Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.
EV, you know that we have fought some of the same battles together in the past.
I simply want to point out again that the system is interpreting the law in such a way that it allows the killing of the unborn.
I agree it is an illegitimate interpretation, but that does not change the fact that thousands are being killed daily.
What are the solutions to a legal system and supreme court grossly in error.
1. Change the system.
2. REvolution.
I prefer #1, so it will be gradual. Any lives I can save in the meantime will be a good thing.
As in “Schindler’s List”, Mr. Schindler didn’t have the means to single-handedly take down the Nazis, but he was able to save one Jew at a time.
This is America’s holocaust.
No. The answer is to finally demand that all officers of government, in every branch, at every level, keep the first obligation of their sacred oath of offfice, which is to provide equal protection for the life of every innocent person in this country.
For the most part, American “pro-life” Republicans have not been in the position of Mr. Schindler. They have been in power, like the Nazis were. Think hard about that.
And how will you get to that point where there is “final demand that all officers...keep their first obligation..”?
You have to start somewhere.
Someone has to begin to make the demand.
Someone has to refuse to any longer compromise in any way with the evil.
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html
And I agree that signing that resolution of demands is good thing.
However, how long will it take before enough signatures and enough political pressure bring it about?
This is one of the reasons that we all benefit from a long campaign with many debates; it reveals character. Bachmann failed that test.
She did the Wayne Newton endorsement, however.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I see Michelle is still hoping for a Romney/Bachmann ticket.....
Newt has a flawless Pro-Life record. Get over yourself, Michelle.
As soon as Christians decide that A) What they’ve been doing is morally wrong...and that B) What they’ve been doing doesn’t work.
If they refuse to do it, there is no hope for the country, in my opinion.
But if they will do it, I believe the country can be turned around in an amazingly short amount of time.
The fate of this free republic turns on this very question.
Will we return to the principles that, more than a century and a half ago, Frederick Douglass called “the ringbolt to our nation’s destiny,” or not.
“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...”
Gingrich has been playing footsie with the pro-aborts, chasing their money, for a couple of decades. His "pro-life record" is a bad joke.
To clarify:
Is it your position that no Pro-Life elected official should pursue any Pro-Life legislation shy of completely outlawing all abortion, regardless of the position of the majority of the SCOTUS?
It’s easy to stand on such a principle when you have already been born. I do not accept that the sacrifice of hundreds in utero is a small price to pay to stand on one’s principle of no compromise.
Wouldn’t it be a more courageous move to put one’s own life on the line, such as refusing to pay income tax on principle?
You have no ground to stand on here against Newt, EV
A perfect record is just that. I have friends who support abortion, too. I am sure you do, also.
I have friends who support abortion, too. I am sure you do, also.
No, I don't. If they think it's fine to butcher babies they are no friend of mine.
Thanks xzins.
The plumb line for any legislation is whether or not it provides equal protection for the life of every person, as the Constitution imperatively and explicitly requires.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“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.”
So you are the Pro-life authority over those good men and women at the NRTL who have given of themselves to fight for every unborn child?
You put yourself in too tall of an ivory tower, on too high of a pedestal.
I’ve worked with these people and the organization for years; there’s not a person there who wouldn’t give their own life to save an unborn child. And while you’re yelling “no compromise,” they are saving lives.
They seek both: the total outlaw of abortion AND the saving of every possible life in the meanwhile as the first battle wages on.
Rep. Tom Shaw: SUPPOSEDLY “PRO-LIFE” “FETAL PAIN” BILL IS WORSE THAN ROE V. WADE
The proper question is not “do they feel pain?” It is “are they a person?”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Representative Tom Shaw
March 28, 2011
State Representative Tom Shaw has issued the following statement:
Having come under political fire for my firm opposition to House File 5, commonly known as the “fetal pain” bill, even from some in my own party, I feel the need to clearly explain to my constituents in District 8, and to my fellow Iowans, exactly why I have taken this stand.
Thirty eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the worst decision in American history, Roe v. Wade, leading to the destruction of upwards of fifty million innocent children in this country alone. On what basis was this horrific decision made? That the child in the womb is not a person. The court dehumanized an entire class of human beings based solely on their stage of development.
But even Justice Harry A. Blackmun, in the text of the court’s majority opinion, openly admitted that if the fetus is a person, “of course” they are protected by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here is what that Amendment, which is part of the Constitution we all swore to uphold and defend, says:
"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 authors of HF 5, which is being brought before the Iowa House, admit in the language of the bill that the fetus, or child, is a person. They admit that life begins at conception. And yet they allow this person to be killed.
Asking whether or not the child can feel pain is not even the right question, any more than it would be if the subject of the legislation were a paraplegic, or a child or adult who is under sedation. The proper and only question is whether or not this is a person. If they are a person, as every bit of modern science clearly indicates them to be, they must be protected by those who are sworn to protect them.
Article I, Section 1, of the Iowa Constitution:
“All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
Article I, Section 2:
“Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people.…”
Article I, Section 6:
“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
Both the U.S. and Iowa constitutions imperatively demand the protection of the right to life of every innocent person, and require that every person enjoy the equal protection of the laws. The law must be equally applied. I swore an oath before God to do so, as I am required to do, as did all of my colleagues.
The language of House File 5 condemns itself. This is ill-conceived legislation that is both immoral and internally self-contradictory. It is clearly unconstitutional. However well-meaning, it can only lead to further destruction of thousands more innocent, currently defenseless, Iowa children and the further erosion of the sacred principles upon which we premise republican self-government and our claim to liberty in our state and in our country.
For the last 26 years the Republican Party’s national platform has recognized the personhood of all children in the womb, and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment. I intend to continue to keep my pledge to those who elected me by doing everything I can to see that principled position implemented in the Iowa Legislature and in the laws of our great State.
They’re doing no such thing. They’re sucking up millions of dollars, as they have always done, and pushing immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” and “heartbeat bills.” Codifying the destruction of innocent persons.
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.