Politics

A GOP Truce on Abortion? The Case Against It

Dec. 7, 2012 2:02am

- President, Susan B. Anthony List

Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of more than 365,000 pro-life Americans dedicated to reducing and ultimately ending abortion by advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.

During and immediately after the 2012 election cycle, some Republican politicians and pundits called on the GOP to abandon the issue of abortion, labeling it a political loser. In early 2011, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels notoriously called for a “truce” on abortion – a plea Senator John McCain immediately echoed after the election. In a nationally syndicated op-ed, Washington lobbyist Victoria Toensing, a pro-choice Republican, declared: “As a political matter, being pro-life has not helped Republicans.”

The problem with these claims is twofold: First, the GOP’s 2012 election strategy proved that a “truce” on abortion does not work. Second, the hard data shows that pro-life candidates enjoy an incremental advantage over pro-choice candidates.

Let’s take a look at the data first.

In the weeks prior to the election, Gallup polling revealed that for 17 percent of all voters, abortion is a ”threshold” issue  – that is, one in six Americans will not vote for a candidate who doesn’t share their view on abortion. Of that 17 percent of voters, a nine percent segment say they are pro-life and will only vote for a pro-life candidate; a seven percent segment says the opposite–that they are pro-choice and will only vote for a pro-choice candidate. That’s a two percent net advantage for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. In a razor-thin race, this advantage can make all the difference.

Gallup has explored this effect in every presidential election year since 1996.Each time the results have shown that pro-life presidential candidate enjoys at least a two-point net advantage over the pro-choice candidate. In 2004, Gallup recorded a seven-point pro-life net advantage, a year in which the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, was not shy of talking about his pro-life convictions on the campaign trail. The Bush campaign also spent significant resources going after the pro-life vote on the ground in key battleground states.

For those still unconvinced, let’s explore how the “truce” a la Gov. Daniels works out – with the 2012 election being the case study.

During the 2012 election cycle, the pro-abortion lobby and the Democratic Party created a “War on Women” narrative. Whenever Governor Romney or other major GOP candidates were challenged on these claims, they responded with a de facto truce – refusing to engage and instead issuing a canned countercharge that the Obama economy was bad for women.

This strategy emboldened Democratic candidates and operatives, knowing they would never be questioned on their extreme abortion agenda – abortion on-demand, for any reason, up to the moment of birth, paid for by the taxpayer. At every opportunity, they framed the debate within the context of either rape or contraception.  Because of their refusal to engage, Republicans allowed the Democrats to frame the debate – leaving Republicans on perpetual defense. Since when is silence a strategy? You cannot win a war in which you don’t engage.

This defensive strategy from the outset left major GOP candidates unprepared to deter or handle the tough questions on abortion, with Todd Akin  being the prime example. Republican pro-life candidates must do a better job at clearly articulating what it means to be pro-life – even in the most difficult cases – with compassion and love. More importantly candidates must be prepared to go and stay on offense by engaging the other side, pointing out their extreme policies on abortion and conscience rights.

Protecting babies who survive abortions, ending the gruesome practice of late-term abortion, banning sex-selective abortions carried out purely because the child is the “wrong” gender, stopping taxpayer funding of abortion, ending taxpayer subsidies to America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood – these are the grounds on which abortion is being fought today. We can now add to them the need to protect religious institutions and business owners of conscience from having to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs and sterilizations for all their employees. These are the real issues — unlike the phony “war on contraception”— that are actually being debated in Washington and in state legislatures across the country. And these are issues in which 60-80 percent of Americans back the pro-life position and the candidates who espouse them. This is where the debate must be centered.

The Democratic Party and pro-abortion lobby understand that abortion is a losing issue for them. A September 2012 Politico article detailing their strategy led with this: “Democrats think they’ve figured out how to win the abortion debate: Don’t make it about abortion.” A de facto truce allows them to do exactly that, and therefore will never work to restore Republican fortunes.

Moving forward, Republicans should return to fundamentals. What are the fundamentals of a winning Republican strategy? They are what Ronald Reagan called the three legs of the policy stool — social policy, economic freedom, and national security – with the GOP standing firmly on each one. One wobbly leg – as we saw in the 2012 election – will not hold up..

Luckily, the “rising stars” in the GOP – unlike Senator McCain and Governor Daniels – seem to get it.

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan gave the most articulate and compassionate defense of the pro-life position to be televised during this election cycle.  Just this week, Senator Marco Rubio affirmed his believe that life begins at conception, saying, “I wish there were more folks in this town who were deeply committed to science and . . . would not ignore that scientific fact…Science has definitively established life begins at conception.”

The SBA List will be doing its part to ensure that candidates are better equipped to defend their pro-life position eloquently and strategically attack the Democratic Party’s extreme abortion agenda.

