Tag Archives: Roe v Wade
Don’t preach of Christ while standing against what He taught.
I’m tired of the self-righteousness from those who scream about defending the fetus, but who whine about paying for programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies or to bless those same children with healthcare.
I’m tired of those who will do all they can to protect the rights of the unborn, but who refuse to protect the rights of children.
I’m tired of those who bemoan that prayer was taken out schools, but who support cutting school lunches for the poor and the needy.
I’m tired of those who speak of America being founded on “Judeo-Christian” values, but who build fences to keep out the “tired”, the “poor”, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.
I’m tired of those who will decry Shariah Law, but who force their myopic religious teachings into our public schools.
I’m tired of those who proclaim religious freedom, but who practice their intolerance as they denounce the building of Mosques in their towns.
I’m tired of those who preach of “family values” and that we’re all sons and daughters of God, but who lust for war and who support the torture of prisoners.
I’m tired of those who claim there’s too much hatred and violence in movies and video games, but who compare the President to Adolf Hitler, while carrying their assault rifles.
Huffington Post is reporting that while Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s past support for abortion rights and state-funded family planning, especially during his Senate run in 1994 against Ted Kennedy, is well known his support has lasted longer, and goes deeper, than many may assume.
Reportedly, during Mittens’ 2002 gubernatorial campaign, he sought the endorsement of Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts by filling out a questionnaire making his continued and unwavering support clear. The document was first circulated in 2007, but is now taking on new relevance as Romney tries to pull a bait and switch on his opposition to abortion rights and government-funded family planning.
Kind of stinks when you’re sucking up to the uber-conservative Tea Party claiming to be one thing, but your record clearly disagrees doesn’t it?
Mittens previously pledged his support for Roe v. Wade, for laws protecting the safety of abortion clinics, for increased access to the morning-after pill and for late-term abortions when the mother’s health is at risk, as well as supporting the “state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women.”
Romney’s openly expressed support for Medicaid-funded abortions in 2002, seeking Planned Parenthood’s endorsement, attending a Planned Parenthood fundraising event and now pledging to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood and the Title X federal family planning program represents a fairly dramatic change of positions.
“Governor Romney simply does not believe that federal taxpayer dollars should be used to fund groups that provide abortions or abortion-related services,” the Romney campaign said on Wednesday. “This is particularly so during a time of massive budget deficits and out-of-control spending.”
No, Governor Romney is a charlatan; he wants to change his stripes to fit his audience, and currently is audience believes in zero tolerance for abortions, and magically, now so does Mittens.
Mitten’s flip-flopping on almost each and every issue he addressed in the 2002 questionnaire is now common place for the former governor; but it’s not surprising, it began in 2005, when he broke his promise to increase access to emergency contraception by vetoing a bill in Massachusetts that would have done that. He said in 2002 he’d support “partial-birth” abortions in cases where the mother’s health was at risk, and then he recently told Fox News he’d “absolutely” support a constitutional amendment defining life as beginning at conception.
Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told Politico that Mittens supports “a Human Life Amendment overturning Roe vs. Wade and sending the issue back to the states”.
Romney is not a man of integrity, he’s the classic politician doing whatever, and saying whatever it takes to win nominations and then trying to win elections. He’s a flip-flopper at best and an untrustworthy liar at worse – I think he’s the latter.
So, in South Dakota you can go out and buy a hand gun with no waiting period, but if a woman wants to have an abortion – doesn’t matter for whatever reason – she has to wait 72 hours, and sit through countless lectures from anti-abortion critics; if your wive, daughter, mother or any woman in South Dakota is raped and becomes pregnant, or who is the victim of incest and becomes pregnant, or might die … too bad no abortion for you, that is, not until you sit through the right-wing re-education training.
But, hey, look on the bright side, you can buy a gun without waiting …
So, big government is bad – according to Republicans – unless it’s limiting abortion?
Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, once the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade, SD cannot limit abortion. It is Federal Law, and that trumps state law, but when has that ever stopped the current crop of right-wing demi-gods?
It isn’t just the waiting period that’s troubling to me, it’s that woman wanting abortions in SD, on top of the waiting period, have to sit through hours of far right-wing lectures before being allowed
So, it begs the question, why can you buy a gun with no waiting period, but have to wait 72 hours to have an abortion? That’s right, there’s no waiting period on buying a hand gun, but don’t you dare have an abortion? There’s something wrong there.
Problem here is the state of South Dakota is trying to condemn any woman wanting an abortion, under the guise of “education”.
Why is it not OK for government to interfere in all kinds of things – according to conservatives – such as safety, environment, etc … but it is OK for it to interfere with abortion rights? This is another case of conservatives wanting their cake and eating it too. Either conservatives are for limited government, or they’re not, you can’t have it both ways.
Many on the right – excepting Sarah Palin, who couldn’t think of a single Supreme Court ruling she disagreed with – believe Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench, pure and simple. Of course, most educated people know and understand that the Judiciary – aka the Supreme Court – has had the authority to “legislate” from the bench – aka judicial review – since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which opens another can of worms about how conservatives will bemoan “legislating from the bench until the court rules in their favor as in the infamous Citizens United case; a horrible ruling wherein at least one – if not more – conservative justices (Thomas) should have excused themselves from hearing or ruling on it.
I think if someone wants to buy a gun in South Dakota they should have to sit through 72 hours of lectures from the far left-wing talking about the evils of guns, and alternative ways to defend yourself. It’s only fair. No one will be denying anyone’s Second Amendment rights, we’ll just be making sure they presumed gun owner is fully educated before making the purchase; that’s all.