Kerry's Support for Partial-Birth Abortion

Thats pretty slick. They don't have enough of a majority and you know it. You have to have that to be able to overcome the filibusters and courts. People like Kerry will appoint enough liberal judges to make sure nothing can be accomplished along the lines of stopping abortion. It will take nothing less than a constitutional amendment.

Kerry voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He put himself on record.

If you think Peroutka can do anything about it you're completely wrong. He will have the same problem. Where would his support come from? Certainly not democrats. Yep, he would have to get his support from basically Republicans.

Given the proper majority the Republicans would take care of the problem. </font>[/QUOTE]That just does not pass the truth test (I'm not saying you're lying, just imcorrect). How can you say that, when Bush submits increases for these things, that it's the Democrats' fault? BUSH submitted them, and the REPUBLICAN congress passed them, and I DON'T REMEMBER ANY OUTCRY AGAINST THE INCREASAES, or any fight to eliminate them. BOTH parties WANTED them, BUSH submitted them, and CONGRESS passed it.

Kerry did vote against the PBA ban. I am not suggesting a vote for Kerry. But, as you know, the PBA ban has died in the courts, with no protest from Bush that I have heard.

Why would he protest? He got what he wanted...the votes of millions of "pro-life" voters who will settle for practically nothing, while abortion continues with increased funding.

This way he can also have some of the pro-abortion vote, because he's not entirely alienated himself.

Smart politics, dead babies.

 

Whole things just a smoke screen. Bush is against abortion. If you can't understand its certain Planned Parenthood does.

From their site.

Money has been allocated that is not to be used for abortions. But this in turn frees up private money that can be. Democrats know this. Abortion is their way. To say Bush has allocated funds for abortion is incorrect. The federal money is intended for other programs.

In general Democrats support abortion,Republicans do not. Kerry supports something that is pure evil. You'll get to see him do it again tomorrow night.

 

ballfan, you're talking both sides at once.

You admit that Bush and the GOP have increased funding to Planned Patrenthood. You admit that money allocated for other things is functionally the same as abortion money, since it frees up privagte money.

So, to say that Republicans generally do not support abortion, goes against the facts.

Isn't what someone does more important than what they say?

 

I'm being honest about the way things actually are.
In general Republicans don't support abortion.

You may be fooled or just simply confused but Planned Parenthood isn't. Not one bit. They oppose Bush and Republicans because they oppose abortion.

You see they would like to use ALL the money they receive to promote abortion. Because of the law they can't.

 

Bush and the GOP congress have increased funding for Planned Parenthood.

That isn't pro-life.

 

While I don't personally support PP because of their stance on abortion, they do a lot more than JUST abortions. Just because money goes to PP doesn't mean that it goes to abortions. They also have counceling, and contraception services. It would be good to have some investigation done to see if tax dollars are going directly to abortions in PP.

Another big issue will be the Supreme Court appointments. There WILL be a supreme court judge (or two) that are appointed during the next 4 years. Your party platform choice will influence who is appointed to that position. If Kerry is elected, I GUARANTY that the person he appoints will be PRO-homosexuality and PRO-abortion. Remember Bush's statement? "What we need is some good conservative judges".

 

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion promoter (and provider) in the US.

Increasing their funding is not pro-life.

 

OK, Why do you think Planned Parenthood doesn't support Bush and Republicans?

 

OK, Why do you think Planned Parenthood doesn't support Bush and Republicans? </font>[/QUOTE]Jim?

 

For the same reason that Christians support Bush. Blind party loyalty.

 

I think you underestimate Planned Parenthood. They have their eyes open and see something right in front of them that you refuse to see. Bush is against abortion.

 

Bush increased funding for Planned Parenthood.

That is not pro-life.

 

"...In the second Presidential debate, Mr. Bush said, correctly, that embryonic stem cell research “requires the destruction of life to get a stem cell.” Then, in the same breath, in the very next sentence, he bragged that he was “the first President ever” to allow Federal funding for this research --- which he had just said requires the destruction of a human life!

Seeking to explain his anti-Christian and un-Constitutional Federal funding of this “destruction of life” (his words), Mr. Bush said we’ve got to be “very careful” in “balancing the ethics and the science….To destroy life to save life is – it’s one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.” But, this is NOT a real ethical dilemma! A basic Christian teaching for 2,000 years has been that an evil thing may not be done to achieve a good end. Thus, because embryonic stem cell research is evil and destroys an innocent human life, it may not, cannot, must not be done for any reason!..."


SOURCE

 

"...There is a great disparity between the Ins’ and the Outs’ Planned Parenthood is a tax-exempt business. Fueled with our tax dollars (Title X, XX, Medicaid, etc.) they hire full-time lobbyists for Political Action Committees, skillful lawyers to win legal battles, and paid staff for sex education. They are invited into schools to seduce children into sexual activity; they turn their hearts against godly values. As a “Faith-based Organization” they obtain additional tax dollars to hire clergy. They seek cooperation from area churches. As an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization), they funnel billions of United Nations dollars to further their world-wide agenda...

...In his 1st term of office, George W Bush gave more money to Planned Parenthood, and their ilk, than any president before him..."

SOURCE

 

That may be but we'll have to put the Republicans into the super majority to find out for sure won't we?

About 95 percent in both houses would be right. Then we'll see. I'm certain partial birth abortions won't survive. Even if it takes a constitutional amendment so judges can finally understand.

 

Peroutka propaganda.

BY the way Jim, if Peroutka were president which party would he look to for support since there are no constitution party members of congress. Whose judical appointees would he depend on? You don't seriously think it would be the Democrats do you? So who?

I think you'll find these questions a good ones not to directly answer.

 

You both are missing the fact that WHOMEVER is President over the next 4 years will be appointing 1, possibly 2 supreme court justices. If Kerry is president, then those judges will be PRO-Abortion FOR SURE... if Bush is president, they will be anti-abortion, pro-life judges. THAT is why planned parenthood fears a bush re-election above all else!!

 

You both are missing the fact that WHOMEVER is President over the next 4 years will be appointing 1, possibly 2 supreme court justices. If Kerry is president, then those judges will be PRO-Abortion FOR SURE... if Bush is president, they will be anti-abortion, pro-life judges. THAT is why planned parenthood fears a bush re-election above all else!! </font>[/QUOTE]I know that and I agree. Jim seems to think Bush is pro abortion. I don't.

 

Not at all, I appreciate the questions and continued debate.

If Peroutka were President, he would run the administration on a constitutional basis, and one of his policies would be to use every means at hand to outlaw abortion.

On that particular issue, the Democrats would oppose him. Then, the GOP would be put in a position to either support or oppose him.

They would either have to come down on the side of the unborn, and millions of lives would be savd, or else they would have to expose themselves as cheap hypocrites.

Wouldn't that be nice?

 

Here they are, two peas in a pod: