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.
You have been COMPLIANT with a tax system that does NOT treat everyone equal, compromising your beliefs.
Again, why not take the principled stand and not pay? No unborn children would die in order to take this principled stand, so I would figure it would be the EASIER one to take.
Newt is surging in the polls right now. The question will be when conservatives start voting in the primaries will they support a big govt Pub. He is clearly the best debater, but I think the job requires more.
Again, that is a silly straw argument.
We’re talking about the constitutionally-required defense of innocent human life, every one of which is made in God’s image, and therefore beyond price.
And for some weird reason you’re running cover for the politicians who have been pretending for decades that such a requirement to provide equal protection for the life of every innocent person in this country does not exist.
Many politicians who claim to be pro-life are saying so because they opposed or voted against partial birth abortion. While it’s good that they did, there are so many other aspects to voting pro-life. Embryonic stem cell research is one issue that many so called pro-life politicians have voted for. There are judicial candidates who are pro abortion who get approved by Republicans in the Senate who say they are pro-life. When someone says they are pro-life, I say “show me”.
I thought I had seen every sort of political delusion it was possible to see from Republicans in this election cycle. But you Gingrich supporters are taking the delusion to a whole new level. Newt is the poster boy for the corrupt, unprincipled Republican establishment. And some of us are not going to forget it, no matter how many phony talking points you all come up with.
I don’t believe any of them any more, either.
Consistently applying equal treatment under the law is a straw argument?
You can continue to dance around the inconsistencies of your own proclamations of piety and holier-than-thou non-compromising, but I can see that you have two left feet.
Yours is a selective stand, one of convenience and without personal risk, loudly proclaimed but void of consistency. It serve no purpose other than to declare yourself superior and thus use the issue as a bludgeon against reliably Pro-Life individuals.
But you are no more consistent than the tax code when it comes to universally applying your professed “no compromise” principles to even the small universe of yourself. You compromise your principles daily despite your demands that we accept no compromise at all.
-—”I thought I had seen every sort of political delusion it was possible to see from Republicans in this election cycle”-—
You speak of delusion as your home page advertises your undying loyalty to some party called “America’s Party?”
Physician, heal thyself.
Ms. Bachman is seen stalking candidates trying to pick off first one and then the other, because on her own, and on the issues, she can not seem to get any traction, or make any headlines whatsoever, but for those she forces by spearing and smearing the other candidates, slandering their record and reason, and which basically advantages Romney making her look like his shill. These debate sponsors keep including her because...........? Is there still a minimum polling percentage elimination and cut off still in practice? In one primary cycle it was 4% to be included in debates, and she must be polling above that in the states where the debate venue is located.
Wait...I forgot. It's the Republican's fault they were confirmed in the first place although they didn't have a majority in the Senate.
Anybody But Republicans, eh EternalVacuity?
You don’t know anything. I don’t have any problem with Republicans who follow the Reagan personhood Fourteenth Amendment plank that’s been in their own platform for the last twenty eight years.
And all the Republican talk about judicial nominations rings hollow, when we’ve watched the killing of innocents go on and on and on, even when large majorities of the Supreme Court are Republican-appointed.
Where are the Republicans who understand that they swore to support the Constitution, not out-of-control judges who couldn’t care less about the Constitution or their own oaths?
You might want to understand the historical context of that quote a bit better before you think about tossing it around so blithely.
In any case, I'm a free American. I can belong to any party I want to belong to, without your permission or approval. I don't owe the Republican Party anything at all. I devoted two decades of my adulthood to serving it, and got nothing in return except betrayal and abuse.
Let’s hope she drops out after finishing sixth in Iowa.
You’re obtuse.
I simply demand that those we elect fulfill what the founders said was the primary purpose of government. If you think that “obtuse” there isn’t much I can do to help you.
Gingrich has a 98.6% rating by the Right To Life Committee
That's with decades of record.
When a person will deny what's proven true, just because they have another horse in the race, THAT is a bad - and sad - joke.
At least, after lying about Newt, be honest enough to tell your choice, why they can take out obama and how they can hit the ground running in DC in time to stop this deliberate destruction of our country.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I like her, but she obviously stepped in it. Don't see her getting the ticket, maybe VP.
I don’t have a horse in the race, so you’re wrong about that. Every single candidate being offered by the formerly grand old party refuses to face up to their first and most important sworn constitutional duty to provide equal protection for the right to life of all.
And I have not lied about Gingrich in any way.
And in fact I have barely scratched the surface of the steaming pile of compromise of conservative principle that is the career of Newt Gingrich. If his supporters keep getting nasty I might have to find the time to care enough to air some choice parts of it out...especially here in my home state of Iowa. Hmmmm...
Recognize that gal Newt's squeezin'??
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.
