Mercury One charity hits the $1m-raised mark for Oklahoma Tornado relief

Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Faith

Romney: Abortion Legislation Won’t Be Part of ‘My Agenda’ (Plus: Did He Really Flip-Flop on the Issue?)

Oct. 10, 2012 7:55am Billy Hallowell

Mitt Romney Claims Abortion Wont Be Part of His Legislative Agenda

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

Abortion is a touchy subject. In American politics, it continues to be one of the most flammable social issues, with pro-life and pro-choice sentiment often driving voter perception of Republican and Democratic candidates, alike.

As TheBlaze noted earlier this year, the nation is starkly divided on the issue, with pro-life sentiment seemingly capturing the majority of Americans’ perceptions on the subject (50 percent of the nation is pro-life, with 41 percent claiming to be pro-choice in 2012). With the election just weeks away, GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney may be attempting to temper independent and left-of-center voters’ worries, claiming that he won’t pursue abortion legislation if elected president.

In a move that The Wall Street Journal claims shows the candidate is making a “shift to the center,” Romney told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board that abortion isn’t on his legislative radar at the moment. While this may rile some social conservatives who hope to see Roe vs. Wade one-day overturned, considering the economic issues the nation faces, this shift away from the social debate is understandable.

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” he told the board, while trying to get their endorsement.

While maintaining his pro-life sentiment, Romney said that he wouldn’t go the legislative route and that he, instead, would ban U.S. foreign aid dollars from being allocated for the purposes of abortion. It didn’t take long for the Obama campaign to seize upon the comments, claiming that Romney was contradicting past statements he made about the actions he would take on abortion.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

The Des Moines Register has more:

The Obama campaign quickly seized on Romney’s abortion comments Tuesday, sending out a news release accusing Romney of contradicting himself because he has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Obama’s Iowa spokeswoman, Erin Seidler argued that Romney contradicted himself because has said he supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions.

However, the Hyde Amendment is already part of current law. And Romney has said he would appoint justices who are not activist judges.

“We know the truth about where he stands on a woman’s right to choose: He’s said he’d be delighted to sign a bill banning all abortions, and called Roe v. Wade ‘one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history,’ while pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn it. Women simply can’t trust him,” Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith said, according to The Associated Press.

These claims were flatly rejected by Romney campaign officials who said that the candidate did not contract himself. However, spokesperson Andrea Paul’s statements following Romney’s comments to the editorial board did raise some questions among liberals.

“Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president,” Paul said, going on to also claim that Romney ”would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.” The Huffington Post is claiming that this is evidence that the campaign had to “walk back” Romney’s “surprise” comments. But — is this the case?

It’s important to note that Romney told The Des Moines Register that he wouldn’t be making any anti-abortion legislation part of his agenda. Paul’s comment merely states that he would support legislation that “provides greater protections for life.”

There’s not necessarily a conflict here, seeing as Romney, should he become president, may decide to sign pro-life legislation that comes his way. In his comments to the board, the Republican candidate might have been simply explaining that he will not be actively pushing such legislation himself.

Semantics or a flip-flop? You decide.

–

Related:

This Is Where the American People Stand on Abortion

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (67)

WashingtonIsMyHero
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:10am
It’s not murder if the government says it isn’t.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Hank DeC
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:06am
The pro-Obama AP decided to try to suppress the pro-life vote while riling up the “War on Women” on the left by printing half-truths knowing that people don’t understand how Roe v. Wade (RvW) works and it seems people are falling for it. First, in the original article Romney was clearly asked what *current* legislation he would make part of his agenda — he answered that he was not aware of any but that he would use an Exec. Order to reinstate the Mexico City rule that prevents any US foreign aid from funding abortions (and that is always the way that rule has been implemented: via Exec. Order). AP, thru Planned Parenthood & Team Obama claim this is Romney “flip flopping” because during the primaries he said he was in favor of RvW being overturned; what he said about “current legislation” has nothing to do with RvW. Unlike say, Obamacare, where SCOTUS upheld a law passed by Congress, which means Congress can simply repeal it, SCOTUS decided RvW based on supposed “privacy rights” in the 4th and 14th Amendments. Thus, there are only two ways RvW can be overturned: (1) by the SCOTUS itself in a future case OR (2) by Constitutional Amendment. Obviously, Romney can’t do anything about 1st option other than through appointments to the SCOTUS if/when justices retire. As to the 2nd option, there is no such *current* proposed Amendment to overturn RvW (which would require 2/3 vote, btw). So Romney didn’t change any position here; Obama wants to distract/distort issue. Don

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OutOfTheAether
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:40am
  Hank that’s the most accurate and succinct explanation of RvW I every come across. Thank You!
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:18pm
  Except that Supreme Court vacancies in the next Presidential term are highly likely, considering there are at least 3 justices who are in their mid-seventies (the average age of retirement currently being somewhere between 70 and 80, centered somewhere right around the mid-seventies–thus Ginsberg, Kennedy, Scalia (although he probably won’t leave the Court except in a body bag), and even possibly Breyer are all possible retirees; although, of course, political currents might influence their retirement plans causing Ginsberg and Breyer to delay a retirement they might have intended if Romney were to become President. That being said, Ginsberg at least and possibly Breyer, probably wouldn’t find it feasible to delay 8 years in the event of a Romney second term).
  
  Report this comment
- FoxholeAtheist
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 2:54pm
  At least he didn’t force anyone to have an abortion. What exactly goes on at your pee parties anyway? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/transcript-rep-desjarlais-urged-abortion-17444589#.UHXEOhXA9Z4
  
  Report this comment
- TheBurningTruth
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 3:24pm
  Go back and actually read the decision on RvW. It did NOT make abortion “legal”, all it did was to declare a single Texas state law “illegal” based upon the fact that the law was so restrictive banning abortions that even the woman’s doctor couldn’t justify an abortion to save her life. In fact, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that the the SCOTUS could use to declare abortion either a right or to prevent future abortion laws from being passed. All they could do was declare the Texas law unconstitutional.
  
  To this day, ANY state can write an abortion law within the limits imposed by RvW and it would be legal until successfully challenged. The reason that no state has done so is driven by politics and NOT by RvW.
  
  Report this comment
kat747
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:52am
We are used to flip-flopping.
Barry has been flip-flopping for three and ahalf years.
Look how the Democrats flip-flop with their sick “vote with your lady parts” campaign ads.
Disgusting.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- anothercomment
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:07pm
  That’s a good one “vote with your lady parts.” Only a party that reduces woman to that singular function could have dreamt up that slogan. Democrats, you have a truly obscene opinion of women.
  
  Report this comment
Individualism
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:45am
Romney is a baby killer, a troop killer and a jihadist supporter with foreign aid, Gary Johnson is the only non traitor of the three running who won’t do that.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:59am
  Gary Johnson is a drug dealer supporter. The percent of violent felons who habitually use drugs or were on drugs when the crime committed is over 80%.
  
  I would say Gary Johnson poses the greatest threat to children.
  
  Report this comment
- WashingtonIsMyHero
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:08am
  Johnson is a wimp.
  
  Report this comment
- Individualism
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:17am
  i think he a chickenhawk is a wimp
  
  Report this comment
- KidCharlemagne
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 12:49pm
  SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:59am
  
  Gary Johnson is a drug dealer supporter. The percent of violent felons who habitually use drugs or were on drugs when the crime committed is over 80%.
  =============================================
  
  Drugs are illegal though and that means that its impossible for anyone to get their hands on them….
  
  If drugs were legal though, then I might be more inclined to believe the statistic that you cite here…
  
  This means that your claim can not possibly be true.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:06pm
  Romney cannot be trusted on anything,
  Wake up folks,
  
  Report this comment
- Individualism
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:08pm
  War on drugs is to give stupid people jobs that can’t find any other, nobody really needs it.
  
  Report this comment
- ryesta7971
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 2:52pm
  @SquidVetOhio
  
  your “War on Drugs” have produced nothing of value, except dead border patrol agents and a overpopulated prison system of petty offenders smoking a natural herb that grows from this earth’s soil. The statist’s favorite excuse: “It’s for the children” (even though a legal and regulated drug market would still be out of minor’s hands)
  
  Report this comment
GotMullet
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:23am
The very fact that Roe v Wade was crammed down our throats, like Obamacare, is cause enough to repeal the law and let our constitutional process work. Allow us to weigh this important issue. However, right now the economy and our security must be our first priorities. Romney would take the first, best step…. defunding the practice as a measure of birth control. Matters of personal choice, or sexual practice, should not be subsidized by the taxpayer, especially when it is against their will and sustaining such abhorrent and immoral practices.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- phillyatheist
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:52am
  yes, much like Brown vs. the board of education was crammed down your throat. those rogue Supremes keep messing with the constitution!
  
  Report this comment
- wvernon1981
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 12:55pm
  Have you ever even read Roe v Wade?
  
  Report this comment
kturn16
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:18am
I think ultimately, to end abortion, it needs to come from the people. We need to change the minds and hearts of those who think this is o.k. How? Prayer, Prayer, Fasting and education. There are many pro-life groups who now display very large horrific pictures of the dead babies, so that all Americans can truly see the evil this procedure inflicts upon these innocent babies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Deuteronomy22
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:44am
  Romney fully supported choice until 2002 saying he’d taken that stance since 1970 because he was influenced by his mother. Look at his record just like his weapons ban I’m Massachsetts. He will say anything to get elected just like he did in the primary. He has no principles. Vote third party.
  
  Report this comment
- Tractorboy
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:52am
  KTURN16…..It does need to come from the people, the culture seems to be turning away from the sanctity of life, we shall not be burdened with lifes punishments whether they be the young or the very old, nothing more than selfish evil acts………Would like to see the pro-life side do more life testimonies of people who turned the car around on the way to the abortion clinic, show those faces….I have a relative who survived this way, she is a beautiful young lady, I shudder at the thought of what could have been.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:08pm
  Romney’s only principle is WHAT CAN I SAY THIS WEEK THE WILL GET ME ELECTED.
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:14am
…and one more thing – In the case of pregnancy out of wedlock where both parties consented to the act, NO abortions allowed for the sake of convenience of either party; BOTH parties and ONLY both parties, are responsible for the health and welfare of the child , and in the case of adoption, both parties are to anonymously share the expenses of the adoptive parents until the child turns 18- period.

Again, why reward irresponsibility by taking the life of an innocent fetus? There is no excuse for willfully creating an unwanted life, what, with all the prophylactic materials and chemicals sold over the counter to help whores and rabbits prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Ergo, if your willful actions result in a life created, YOU’RE responsible; not me, not any other taxpayer, and to put the onus of murder on a doctor for the sake of your convenience is a CRIME…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:13am
This article was published at 7:55. It is 9:15 and the article has been moved below yesterday’s articles…..

I understand that Theblaze organizers articles according to popularity. However, how can Theblaze possibly determine popularity when it is only up for a 1 hour window? And why does it go below yesterday’s articles, that is not the case for other articles that are not popular

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
grickm
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:12am
The powers granted to the federal government by our Constitution do not include anything regarding “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” Therefore, the federal government should have nothing to say or do in this area. That includes the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling in Roe V Wade. This is a state issue.

Besides that, Romney has much bigger issues to deal with regarding out-of-control government.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:16am
  Some might disagree, saying that Life is more important…
  
  I agree with you. We have to plug the holes in this sinking ship FIRST, or all lives will be lost. While Romney works on world issues, we should be making use of the next 4 years to institute sensible laws regarding abortion; but we won’t be able to do that without first reversing Roe v Wade. The 10th amendment might be a good start.
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:07am
We wouldn’t be discussing abortion if the laws made sense. If a fetus should be the creation of a rape or incest, why should the fetus pay for it‘s innocence with the loss of it’s life? It would be better to force the criminal to pay into an anonymous fund to support the child until it is 18, whether or not it’s adopted, and if the child is aborted for the sake of the mother’s life due to injuries suffered during the commission of the crime, the criminal should be charged with murder.

Makes more sense to have the criminal pay for his crime than to have an innocent fetus killed.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
fastfacts
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:58am
This is not a change, HE HAS ALWAYS SAID THAT THE ECONOMY IS HIS PRIORITY AND THAT TAKES PRECEDENT ON ALL OTHER ISSUES.

Why is it that if you decide not to have a piece of legislation to change something, you are automatically against it for vying for votes. To me stopping the fed’s horrible regulations on fish is a very important issue and Romney should reverse it, do you think he has legislation planned to solve that. Now you say Abortion is a much bigger issue, but to me it is my and my family and thousands of others that’s lives are being destroyed because of these rules and no one will do anything and they are just getting worse and fisherman are leaving the industry. This is a very important issues and Romney’s not talking about this though he speak out against overbearing regulation non stop.

Abortion is wrong, but it is not the highest priority yet, not until we get this economy going. And if Romney does a good job at that, maybe we can get someone in there that will put the cobash on it as his priority, since the economy will be booming.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tajloc
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 6:58pm
  Yes…We must put our jobs at a higher standard then mere death of an unwanted piece of protoplasm. In fact Abortion should not even be part of the political issues. Politics have no moral parameters. It just confuses the issue.
  We deserve the country we have. Time to get into God’s head.
  Rom 8:28
  
  Report this comment
Pigpen
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:57am
OF COURSE Romney won’t say anything about abortion! Romney won’t stand with the Catholic Church against Obama-rama-Romney-Care either! Romney DIDN’T study Divinity at Harvard! Romney studied BUSINESS at Harvard! And that is what Romney’s campaign is all about, BUSINESS!

Romney is the BUSINESS candidate: “Let’s get America back in Business. Let’s get back to Business. America is about Business. The murder of the unborn is none of America’s Business. We can’t get America back to BUSINESS if these pesky, radical-right wingers keep saying STUPID and ANTI-Business things like: ‘America must REPENT before she will prosper…’

Hey, LIGHTEN UP, Christians, its not about PROSPERITY, its all about BUSINESS!”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:03am
  Romney has spoken out against the birth control mandate. Quite often actually. Paul Ryan talks about it endlessly. Not sure what you mean.
  
  Report this comment
Tuner
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:54am
I am DESPERATELY waiting in my lifetime for a politician to support and announce his position on abortion and find it is the same as mine if I was running. The support would be unprecedented in scope for all American with exceptions to those radicals on both sides. The extremists on both sides of this issue have prevented meaningful legislation preventing the very fear that some have that women will not be able to have access to an abortion after rape, and fears on the other of late term abortions minutes before birth on viable infants!

1. Outlaw late term abortions of any kind unless the LIFE of the mother hangs in the balance (I feel you will be hard pressed to find many who support ripping a baby out of the womb just minutes before birth and, sticking scissors into its little skull to make sure it is indeed dead upon birth.

2. Refuse to sign or support any ban on abortion , early in the pregnancy for any patient who was raped. PERIOD

3. Unequivocally allow abortion as a womens right within the first trimester. After that, it becomes vulgar, you had ample time to make this decision before it became so vulgar

4. Stop ALL federally paid for abortion support. Making conservative taxpayers pay for something they find repugnant and and reprehensible is no different than asking liberals to allow federal financing of the NRA. Abortion supporters should support their own just as any other group does.

5. Complete support for the after morning pill

Rights

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 11:07am
  ” Unequivocally allow abortion as a womens right within the first trimester. After that, it becomes vulgar, you had ample time to make this decision before it became so vulgar”
  
  So, it’s ok to barbarically murder a baby in the first 3 months but you suddenly get moral after that? The baby’s nervous system develops to a point to where it can feel pain within the first month. So when it’s scolded alive with saline solution, it feels it. Still feel good about yourself killing it in the first trimester?
  
  You are only 1/3 as barbaric as Planned Parenthood. Good job.
  
  Report this comment
PlanetReality
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:42am
ECONOMY FIRST we have all seen what obamacare has done to this country as this president put the economy on the backburner and put poltiics first everythjng a failing leader displays as the ships sinks further to the bottom!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:40am
In the primary, Ron Paul talked about getting the federal government out of the abortion issue so that the states could decide. Ron Paul also talked about supporting a Constitutional amendment, which should be the goal of the social conservatives. But instead of supporting Ron Paul on abortion, all the social conservatives called him liberal and pro-choice.

Then we have Mitt Romney who has said he is pro-choice in the past and now says he will leave the abortion issue alone…..And the social conservatives say it doesnt matter because he is an economic genius.

That is hypocrisy folks

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
michael from Ga.
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:39am
Borrowed funds for Socialized abortions? No.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GotMullet
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 10:29am
  Finally a cogent thought.
  
  Report this comment
PlanetReality
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:38am
ECONOMY FIRST and GOING FULL SPEED AHEAD

