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.
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.
You can’t move this country in a truly pro life direction without changing the attitudes of the voters.
Herman Cain donated a MILLION DOLLARS of his own money on an advertising campaign to get blacks to vote pro life.
If anyone hugs liberal gotcha questions to make Cain look less than pro life, I am really skeptical.
He has a long track record as a strongly pro life person, putting his money where his mouth is.
I’m curious which 38 states folks think will vote to ratify an unconditional ban on all abortions? (It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment).
Or putting it differently, all it takes to block it is 13 states.
Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Vermont, Massachusettes, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida.......
All voted for Obama. Just takes 13 states from the list, to block a constitutional amendment.