Moving forward, we refuse to let any of our endorsed candidates go out to the battlefield unprepared. We’re also renewing our commitment to recruiting more women to run for office, as they are the strongest messengers.

The facts are on our side. Science is on our side. Not only is defending Life and protecting women the right thing to do, the data shows that it is a political winner. If the Republican Party hopes to win another national election, they must re-embrace it. Now is the time for a return to the fundamentals of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – the first among these being Life.

Comments (65)

1 2
  • patricking49
    Dec. 9, 2012 at 1:08am

    The so-called “pro-life” position is based exclusively on a superstition you folks were indoctrinated into during your childhoods. I don’t know why you call yourselves “pro life.” Your interest in unwanted children ends the moment they stop being fetuses. You put no programs in place to feed, clothe and educate these poor bastards. And when the strike out in frustration and kill a few of your own precious darlings your quick as a snake to execute them. You’re pro fetus based on no actual facts. You are NOT pro life.

    I’ll bet you would have a lot more success prosthelytizing your nutty point of view than trying to legislate it. Prosthelytizing will at least get you to flakes who make their decisions based on emotions and no facts. As your spokesman Mr. Santorum reminded you, you are never going to attract intelligent people to ideas that have no basis in reality.

    Report this comment

    patricking49  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 12:31pm

      AH, spoken like the paid troll/brainwashed secular sadsack that you are. The people who are against
      the murder of GOD’S unborn as also the ones who provide most for their care. Provide most in Charity; provide most for mother’s care. I don’t know where you get your “facts” dude, but they stink.

      We do not own our lives, as offensive as it may seem to someone with your knowledge vacancy. God owns everything. WE are here as a blessing to experience life and the FREE-CHOICE option that GOD gave us. We only use 1% of our brain – you (not even I) can not possibly understand the whole Universe but it’s a sure thing that GOD never intended for us to MURDER our unborn. For those silly women who say “It’s my body – I’ll do with it what I want” I say : “Fine, then you decide when and through whom you are born; when you die naturally ”
      The fact is simple: We simply cannot continue killing GOD’S creations and expect Him in anyway to support us, to help us, to guide us. What part of that can’t you understand? IT is NOT a choice…it is a BABY. Abortion is evil in any form.

      Report this comment

      PATTY HENRY  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 12:37pm

      Weak-kneed losers like John McCain would do back flips down Pennsylvania Blvd. if he thought that would keep him in power. He and Graham, some of the talking heads Krystal etc. are total sell-outs. Santorum was not “real enough” – Most Senators are not Presidential Material anyway…but For anyone who claims to be a CONSERVATIVE wanting to take a “softer position on Abortion” isn’t worth the powder to blow them to hell. Just because it’s 2012 doesn’t mean that God’s Laws have changed. Abortion will never be ‘okay’…flaunting any of God’s Laws will NEVER be okay.
      McCain is your perfect passive-aggressive weakling, in spite of his military POW experience. Look at his fruit!! How would you like to have that as your daughter? Sad group of people who think they are Rock Stars instead of servants of the people. THEY are the ones who need to go from the GOP…not the principles involving God’s dictates to us.

      Report this comment

      PATTY HENRY  
  • mbauer113
    Dec. 9, 2012 at 12:02am

    Let me present a scenario. A young couple has a fling and the female gets an unwanted pregnancy. Let’s say she decides to have the baby, for whatever reason. She breaks it off with the guy due to a huge argument because he does not want her to have the baby. He then proceeds to commit a crime and kill that unborn baby himself while leaving the mother without permanent harm(Doesn’t matter how this is done, let’s say he treats her stomach as a punching bag).

    If this were to happen it would most likely result in a manslaughter case for the unborn baby. And in fact cases similar to this have happened in America. So, to you liberals, does this mean that it’s only murder if the baby is wanted? Because based on your logic it certainly seems so. Think about how the mother of that murdered baby would feel, or better yet ask any mother how they feel after a miscarriage or some tragic accident that caused their baby to be killed.

    Report this comment

    mbauer113  
  • whater39
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 4:36pm

    This is known as a “Wedge Issue” people. Basically the politicians are trolling you. Distracting you from real issues, to this one. Why not focus on real issues such as military spending (aka- world cops). Or corporate susbidies (aka- welfare for corporations). Or war on drugs (aka- private prisons).

    The issue has been decided a long time ago. It’s legal & allowed. And it’s a different person’s life, so let them live their life how they feel.