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Master.Debater
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:27am
The abortion issue is important, but first things first. We are currently in the express lane of the road to a Marxist America. If we don’t focus our attention on making an immediate U-turn away from that, the Abortion cause is already lost. There is no respect for individual life that doesn’t contribute to the Collective in Obama’s prescription for America.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RJJinGadsden
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:19am
Regardless of which party, or which politician, Ronald Reagan was right when he said this:
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
And, I don’t mean the two most prominent parties, I mean ALL of them. Ron Paul has proven that he is no angel with his stuffing ear marks into a popular bills, then voting against them knowing full well they will pass. Then, he can promote himself as one who does not vote for ear marks. Not meant to be an attack on Libertarians, but more of a message that they are all POLITICIANS and that we should be wary of all of them. Well, naturally this message will not detract from the Borg Collective of Democrats. They are WETSU all the way. The rest of us should keep clear heads, and realize that regardless, we are always voting for the lesser of two or more evils. Oh yeah, keep an eye on Gary Johnson over the next few years too. Right now, my only belief is that Romeny is not a Commie, and he has a better chance of defeating 0bama than anybody else.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jackact
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:18am
Smart move by Romney.
The agenda will be replacing (2) supreme court justices with staunch conservatives who will repeal ‘Roe v. Wade’.
Period!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- thekuligs
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:36am
  Exactly *he* personally doesn’t plan on doing anything to RvW. Only our current president thinks he can do everything himself (through executive orders). I am suprised all the people bashing him below when likely it is nothing but creative wording.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 12:50pm
  Which is why he will not become President.cut
  
  Or at least, you conservatives had better pray he does not–because if he does, and he is perceived to be responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade, then I GUARANTEE you Republicans won’t control Congress OR the Presidency for decades. While not EVERY woman cares about abortion (or is pro-choice; there are a large plurality of women, not the majority of course, who are pro-life), ENOUGH do that were Republicans to completely alienate them (a substantial portion, larger than the pro-life plurality, though probably not a majority given the close division on the issue, which results in a smaller group of non-committed on this issue women to deny EITHER plurality of those committed on the issue a majority share of the whole group) and ADD a determined and solid voting bloc to those which ALREADY exist for the Democrats (who by and large are already pro-choice, or at least vote for pro-choice candidates because they find Democrats on the whole, if not on this particular issue, preferable to Republicans, and hence why they vote Democrat), then kiss any influence outside the courts goodbye for a very very long time. People won’t forget something that significant–few people are ambivalent about abortion, and such a stark reversal and walk-back would create intense polarization and alienation.
  
  Report this comment
- Verceofreason
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 1:08pm
  ANd he’s not fooling anyone.
  
  Report this comment
Chromo200
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:18am
I am totally against abortion, but will still will vote for Mitt. As long as he will not spend tax monies both nationally and foreign in supporting abortion will be ok with me. Maybe after he gets the economy going and when the opportunity comes to recommend new judges that he means test them..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:36am
  john roberts was hailed as a conservative. you think romney would nominate someone more conservative than roberts?
  
  Report this comment
Verceofreason
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:12am
What a vote seeking hypocrite.
Would you buy a used car from this guy.
What exactly IS he saying or standing for?
And you wonder why the left thinks he’s a sick joke.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 9:05am
  You know that you might be termed an impudent fool for coming on to this website and slamming the opinion of ALL who may disagree with you, without ONCE putting forth a plausible alternative. It doesn’t matter who it is, SnowLeopard or Mitt Romney.
  
  But the man you droll and have the hots for has been in the WH for almost 4years, and could have gotten ANYTHING he wanted in 2 of those years just by asking for it -
  
  1. What is it that Romney said you disagree with, and what is the alternative (fact) to disprove it?
  2. What has Obama accomplished in 4yrs that has you wishing you could be his Monica Lewinsky
  for 4 more?
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:11am
Dont worry, Mitt Romney will have more flexibility after the election!!

Oh wait, he isn’t even waiting till after the election. He was progressive in 2006, conservative in early 2012, moderate in late 2012, and he will be progressive again in 2013

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:21am
  SOY, they are all politicians and they all suck to one degree or another. Just when the hell are you going to come to grips with that?
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:35am
  as soon as you guys stop nominated the most progressive
  
  Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:09am
Semantics!

The President is not supposed to “legislate”! The President is SUPPOSED to be the president of ALL PEOPLE, and truly LISTEN/EVALUATE (himself and through his administration–as long as they don’t have their own agenda!), what is being said/desired by WE THE PEOPLE!

The President is supposed to be the LEADER of the United States of America, and as people of God, we need to pray for wisdom for whomever is in the position, and pray that God DOES GIVE US THE LEADER WE NEED AT THE TIME!

A wise person knows when to “play the cards dealt” and “when to fold.” May God be shuffling the “cards”!

R&R 2012, in God’s will!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sharon Rose
Posted on October 10, 2012 at 8:06am
Abortion is nothing more than “legal” murder.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.