Posted on 10/24/2011 8:20:45 AM PDT by julieee
Herman Cain Backs Human Life Amendment Banning Abortions
Washington, DC -- In an new interview, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says he would support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S, Constitution that would ban abortion by protecting unborn children under law.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/23/herman-cain-backs-human-life-amendment-banning-abortions/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
That’s his position today? It must be Monday.
Posted thrice makes it nice
It’s about time. Why didn’t he just say this when the question arose last week? Did it take this long for his advisors to tell him which position would hurt him the least in the polls?
Now, there is a bigger question — why does he “support” this, when it has nothing to do with the President, but argue that the President has nothing to do with advancing laws, which is clearly something a President can do.
And what does he mean by “support”? If he won’t work to advance pro-life legislation, would he work to advance a constitutional amendment? Or is he just saying that he won’t say anything negative about it?
Since the president has nothing at all to do with constitutional amendments, what difference does it make that he supports one, unless it means he will advocate for it — something he has said he wouldn’t do for certain other pro-life legislation?
Im wrapping my head around Herman Cain’s dilemma. His conversation with the American people is a mark of sanity.
The Government should not be supporting the training, financing and subsidy of professional abortionists. Abortion should be sanctioned as un-Constitutional.
If there are circumstances, i.e. rape, incest and the life of the mother - those cases should be appealed for PRIVATE medical review at the behest of the individual women and custodians (if a minor).
“Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it,” Cain responds.The President has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. They are passed by both houses of congress, and sent to the states. So he will not "sign" anything.
You'd think that a guy who has been running for President for months and considers himself a fan of the constitution might have some idea what the job of President is and is not -- at least more than some random guy on the internet.
Another Cain joke.
Understand you CainBots, not calling Cain a liar, just a lousy politician with a penchant for placing expediency over principle.
Herman Cain says he would support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S, Constitution that would ban abortion by protecting unborn children under law.
That would go nowhere and everyone knows it.
Piers Morgan; "If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?"
That's precisely how I would describe your FR postings.
That’s what happens when cranky ol’ guys need more fiber. ;)
Not another constitutional amendment ... that will not have a chance of being ratified.
Come on candidates, talk about what you plan on accomplishing in office. These ‘amendments’ are piling up.
“Look, let’s go back,” Cain told the America Live program. “See, he was asking me two questions. My position on abortion has been the same — on pro-life — has been the same throughout this campaign. And that is, I am pro-life from conception and I don’t believe in abortion. When he then tried to pigeon-hole me on my granddaughter being there as a victim of rape, then what would I do?”See -- he looked at the question as "what would I do if my daugher was a victim or Rape. Nothing about adoption.
“The only point I was trying to make: A lot of families will be in that position and they are not going to be thinking, “Well, what does the government want me to do?” My position is no abortion. My position is no abortion. But all I was trying to point out was take the typical family in this country and you don’t know what they might do in the heat of the moment,” Cain explained.Again, nothing about adoption -- but rather "heat of the moment" decisions. He then further clarified, making it clear he is talking about ABORTION, not adoption:
“Look, abortion should not be legal,” Cain said a moment later. “That is clear,” he said, adding that anyone who wanted to get an abortion would be breaking the law by doing so: “But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision.”So, when Cain answered the question by Morgan, what Cain now SAYS he was answering was that government could not force the family to obey the law, that they could still get an abortion.
So the whole "he was talking about adoption" is defunct -- Cain himself has dismissed that story, although a few Cain supporters still cling to it, I guess because having a fictional theory that has been debunked by their candidate is more comforting to them than the truth, which is that his various comments on abortion were a muddled mess showing little comprehension of the political issues.
Anyway, I have no idea why you brought that up here, because my point in this thread was that his clear statement supporting the human life amendment (and other statements in interviews about using the bully pulpit) show that Cain has finally figured out what his position is, and it's pro-life.
But unfortunately, in doing so he committed a more serious gaffe, in that he showed he doesn't understand how the constitution works, and claimed that the ONE thing he could do was something that is actually the one thing he CANNOT do.
So after a week of telling us all the things he thought the President shouldn't do, he said he'd do something the President cannot do -- on a simple matter of the amendment process, which any reasonably educated american could understand after a 1-minute briefing.
Thee is just one thing about being in a rock and a hard place. There is no squish there and you keep tying to fill that space with it.
Let's see, which is better? being called a liar, or being called unprincipled? Kind of a tough choice RM. And an unnecessary choice. There is another way to understand this. Cain is a political novice, by his own admission. He has yet to fully understand how prolife policy might be implemented in a constitutional Republic.
And frankly, it is not an easy question. I'm guessing that Cain believes by expressing his core belief on the matter in general terms he can keep from getting bogged down on the details of implementation. As a messaging strategy, I am not sure that will work, but in no way does it represent a lack of principle. He has demonstrated his principles sufficiently by putting his money where most of the rest of us will only put our mouths.
But his principles must now be translated to a plan of action, and he needs to work that through with someone who has a good understanding, not only of the issues, but how to message on those issues. Again, this is a phenomena primarily associated with political inexperience. Nothing else.
You make a great point and it refutes the Cain freeper talking point it was about adoption. That was bogus on it’s face and I confronted it and people went nuts. Good to see Cain agreed with me. Good job in pointing this out
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.