    Report this comment

    whater39  
    • toto
      Dec. 8, 2012 at 5:32pm

      What you don’t seem to understand is that the baby is a separate individual with nerve endings, that feel pain, recognizes their mother’s voice, sucks their thumb, recoils with startle reactions, and reposition themselves to get more comfortable, and even like music. Every single person that thinks abortion is okay and just a choice for the convenience of the “mother” should have to watch a 3D sonogram of one during the “procedure”. Watch the ripping apart of a live baby that has not even been given the courtesy of humane euthanasia prior to their minutes of hell. Watch that, then tell me and others that are informed how on earth this could ever be considered to be okay in a civilized society.

      Report this comment

      toto  
  • financemanager
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 3:49pm

    I read most of the comments and only a couple mentioned the religious aspect of killing babies in the womb. You don’t have to be much smarter than Obummer to know that if a child is born and killed it is murder. But if it is aborted a few days before, it is abortion. The Supreme Court is only supreme on earth. Not in the world. Not in God’s eyes. One woman said she would never give up her pro-life position because abortion is murder. She is right. Her reward will be in heaven, and all us pro-lifers will never compromise. There is no compromise. A baby has the right to life. A constitutional right. Those Obummers who believe otherwise are on the side of his endorsers-Putin, Chavez, Castro. I think it is better to be on GOD’S side–HE said,”Thou shalt not kill>” HE did not add exceptions for convenience, divorce, less “stuff” for the mother, supreme courts decisions, too many kids already, not enough sex, husband runs away, etc. No. HE just said,”Thou shalt not kill!!” It’s up to you not to procreate if you don’t want more children. That is your real choice! Not after the baby is conceived. Where does it stop? Foolish arguments about children ready to fend for themselves? That might not happen during its life. Be smart. Get on GOD’S side!! Forget Obummer, Warren, and all the other nitwits. Their price to pay will be high. “DO NOT KILL AND PAY FOR OTHERS TO KILL”. FINANCE MANAGER

    Report this comment

    financemanager  
  • awkingsley
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 12:43pm

    Karl Rove is correct about toning down Social Issues rhetoric. The GOP needs to promise State’s Rights, returning the power to the people. He who controls the money is in charge. A return to State’s Rights will give the people of each state the power to make decisions about how our state money is allocated. Do you want to pay for abortions? Do you want to pay for research into the mating habits of dung beetles? How do you want to allocate your state’s funds – the money you pay in taxes? A return to State’s Rights will also give you the option of deciding other major questions because the our Federal Government will be returned to a Constitutional Government. Support a Libertarian-Republican for president to solve our Social Issues. Remember, he who controls the purse strings gets to decide whether to spend state money for moral or immoral purposes. Vote to allow yourself the ability to decide where the money goes by voting for State’s Rights, and you solve Federal Government stimulus for immorality. This is the first step in solving Social Issues. Give yourself the power. Put yourself back in charge of the way your tax dollars are spent by controlling what goes on in your own backyard at the state level by voting for State’s Rights.

    Report this comment

    awkingsley  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 12:46pm

      Old Karl got his “comeuppance” His brand of “everything is politics” is over. IF he wants to be significant in any way from here on out (and Dick Morris too) they will work on VOTER PROCEDURES; VOTER REFORM. I blame Morris for being the reason many GOP stayed home..his trying to “play God” and manipulate people into thinking Romney could win was 1) Unnecessary and 2) faux … didn’t do anything but Hurt Romney. Romney advisors really did the wrong thing by reigning him in over Benghazi.. you know…the “incident” that the Current Pres. lied to us all about in effort to protect his ‘record’ and his Muslim buddies. Rove needs to move back to TX and open a bar. His credibility and usefulness is over. GOP needs to ACHIEVE something…voter fraud elimination would be a great place to start.

      Report this comment

      PATTY HENRY  
  • TermLimitsForCongress
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 12:20pm

    Every time the abortion issue is used as a wedge issue, the Democrats cheer, and the Republicans lose. IMHO abortion is a state issue – and the Feds need to keep out of it. Its not a presidential issue either. Until the Republican party gets out of the woman’s reproductive business, they will continue to get beat.

    Report this comment

    TermLimitsForCongress  
    • smv803
      Dec. 8, 2012 at 1:33pm

      Who brings up any social issues? The dumpcrap party and the GOP falls for it every time. They know the LSM will carry out their message and the beat goes on. I don’t believe the electorate wanted Obumer back; this election was stolen and the American people were deceived. We have way more smarter people than that and the dump party knew it and so had to use Chicago thuggery to win….and they did. I fault the GOP for their ignorance or shall I say, defection. Voter ID is a must; perhaps We the people may have a chance for the next time.

      Report this comment

      smv803  
    • pghpatriot
      Dec. 8, 2012 at 2:30pm

      ….the Feds need to get out of it….

      therein lies the problem! the feds are involved because the use federal tax payer (our money!) money to provide funds for PP and their abortions. Do you think for a minute that the FED, especially this one, is going to relinquish that strangle hold and just agree to delegate that responsibility to the states? HELL NO! They want to keep those baby machines as voters. They want to keep the ‘GOP hates woman mantra.’ They never will and therefore neither party will be out of that issue.

