This is the typical suicidal behavior that the Republicans could use to lose the House and Senate in 2004.
I challenge all these high and mighty moralists to review and purge their own stock portfolios of "abortion friendly" stocks like any pharmaceutical company, any health care provider, anyone who could provide transportation to a clinic, anyone who produces food that abortion providers eat...
Get real, stay focused on the problems facing our country like...Demoncrats.
patent
This is such a pathetic reach. Terry, you just lost my renewal subscription to Human Events.
The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.
Abortion Issues
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning abortion. [ ] a) Abortions should always be illegal. [ ] b) Abortions should be illegal when the fetus is viable, with or without life support. [ ] c) Abortions should always be legally available. [ ] d) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy. [X] e) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape. [X] f) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered. [X] g) Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and notification requirements as decided by each state government. [X] h) Prohibit the dilation and extraction procedure, also known as "partial birth" abortion. [X] i) Prohibit public funding of abortions and public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions. [ ] j) Support "buffer-zones" by requiring demonstrators to stay at least five feet from abortion clinic doorways and driveways. [ ] k) Provide funding for family planning programs as a means to decrease the number of abortions. [ ] l) Other
Sounds rather centrist...probably not good enough to satisfy the anti-abortion zealots though...
Tennessee Right to Life lists Columbia/HCA as one general corporation that supports abortion.
From the St. Antoninus web site they list HCA=Health Care as pro-abortion, and site where they obtained the information.
HCA (SEE COLUMBIA/HCA) PP3,9,10,20, 28Dr. Tiller specializes in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and is the medical director for HCA Wesley in Wichita, KS. See his website HERE and the fact that it is affiliated with HCA HERE
9 - FOUNDATION GRANT INDEX 94 PP
10 -CORPORATE 500 DIRECTORY OF CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY 93-94
20 - CORPORATION 500 - DIRECTORATE OF CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY
28 - GRANTS INDEX 1999
I have to go now, but I'll do some more research ... I think the above three information sources speak VOLUMES about HCA's pro-abortion services.
Bill Frist, divest yourself now, for the sake of the unborn.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Senator Bill Frist (R)
Tennessee
Republican, Years of Service: 7
| ACU Ratings for Senator Frist: | |
| Year 2001 | 100 |
| Year 2000 | 92 |
| Lifetime | 88 |
Senator Trent Lott (R)
Mississippi
Republican, Years of Service: 29
| ACU Ratings for Senator Lott: | |
| Year 2001 | 96 |
| Year 2000 | 100 |
| Lifetime | 93 |
Senator Mitch Mcconnell (R)
Kentucky
Republican, Years of Service: 17
| ACU Ratings for Senator Mcconnell: | |
| Year 2001 | 96 |
| Year 2000 | 100 |
| Lifetime | 89 |
Senator Don Nickles (R)
Oklahoma
Republican, Years of Service: 21
| ACU Ratings for Senator Nickles: | |
| Year 2001 | 92 |
| Year 2000 | 100 |
| Lifetime | 96 |
Senator Rick Santorum (R)
Pennsylvania
Republican, Years of Service: 11
| ACU Ratings for Senator Santorum: | |
| Year 2001 | 100 |
| Year 2000 | 100 |
| Lifetime | 86 |
First, Frist should consider divesting from this investment if he is pro-life. Profiting from abortions because they are legal is far different from profiting from some piece of legislation that makes one economic policy decision trump another. For instance, one might be for tort reform, but might still practice law as a plaintiff's tort attorney. Why, becuase people don't die from that decision. Thus, pursuing a livelihood that is legal, but whose relative benefits to society are questioned as poilicy on the margins, is acceptable -- even if it is not laudable.
Abortion, however, kills people. And one cannot wrap one's self in the banner of a Conservative pro-lifer as the leader of the party, while accepting money from that practice IMHO. In addition, Frist may describe himself as Pro-life, but like virtually all Americans, he seems to either ignore the hypocracy of the exceptions he endorses, or he endorses them for political gain.
If one believes that life begins at conception, thus creating the a human at its earliest form, together with all the DNA necessary to be a human, than exceptions for rape and incest make no sense. We do not punish the children of criminals with the death penalty, because of the act of their parents. (e.g. One would not recommend that we kill the 5 year-old child of a man convicted of rape.) Why then, would we so easily caste aside his child in the mother? The answers, of course are hard. But they always lead to a pro-choice conclusion. That is, we do so because it is unfair to the mother, because of stigma and trauma for the mother, because the baby is unwanted by the mother, etc. And make no mistake, those circumstances are grave and understandable, but do not warrant killing a child if one believes in a true pro-life position.
Frankly, the only legitimate and difficult question is the exception for the life of the mother. In that circumstance, one life is truly pitted against another. (The occurences of these true risks are very small, but noteworthy on the discussion). In my opinion, the law cannot force a mother to give her life for another, though the law should not be that one could not choose to accept that risk if the mother so desired. Thus, the question is, does the life of the mother trump the life of the child within, if the end result is death for at least one. Regrettfully, I find as a matter of legality that a mother must be afforded that choice if a doctor determines, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the mother will dies if the pregnancy continues.
Personally, I do not think my wife and I could make that decision, though no one knows until that time. But as a legal policy consistent with principles of liberty, self-determination, and the common law, the best interest of the mother outweighs the child in that very rare circumstance.
Abortion, under any other circumstance, knows no legal, moral, or logical reasoning that can wither logical examination. Thus, those who purport to be pro-life and for exceptions on rape and incest, either have not rigorously examined the issue, or they have made a political calculation based upon society's mis-informed view in that area.
Frist is a doctor, and he should have an understanding of the issue greater than others. That he waivers on the exceptions, and that he profits from abortion practice should, if nothing else, give conservatives genuine pause as to his ability to lead this party. I for one, have that concern. And, though unity serves the party well in the short-term, principle will determine our success going forward. Accordingly, I am loathe to get excited by this Candidate until I see him step up to the plate and defend those innocently executed by abortion.