Posted on 02/23/2015 8:29:01 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
* In October the Wisconsin governor pledged to support legislation focused on 'safety' during abortions
* 'The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor,' he said in a campaign ad
* This month he's telling potential donors that he supports a 'personhood' amendment, which insists that life begins at conception
* He boasted in January that he had 'defunded Planned Parenthood,' America's wealthiest and most politically savvy chain of abortion clinics
* Walker is busy beefing up his conservative bona fides in advance of a brusiing GOP presidential primary that may not favor blue-state moderates
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is learning that major leagues pitchers throw harder than in the minors, as journalists are piling on the newly minted Republican front-runner – first with gotcha questions and now with questions about an abortion flip-flop over a period of just four months.
The New York Times highlighted on Monday a campaign ad Walker made in October as he fought through a tough re-election contest.
'I'm pro-life,' he says in the video, but Walker also announced his support for 'legislation to increase safety, and to provide more information to a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.'(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Which of them has run their campaign based on the promise of overturning Roe vs Wade in their state?
And Walker also passed bills in his legislature restricting abortion, but actions are worthless in your eyes.
You can comfort yourself by saying that, but the facts support the 'slash and burn' policy I stated.
By way of circumstantial evidence, how many pro-Walker threads did the pro-Cruz poster who started this thread post in the last week?
How many 'let's tear-down Cruz' posts have pro-Walker posters done in this past week?
My conversation HERE is about the law that quote was addressing : saving innocent babies lives.
He is the Braveheart invading liberal lands slaying liberals and saving innocent babies.
Every single person born in WI since he was elected should pay tribute to Walker for saving their LIVES. Just like Jews for decades visited Schindler's grave to pay tribute for saving them.
losing every fight is not leadership, its luring the (gullible) rats off a cliff.
I like Cruz....we need a Governor not a Senator as candidate....Governors do things, Senators vote on things that other people do.
The Demo's will rue the day they nominated Hillary and some pubbies will sit in their rooms...whine...and suck their thumbs..
Sorry, but the legislation in question is immoral and unconstitutional. The Utilitarian claim that it might save some never actually works out in the real world. In reality, it assures the continuation of abortion on demand, by surrendering the only real moral, constitutional and legal arguments against abortion.
You’re deluding yourself. So is Walker.
The Demo’s will rue the day they nominated Hillary and some pubbies will sit in their rooms...whine...and suck their thumbs..
Perfect answer! Thanks.
Including some here.
To close abortion clinics ?
So they build mega-killing centers. Or dispense chemical weapons of mass destruction over the counter. Or whatever.
And still the babies, all of them, are allowed to be slaughtered, by permission of lawless “pro-life” laws, as long as they are slaughtered on schedule, and by some arbitrary set of rules.
The supreme law of the land is clear:
“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 is the law of God:
“You shall not murder.”
Just do it, and stop weaseling on matters of life and death.
And these long knives are why conservative DO NOT WIN THE PRIMARY! Yes I'm shouting.
FR's posters are a microcasm of the hardline conservatives. The problems are these three things
1. One group of long knives wants to clear the field for the dream candidate by bashing the hell out of acceptable candidates. See 2012. Every candidate not names Palin was trashed mercilessly. They also all KNEW, contrary to everything heard, that Palin was going to run. She didn't run, and then they felt betrayed because she owed it to them to run because the long knive people were oh so important. They helped clear the field for Mitt Romney. Thanks guys. We know how that turned out.
2. Another group of long knives are 3rd party malcontents who have their own interests in Republicans losing.
3. Conservative camps have a bad habit of beating the hell out of each other because they aren't pure enough. Related to 1. This is a reason why they don't unite behind a candidate who can win - both the primary and general. The bashing doesn't unite anybody.
The only two types of candidates I will attack are scam artists running to make money, and strong liberals like Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee. I won't attack Walker. I won't attack Cruz if he runs. I won't attack Rubio. I won't attack Rand Paul. I can live with those, even if they aren't my first choice.
He was a good president, but he isn't God.
I hate to have to inform you but we have no kings in this country, even the monarch Obama had to pass laws thru congress to outright ban things.
And believe me plenty of libs have trouble accepting this.
If we lived in the world you fantasize all private ownership of guns would be outlawed now nationally.
I have to live on the planet Earth. We have to.
That one of the reasons he wins. Most voters, especially in the Midwest, have a distaste for bigmouths (on any side).
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
We live in a country in which the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, a supreme law that every officer of government, at every level, is required to swear to support and defend.
If legislation violates the Constitution I have no idea why there would be any further discussion about it among actual conservatives. The debate should be over.
“The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.”
— Governor Scott Walker
We are a representative republic. We elect politicians to represent us in Congress and other places in government. If I change my mind on a particular issue, either due to new evidence, a new way of looking at things, or after seeing the result of a once-popular belief, I expect my representative to re-examine his thoughts on the same subject and possibly change his position.
The whole idea of our system is that politicians should reflect principle first, whether the people likes it or not.
I would far rather elect a representative who thinks like I do, than one stuck on principle. What happens when new problems emerge? I don't want a representative whose thoughts are firmly rooted in the 19th century
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.