      Report this comment

      pghpatriot  
  • garybkatz
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 12:15pm

    It didn’t help the Republicans that various morons said stuff like rape never causes pregnancy, pregnancy never endangers the mother’s life, or (my favorite) if you get knocked up by a rapist, it is
    G-d’s plan. Personally, I would vote for the best candidate, whether he was Republican or Democrat, but if he spouts dumb stuff like the above, he blew my vote.

    Report this comment

    garybkatz  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 12:48pm

      Then, Akin added insult to injury by refusing to step down. Besides, he combs over his hair. As a woman I find that nauseating.

      Report this comment

      PATTY HENRY  
  • slehar
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 11:39am

    It is NOT a question of when life begins, but whether we have the authority as free citizens to control our own procreation. Do we decide this vital issue for ourselves, each of us individually? Or do we decide it collectively, and impose that group decision on everyone, over all objections? This is really an issue of free choice, and of not interfering with our neighbor’s choice even if we believe it to be wrong.

    Report this comment

    slehar  
    • aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn
      Dec. 8, 2012 at 10:51pm

      @slehar: There is no free choice to murder. Plain and simple. Follow the science.
      A life begins at conception. The human being inside the woman is no longer a part of the woman but lives inside her totally dependent on her for its survival. So the woman has a moral responsibility not to harm that human being. She has no more moral right to destroy that life inside her than she has to destroy her child living inside her house.

      Report this comment

      aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn  
    • ripley
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 1:17pm

      So, in your way of thinking, if you have a neighbot that you hate, it’s okay to kill him, free choice & all. Killing is killing regardless of what other name you try to attach to the act. And it is wrong. I know, liberals & secular folks just HATE being told anything is right or wrong but that’s too bad. Such is life.

      Report this comment

      ripley  
    • garybkatz
      Dec. 13, 2012 at 4:23pm

      AConstitution…etc.,
      Your statement that life begins at conception is your religious belief. Nobody wants to stop you from following your belief, as to any pregnancy where you are the potential parent. But not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. Since nobody has proof as to when a fetus acquires a soul, it all boils down to religion, doesn’t it? Since most Americans favor religious freedom, they should not seek to impose their religious beliefs on others (and don’t play word games with me, asking rhetorical questions like, “So if someone’s religion tells them it’s okay to be a terrorist, then that’s their religious right?”). Besides, if you think that your definition of when life begins should be applied to everyone, shouldn’t you be campaigning to outlaw the pill? IUDs? The Catholic Church thinks it’s wrong to use condoms. Should Catholics lobby to apply that doctrine to everyone? Get’s pretty messy, doesn’t it?

      Report this comment

      garybkatz  
  • Don15
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 8:17am

    Wishy washy Republicans will never win the Presidency. Pro-life is a must and abortion is just one side of the whole issue of being pro-life. If we do not educate the public about the value of a baby’s life, then the Progressives move to the other end of the spectrum of life and will promote their pro death policy for the elderly. In other words, if life isnt sacred in the womb, then life isnt sacred before the tomb. If we allow Progressives to kill babies and call it legal and moral, then we can kill the elderly who cannot take care of themselves legal and moral as well. And once that happens, we can move to the handicapped, mentally challenged, and gender. Somewhere along the spectrum, you will come up for removal.

    Report this comment

    Don15  
  • bhosux
    Dec. 8, 2012 at 7:12am

    On the plus side. The high percentage of abortions will eliminate future weak spine liberals. What more could you ask for. They thin their own masses. Beauty !

    Report this comment

    bhosux  
  • cashprize
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 7:00pm

    Yes, the scientific facts are on the side of conservatives when it comes to the unborn child. Recent polling show that conservatives are winning the hearts of the people, at least the young ones. Having a President come out on the opposite side of these issues is seeming to help boster the view of liberals. Now is not the time to back down. It is the time to continue to educate the ignorant concerning the facts. So many politicians care only about votes and don’t understand or have true deep convictions about the subject. Others that have convictions don’t seem to be able to speak to everyone in a logical and no offensive manner. I wrote and article below that I hope helps them to do so.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/abortion-and-the-it-s-my-body-excuse-for-killing-the-unborn

    Report this comment

    cashprize  
    • The Third Archon
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 7:16pm

      Whether or not Roe v. Wade was logically decided correctly is irrelevant to whether it’s CONCLUSION–that access to abortion is, and should be, a protected right, is in fact true.

