Posted on 02/07/2016 2:05:20 PM PST by Sun
..While sparring on the issue, some are even misquoting the stance of President Ronald Reagan. Are they using the “exceptions†to appear less pro-life? (snip)
“I am pro-life, but I believe that rape, incest and life of the mother, as Ronald Reagan did, should be exceptions to that rule,†Christie added.
Similarly, Donald Trump commented last August on CNN’s New Day on Rubio’s pro-life position:
I disagree with that. (snip)
I absolutely am for the exceptions, and so was Ronald Reagan for the exceptions, by the way. There’s nothing wrong with that. You have to do it, in my opinion.
In his State of the Union address in January of 1988, however, President Ronald Reagan said the following:
(snip) Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all Federal funding for abortion and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. (snip)But with that one exception, let us look to those others in our land who cry out for children to adopt. (snip)
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop noted the extreme rarity of the situation in which the life of the mother is endangered by pregnancy:
Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. . . . If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I would be for no exception in case of rape, if the victim is given enough money by tax payers to support the un-planned child through 18 years.
In case of mother’s life exception, it would have to be approved by 3 independent doctors.
In case of incest, same conditions as rape (18 years of tax payer subsidy), plus testing to make sure prospective child will not be born with severe deformities, which have a much greater probability for children of incest.
While I can appreciate this is a mistaken statement by Trump, I’m happy to see he’s not being called a liar.
Just can’t help but think if Cruz had done the same thing, the headline and many freepers would have been screaming about how much of a liar Ted is.
Flip flopper on steroids. He is the “What’d I say?” candidate.
While I’m not a Rubio supporter, again, I don’t think this particular comment at the debate was reason to disqualify him.
HOWEVER, my main reason for this thread was to show Trump’s and Christie’s CLAIM that Reagan said something he never said.
What do you think about that?
Reagan regretted that decision, and you might be interested in looking up the whole story on that.
“..if Cruz had done the same thing, the headline and many freepers would have been screaming about how much of a liar Ted is.”
True. But I have to say it is still wrong to say Reagan said something he did not say. Whether it is a mistake (or a lie, I don’t know), you should be darn sure Reagan actually said it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.
All: Post #26 VERY TELLING.
Trump is not very good at hiding that he is not really prolife, is he SoConPubbie?
He'd take half the loaf that was on the table, and keep wrangling for the rest.
If we took the "with exceptions" part of the bargain, we could save the vast majority of the babies that are slaughtered. If we can get that, we can continue to wrestle for the remainder.
Shindler was no less a hero because he wasn't able to save ALL the Jews. He saved what he could.
This position is far preferable to me than letting the slaughter continue unabated because "with exceptions" doesn't meet the purity test.
Rubio did say he would sign a bill with rape/incest exceptions, though. He made that clear at the debate.
I’m afraid you miss the point. Reagan had only ONE EXCEPTION, the life of the mother, BUT Christie and Trump CLAIMED Reagan had three.
Candidates should not claim Reagan believed in something he did not believe.
Please read the OP excerpt again.
I know that and said that I didn’t want to get in a debate about it, but it did happen.
This is a great article regarding your question.
http://liveactionnews.org/raped-women-who-had-their-babies-defy-pro-choice-stereotypes/
“Rubio did say he would sign a bill with rape/incest exceptions, though. He made that clear at the debate.”
I think Rubio would sign because it would save most of the babies, not because he has exceptions, but you probably would agree.
Misquoting Ronald Reagan in order to appear to be pro-life is just wrong.
“Misquoting Ronald Reagan in order to appear to be pro-life is just wrong.”
Yes, it is so wrong to misquote Reagan, and I think they also do so to justify their own political positions.
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.