted on 01/08/2010 1:47:08 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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