      Many conservatives argue the fetus has a “right to life” which trump’s the mother’s liberty or happiness interests in having an abortion–but you’ve jumped to a conclusion here via an assumption that begs the very question at issue; DOES the fetus have a “right to life” (or any rights at all)? Because in order to have “rights” it must first be a “person,” and it is not at all self-evident that the line hard-line conservatives want to draw (conception) is any more sensible a definition of “personhood” than “viability” (the line, more-or-less, of Roe v. Wade), or “birth,” or “sapience” (some minimal capacity to apprehend the outside world and reason).

      But even GRANTING that the fetus has a right to life, what about that right gives the fetus the further right to demand use of the mother’s bodily functions to support its own right to life? That doesn’t sound consistent with the “conservative” line of thought on personal autonomy.

      Report this comment

      The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:03pm

      TTA – Boo hoo that a woman can’t kill her own baby.

      Report this comment

      Git-R-Done  
    • termyt
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 11:28pm

      Two problems, Archon.

      1. You cannot exercise rights in a way the removes the rights of another. Anyone’s right to peruse happiness cannot trump another’s right to life. In order for you to keep your rights, you must be willing to defend the rights of others. For example, if you make me miserable, does that give me the right to end your life?

      2. So, at what point does a thing become viable and thus a person worthy of the rights you would withhold? What is viability? Certainly an infant is not viable. Left to his/her own devices, he/she will die. So if having to care for an infant isn’t good for your liberty, we can kill him/her? So a child must reach the age of being able to care for itself before that child is afforded the right to life? When is that? 5? 6? 18? What about the elderly? The paralyzed? If you become debilitated, are your rights forfeit?

      Report this comment

      termyt  
    • tzion
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 8:55am

      @Third
      If I would to send you into outer space as you are now you wouldn’t survive. You require a specific environment to live and space lacks that. A fetus requires the environement of a woman’s womb the same way you require air and water. And just as we can artificially create environments suitable for you in outer space, so too we may one day create an artificial womb. At that point, what support do you have?

      Report this comment

      tzion  
  • The Third Archon
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 6:11pm

    “Now is the time for a return to the fundamentals of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – the first among these being Life.”
    Rights only the sapient have any meaningful claim to.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
  • The Third Archon
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 6:02pm

    “You cannot win a war in which you don’t engage.”
    And some wars you just can’t win, period.
    “with Todd Akin being the prime example.”
    Akin walked into his OWN mess that HE created.
    “And these are issues in which 60-80 percent of Americans back the pro-life position and the candidates who espouse them.”
    And your evidence for this…? And, even IF you had any empirical support for that claim, that doesn’t mean (1) it will always be that way, or (2) it SHOULD be that way–just because a position is popular, doesn’t mean it is in society’s best interests.
    ““I wish there were more folks in this town who were deeply committed to science and . . . would not ignore that scientific fact…Science has definitively established life begins at conception.””
    That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard…no wait, I’ve heard Creationists assert “science has definitively established the Earth sprung into existence 6,000-10,000 yrs. ago.” Still, it’s PRETTY stupid–if by “life” you mean “biological,” then Rubio’s wrong, sex cells are biologically “alive” BEFORE conception–they reproduce through meiosis, are carbon based consisting of organic molecules, and all the other qualities we associate with life. If, on the other hand, by “life” you mean “human,” then your just begging the very question in controversy–what quality MAKES it human? It certainly can’t JUST be a collection of cells with human DNA that counts–our hair qualifies under that def

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:11pm

      Unborn babies are far more advanced than a hair strand. Study the biology of unborn babies sometime instead of regurgitating the leftist propaganda.

      Report this comment

      Git-R-Done  
  • The Third Archon
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 5:53pm

    “This strategy emboldened Democratic candidates and operatives, knowing they would never be questioned on their extreme abortion agenda – abortion on-demand, for any reason, up to the moment of birth, paid for by the taxpayer.”
    While I don’t have a problem with that, and find it vastly preferable to the extreme alternative offered by conservatives (no abortions, at all, or, if the’re “moderates” (ha ha ha ha–only in America) no abortions at all unless the woman would die without one), that’s not a unified policy goal of the Left. There’s actually QUITE A BIT of disagreement over the exact scope of desirable protections for abortion–a LOT of people want to draw the line at viability. That’s stupid, because (1) the threshold question for whether a fetus has ANY human rights is whether or not it is HUMAN–plenty of humans aren’t “viable” in the sense of being able to survive autonomously. What is important to humanity is the capacity to reason. And (2) even if we’ve decided it may have some rights claims, to assume it has the categorical right to demand use of the mother’s body to support its own life has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the absolutist pro-birthers.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:10pm

      Funny how you consider making murdering an unborn baby to be extreme but not a cradle to grave welfare state.

