Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $1.8k To Go Green!!
Please Help End The FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/20/2011 5:15:41 PM PST by xzins
A day after Michele Bachmann’s campaign attacks Newt Gingrich’s record on abortion, the Gingrich campaign e-mails this account of Gingrich’s record:
Newt Gingrich has consistently upheld a pro-life standard. He had a consistent pro-life voting record throughout his twenty years in Congress, including his four years as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Gingrich pledges to uphold this consistent pro-life standard as president. Gingrich’s consistent pro-life standard is reflected by the following:
1. 98.6% Lifetime Pro-Life Rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). For the 20 years that Gingrich served in Congress (1979-1999), Gingrich supported the pro-life position in 70 out of 71 votes. (In the one instance that he did not take the NRLC position, it was because the NRLC opposed an early 1995 version of welfare reform because it changed certain welfare payments for mothers with children; NRLC did not oppose the final version of Gingrich’s welfare reform passed in 1996)
2. Supported the Hyde Amendment. Gingrich consistently voted for the Hyde amendment and other bans on government funding of abortions.
3. Partial Birth Abortion Ban. During Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker, the House of Representatives twice passed legislation banning partial birth abortions. President Clinton vetoed this legislation both times. Finally, a partial birth abortion ban was signed into law in 2003. The legislative effort to ban partial birth abortions had a very positive impact increasing pro-life support in the United States.
4. Signed the Susan B. Anthony List Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge. In June 2011, Gingrich signed the SBA List Pro-Life Leadership Presidential pledge in which Gingrich pledges to the American people that if elected President he will (i) only nominate judges to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, and not legislating from the bench (ii) select pro-life appointees for relevant executive branch positions, (iii) advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, (iv) defund Planned Parenthood; and (v) advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.
5. Pledges to Sign Two Pro-life Executive Orders on the first day of a Gingrich Administration.
i. “Mexico City Policy” of Respect for Life. Reauthorize President Ronald Reagan’s policy – also known as the “Mexico City Policy”— to stop the federal funding of any non-governmental agencies or charities that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.
ii. Respect the Beliefs and Integrity of Healthcare Workers. No American working in a medical environment should be forced to perform any action or procedure that he or she finds morally or ethically objectionable. This protection should include, but not be limited to, abortion and sterilization procedures. Existing conscience clause protections need to be strengthened.
Is it just me, or does it seem that every time Bachmann attacks some other candidate that it always seems to benefit Mitt Romney?
Ping
Interesting observation. Limbaugh noted the other day that the only GOP candidate polling near a plurality that is not subjected to an anal probe is Mitt Romney.
Makes one wonder doesn’t it?
The constitutional criteria is whether or not they are a person, not whether they can feel pain.
Completely immoral, utterly unconstitutional, lawless laws.
I will NOT support any politician who supports it.
I am thinking the same thing you are and I do not want Romney to benefit.
1. 98.6% Lifetime Pro-Life Rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).
It does make me wonder. Here Gingrich has a 98.6% rating by the Right To Life Committee, and the one disagreement they had, the Right to Life People eventually came down on Newt’s side, and Bachmann goes ballistic on him with a “right to life” accusation?
The only intent behind a clearly inadequate charge is a blind swing designed to injure an opponent. But who will it help? Certainly not her. She’s out of it.
She says that Gingrich didn’t get rid of Planned Parenthood funding.
Well, neither has her House, and they have a majority. Why are THEY still funding Planned Parenthood?
She knows the answer, and it was just as true back then. It takes a super-majority to get anything past the Senate.
Gingrich was more concerned with getting things done than he was in futile, symbolic voting just to promote something that would get shot down.
Again the question, though. Why hasn’t HER house gotten rid of Planned Parenthood funding? They have a majority.
Not enough for the purists.
The media is holding back. Once mittens gets the nod, he will be attacked and destroyed by the MSM.
We are in an era in which the courts have force abortion on us. They have declared it legal. Thousands each day are being murdered.
Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional about a law preventing anyone still in utero from being spared an abortion if they can feel pain.
The courts will not allow them to restrict abortion. The Senate will not agree, and the president will not sign, any bill that tries to end abortion or take away the courts’ power to dictate in the case of abortion.
So, would you rather IMPROVE the situation or allow it to continue as is? If we can save hundreds a day through this bill, then I’m all for it.
You don’t “improve” anything by codifying the killing of innocent persons, by ignoring the most important stated founding purposes and principles of this free republic, by abrogating the explicit, imperative requirements of the constitution, or by continuing to feed the delusion that courts have any proper jurisdiction or authority to make laws, veto laws, or to amend our constitutions.
I'm not in that company.
The idea that you will save any of them by giving up the republic’s most important principles, principles that are supposed to protect ALL, is a delusion.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
— The Declaration of Independence
“We the People of the United States, in Order to...establish Justice...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
— The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
— The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
— The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Bachmann is desperate - she evidently wants to knock down the other Republican candidates to get numbers for herself -that isn’t working. She is becoming tedious to watch.
You are making the mistake of thinking that the killing of children is currently illegal.
It isn’t. The courts have approved it.
The only steps forward have been through appealing to the conscience. These steps have brought us to a somewhat better place. Any other gradual improvement, such as the no-pain bill will also appeal to the conscience.
The last election, when we chose to run John McCain, an inept candidate, injured the position of life far more than has anything else in the last 2 decades. It enabled Sotomayor and Kagan to be appointed to the Scotus. With a conservative president, that would never have happened. Stevens might still have retired...or died. Souter probably wouldn’t have retired.
It isn’t. The courts have approved it.
It is illegal. It has always been illegal. It will always be illegal.
Courts don't make laws. You've bought the judicial supremacist lie lock, stock and barrel.
It sure seems that way.
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.