      And what about all of the other people who aren’t able to survive autonomously?

      Report this comment

      Git-R-Done  
  • The Third Archon
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 5:39pm

    I find it terribly ironic that an organization in favor of theology based policy would adopt Susan B. Anthony’s name for the organization–Susan B. Anthony, one of the earliest atheist and feminist American thinkers. LOL–that’s as rich as Glenn Beck pretending he has anything in common with Martin Luther King Jr.!

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
  • tifosa
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 4:40pm

    Yes, please Marjorie, please continue to call the Republican “war on women” a ‘pro-abortion lobby and Democratic party-created narrative.’
    Please put the ‘articulate and compassionate’ Paul Ryan out front in the pro-choice vs. ‘pro-life’ debate. Maybe he could repeat some of his most famous soundbites about r*pe, we could even look at the bill he co-sponsored with “shut it down” Aiken.

    Report this comment

    tifosa  
    • zorro
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 4:54pm

      It is and the left is winning. Just read the comments here. GOP is willing to sit back and watch milliions more children get killed by their mother just so the next junkie doesn’t get food stamps. The left is playing Republicans like fiddles. What’s really funny is that the left are not even the ones who started this narrative. No sir! We have the Paulbots to thank for that.

      Report this comment

      zorro  
    • SgtB
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 5:24pm

      Really? Since when have Ron Paul supporters ever been pro-abortion? You neoconservative pieces of garbage just want to rule gov’t so that you can have it “your” way instead of the way the Liberals want it. It is a little kids’ ******* match between the left and right for control of the tax money and power and I for one think you are all freaking nuts and wish death upon all of you. I believe in Liberty plain and simple. When you start trying to force anyone to do anything with government force, you are wielding power that is not anyone’s to command. That is why we have war, famine, and despotism. Just remember “Zorro”, when this nation finally defaults on its debt and stagflation occurs, your kind will be treated just as harsh as the welfare filth that suck off the nearly empty udder that we call government.

      Report this comment

      SgtB  
  • hflndrs
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 4:03pm

    Roe vs Wade is here to stay.
    I think we need to define when the fetus becomes viable. At that time shouldn’t the fetus be considered a human with all rights and privileges? That should happen when the fetus can survive outside the mother. Remember the Liberal premise is a woman has a choice about her body. If the fetus can be removed from her body and live, with a little help from medical technology, that should now be considered a human. If this definition is applied abortion will become a non-issue.

    Report this comment

    hflndrs  
    • The Third Archon
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 6:09pm

      Even if a fetus is decided to, at whatever point you want to pick, be “human with all rights and privileges” how do you logically get from that, to “the fetus has the right to the usage of the mother’s body to sustain its own life?” Unless you are actually proposing that after viability women would have the right to have the fetus removed whenever they wished, and hooked up to a machine to help it survive the rest of the time.

      Report this comment

      The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:06pm

      TTA – So then by your standards, humans that can’t speak for themselves shouldn’t have rights?

      Report this comment

      Git-R-Done  
  • old construction worker
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 3:55pm

    The last thing you will want is to overturn Roe VS Wade. Think about. Yes it gives the right to choose. Like all laws. it is a double edge sword. One day you my have to relay on it to have more than one child. Again, think about it.

    Report this comment

    old construction worker  
  • BlackCrow
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 3:27pm

    The only way Roe v. Wade will be reversed is by constitutional amendment. That requires two thirds of the House, two thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the state legislatures. AIN’T HAPPENING!!!

    The sooner this is dropped or at least put way on the back burner the better it will be for the goal of reversing the trend of bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government. In the interim if you do not believe in abortion if you believe it’s murder DON’T HAVE ONE!

    Report this comment

    BlackCrow  
    • zorro
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 4:55pm

      How…simplistic. If you don’t want to beat your child, don’t beat them! Let me beat ‘em up all I want! If you want to buckle up your kid, do it! I don’t want to do it!

      Report this comment

      zorro  
  • Ducky657
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 2:49pm

    Here is a question–how many Presidents have been able to repeal abortion since Roe v. Wade 1973? The answer is none and regardless of who sits on the SCOTUS that is not likely to change. You have idiots saying Republicans are going to nominate Justices which will take away a woman’s ability to get birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut 1965 decided by the SCOTUS made it illegal for states to limit a woman’s ability to obtain birth control. You can argue whether everyone should be taxed to pay for it but access has been settled–forever! The Democrats say Republicans support pay inequality when they know the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ensures everyone who does the same job and has the same level of experience is paid the same as their peers–the only nay votes came from Democrats. The much taunted Lilly Ledbetter Law of 2009 did one thing–extend the period of time women have to file a complaint. My point is we can win the war by arguing with substance and real issues instead of discussing ideological issues which do not advance our cause. Why argue about abortion when it has done nothing but become a wedge issue despite the fact no one has been able to rescind this barbaric practice. When we don’t have a budget does it make sense to argue about some little small amendment which will not be approved but was put there so a Senator or House Member could say they supported their constituent’s position. If Congress did their job we would not have to worry about the EPA!

    Report this comment

    Ducky657  
  • katzkiner
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 2:41pm

    Anybody stupid and mean enough to kill their own flesh and blood, please don’t stop them,we have enough liberals.

    Report this comment

    katzkiner  
    • Marine25
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 7:16pm

      Only liberals have abortions?
      Children of liberals will be liberals?
      What in the world are you talking about?

      Report this comment

      Marine25  
    • Git-R-Done
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:06pm

      Marine25 – It’s true that liberals do support murdering their unborn babies. And that kids are more likely to have the same ideology as their parents.

      Report this comment

      Git-R-Done  
    • katzkiner
      Dec. 9, 2012 at 6:37pm

      Marine: that is a flanking attack, get it? Liberals are so stupid and mean they kill their own babies. You can’t win a moral arguement with an amoral person anyway. Aborted babies make the first resurrection and the ones who shed the innocent blood will answer.

      Report this comment

      katzkiner  
  • humba-labumbala-seebala-bumbala
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 2:21pm

    This issue should not be put to rest.
    Pro-life, in my opinion is: Life of the mother is the ONLY exception.
    Paul Ryan stated that the Romney-Ryan platform on the issue was to include Rape and Incest in the exceptions.
    Even though the numbers for these pregnancies are either low or non-existent; such a platform leaves it at a pro-abortion level.
    I believe this is where we lacked on voter turn-out.
    If Republicans compromise on this instead of digging in and reaffirming their positions and reinforcing them with a hard stance, we will lose altogether.
    God’s law has been the foundation for which we built the success of the USA on.
    That foundation began crumbling when our great nation started to rebel.
    Yes-I voted for the Romney Ryan ticket because their platform on abortion was a start in the right direction.

    Report this comment

    humba-labumbala-seebala-bumbala  
  • YoshiFD3S
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 1:43pm

    I don’t give a crap if arguing against abortion isn’t “popular”. Wrong is wrong. Evi lis evil. Murder is murder.

    YOU DON’T COMPROMISE YOUR VALUES JUST TO PLEASE THE PEOPLE!!!!

    I’ll argue against the MURDER of innocent unborn children until the day I die.

    I have a baby boy on the way, my wife is almost 26 weeks pregnant. Don’t tell me there’s not a living human being in there when I can poke my wife’s tummy and my baby pokes/kicks back at me in response.

    Sure, there CAN be a separation of moral values and political values/stances/positions….but in the end, it ALL comes down to morality.

    Your political position should be backed by a strong moral foundation of right VS. wrong and knowing that your sole responsibility in public office is to provide the services that best support the people you represent.

    Nowadays, politicians are hollow and greedy individuals with fork tongues who will tell you everything you want to hear, but are dishonest men and women with anything BUT a sense of integrity, honesty, accountability, and responsibility.

    We pay these elected officials to act on our behalf, yet how many darn times are we going to be threatened with “fiscal cliff” scenarios because these people can’t even come together to agree on a budget!

    I feel like I’ve lost faith in public office officials. They don’t represent “we the people” anymore. They represent special interest minority groups that fill their pockets.

    I’m just sick of it. Rep

    Report this comment

    YoshiFD3S  
    • NYRightwinger
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 2:13pm

      Yoshifd3s, I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s as though “winning” trumps common sense. Give me a Democrat that is pro-life and pro family and I’ll take that over a compromising Republican any day. I’d be glad to pay higher taxes in exchange for an overturn of Roe vs. Wade. I could care less about party affiliation! Unfortunately, conservative values are being pushed over the cliff in exchange for whatever feels good do it. My only solice is that it’s just what God’s Word said would happen before Christ’s return.
      2 Timothy 3:1-5 “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 btraitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!”
      I think that about sums it up!

      Report this comment

      NYRightwinger  
    • flipper1073
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 9:20pm

      I don’t diagree with any of you. I’m as Pro-Life as almost anyone on here.
      But I deal in reality an the reality is Roe vs Wade made abortion legal.
      The only way that can be changed is overturning Roe or Constutitional
      Amendment neither of which is going to happen unless Conservatives
      win Elections.
      I want politicians of the highest morals an convections same as You.
      but I don’t need them as my preacher or in my case my Bishop.

      Report this comment

      flipper1073  
    • jmm124567
      Dec. 31, 2012 at 8:11pm

      @NYRightwinger Overturning Roe V. Wade will not exactly ban abortion. Abortion is a states rights issue.

      Report this comment

      jmm124567  
  • flipper1073
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 10:05am

    one last Question
    if 2016 ends up with
    Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
    Jeb Bush (Republican)
    Sarah Palin / Allen West (whatever the 3rd Party’s Name)
    Who Do You think Wins ?

    Report this comment

    flipper1073  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 1:18pm

      Depends on fraud. If each side gets 5 engineers to examine the chips and boards at random in battleground corridors — Libs lose by landslide. Same as this time. And they know it.

      Report this comment

      Ghandi was a Republican  
    • wowjustwow
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 2:32pm

      You people lose because the majority doesn’t think what you think…not because of fraud. Dream on.

      Report this comment

      wowjustwow  
    • tifosa
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 3:12pm

      LOL: Palin/West~hahahahahaha! ok, you’re kidding, right?

      Report this comment

      tifosa  
    • flipper1073
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:39pm

      WOWJUSTWOW
      Voter fraud happened in large cities in swing states an gave Obama the election.
      That’s a fact.You don’t believe it that’s your problem not mine.
      TIF
      No I’m not kidding !
      Jeb Bush will not be shoved down the throat of Conservatives in 2016. If the Conservatives split from the GOP they’re left with a party about the size of the Green Party.
      So my question still stands. Not factoring in voter fraud.who wins in the three way race ?

      Sorry for changing my writing style but I’m trying to help TOMSERV’s reading comprendension

      Report this comment

      flipper1073  
    • flipper1073
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:56pm

      Opps
      (comprehension)

      Report this comment

      flipper1073  
  • flipper1073
    Dec. 7, 2012 at 10:03am

    I said this on one of the other Stories in this Series.
    Conservatives need to Stay away From Social Issues.
    Don’t take that Wrong, Stand Strong on Their Values an
    Moral Principles But Don’t get in the Mud Fight with the Media.
    Say You’re Pro-Life with FEW exceptions an Shut Up .
    It’s when Pol’s make Stupid statements Like
    “Women who are Raped Don’t get Pregnant”
    or “Baby Murders” That turns people away.
    an Loses Elections that should have been a Slam Dunk.

    An For the Record I’m Not NOT Talking About Republicans
    I Couldn’t Care Less what Republicans Do.
    Unless an Until Conservatives take Control of the GOP
    I’m DONE with Them.
    Conservatives Both Social an Fiscal along with the TEA Party
    an Ron Paul Libertarians,an Constutitionalist are Far closer in
    Ideology than we are with the NEW PROGRESSIVE GOP.
    We ALL Want Much Smaller Government.
    We ALL Want Spending Cut Drasticly.
    We ALL Want More Individual Freedom an Liberty.
    We ALL Love the Constitution an want Politicians that
    Honor an Abide by it.
    As Long as the Progressives can keep Dividing Us.
    They Win an then LOSE with Moderate/Progressive Canditates.
    Ronald Reagan had to Beat the Progressive GOP before
    He Got the Chance To Totally WHUP Jimmy Carter.
    If it Takes a 3rd Party then SO BE IT !

    United we can win but Divided The GOP will end up with
    Jeb Bush in 2016.

    Report this comment

    flipper1073  
    • TOMSERVO
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 4:32pm

      Your posts are very difficult to read due to your random line changes and capitalizations.

      Report this comment

      TOMSERVO  
    • flipper1073
      Dec. 7, 2012 at 8:04pm

      You don’t argue what I said ?
      Just that I put caps where they don’t belong.
      As for the line changes I do that because I got tired of the Blaze making the line changes for me.
      You’re reading comprehension is not my problem.

      Report this comment

      flipper1073  
    • jmm124567
      Dec. 31, 2012 at 8:09pm

      “We ALL Want More Individual Freedom an Liberty.”

      You not like the Religious Right are you? They constantly say they support more freedom yet they want to regulate everyone’s private lives. they are very intrusive and when they talk about individual freedom then start talking about family values they sound like huge hypocrites.

      Report this comment

      jmm124567  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

TheBlaze

Channel Finder

Find TheBlaze on your TV

This zipcode is invalid, please try again

Channel Finder

TheBlaze is available on channel .

Spread the word!

If you can't find TheBlaze, please call to upgrade your package

Channel Finder

Unfortunately, TheBlaze is not available on .

But you can help! Call at or press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

But you can help! Press CONTINUE to email your provider and urge them to add TheBlaze to your channel lineup.

Continue

Request TheBlaze

Please complete the form

I would like to receive news and information from TheBlaze.
Skip

Thank you for supporting TheBlaze

Interested in doing more? Spread the word about TheBlaze to your friends and family.

Spread the word!

TheBlaze Magazine
Restoring Love