What did George Bush, GHW Bush and Ronold Reagan do to Stop Abortion?

What did they do to encourage and approve it?
What has Obama said his opinion on murdering babies was?
How did he vote on murdering babies?
What will he do to try and stop murder of babies?

As I have already said, Obama has a record of encouraging death of children, this support and encouragment and voting for allowing already born alive babies to lay alone and die without medical care is so evil I could not consider myself a christian if I voted for him.
this whole issue isn't even about who can or will stop abortion, but what their opinons and how they have voted to support murder of babies. So far I have not heard of anyone with such an evil opinion on babies.

 

OK, so who do we vote for, BB ?

 

Each of these Presidents have had the opportunity to appoint Judges in the lower and upper courts. Judges have been "Borked" by the Dems for the last 20 to 30 years. Until we get a clue and do something about Congress, nothing will change. However if we get a Democrat President with a Democratic Congress abortion will be rampant in all terms of pregnancy for many generations. :tear:

 

What did George Bush, GHW Bush and Ronold Reagan do to Stop Abortion?

BB, you really need to do more research before you start the flaming threads which have no basis in fact.

Here are a few facts which can easily be found by just a few Googles:


1984 Ronald Reagan (Republican) instituted the Mexico City Policy:
The Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule[1], is a United States government policy which requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries. It was in place from 1984 until 1993 and again since 2001.

President Bill Clinton (Democrat) rescinded the Mexico City Policy on January 22, 1993

Republican GW Bush signed into law The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed by the United States Congress in 2002. It extended legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion.

Identified as Public Law 107-207, it was signed into law August 5, 2002 by President Bush, and was based on HR 2175 (passed March 12). The Senate counterpart, initiated by Sen. Rick Santorum, passed without amendment by unanimous consent July 18.
The original author of the bill, Congressman Charles T. Canady of Florida, had by then retired from Congress. (You will note it was done under the Republican controlled Congress. Needless to say, I refer you again to the thread that the Democrats will not let the Bill about Life Begins at Conception even into a committee, let alone on the floor for a vote.)

 

Hey, BB, you're preaching to the choir about GW Bush, I agree he is no conservative and I felt bamboozled after I found out he is basically a closet liberal. Thank you for presenting this information.

I agree wholeheartedly that GW Bush has furthered the abortion agenda even through the UN and have posted threads about it before. But to just assume that we have had some wolves in sheep's clothing over the abortion issue in the Republican Party and that it will continue that way is also erroneus because the base of the Republican Party base is holding it together and we still have hope that the McCain-Palin ticket will make big strides somehow.

But to throw a vote to Obama, we KNOW he doesn't even care about the babies born alive from botched abortions. Even pro-life black people know that he is guilty of endorsing black genocide through his position on abortion. So, the only choice is the McCain-Palin ticket when it comes to the abortion issue, that there is hope with them and NO HOPE with OBAMA for the unborn or those born alive.

 

We had a Republican Congress for SIX years. The Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty, one by policy and one by pandering.

Having said that, the fact that the Republicans have done nothing about abortion is no excuse for the Democratic agenda for pro choice.

 

Supreme Courts are neither Republican nor Democrat.

Bush and other allegedly-pro-choice presidents have at least attempted to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court and have pushed for legislation to de-fund Planned Parenthood and pass bans on partial birth abortions, abortions without parental consent, taking minors across state lines for abortions, etc. Yes, there is a long way to go, that is no reason to reject the only party trying to do anything at all about the atrocity.

I expected Bush to do little about abortion when, on the day after his first election, the media reported his wife finally spoke up and claimed she was pro-choice. I've never heard more about whether that was true, but it would certainly explain a lot. Nevertheless, small steps have been taken, and larger ones have been defeated by the Democratic legislators that many Christians helped elect.

McCain may not be a perfect solution. I'd prefer a different candidate, too. But given a choice between a moderately pro-life candidate and Obama, who 3 times voted against health care for babies who've survived abortions, allowing them to die a slow, painful death...well, it's an easy choice.

It is very likely that at least one, and up to three, Supreme Court judges will retire in the next presidential term. This is the most critical election in some time in the sense of nominating judges with, ideally, Godly values, or failing than that, judges who at least have concern for the lives of children before, during, and just after birth.

It's very simple: one party says they will try to end abortion on demand, though we all know this is a huge hurdle to overcome and probably will not be an instant process. The other party says they will do everything in their power to not only continue the present slaughter, but further expand it.

 

No one has done enough to restore the Biblical and Constitutional right to life in this country. All three have had, for the majority of their presidencies, courts and/or legislatures dominated by a party not willing to restore the Biblical, Constitional right to life in this country. And the current Dem ticket, in lockstep with history and party policy, is on record as being against restoring this right. How much would the GOP ticket do? Dunno. But whenever you hear the left's hacks stir their base by appealing to "fears" that the GOP ticket will restore the Biblical, Constituional right to life in this country, it has to make you think that either (1) They're just talking out their noses, or (2) They really do fear this right has a chance of coming back on the horizon.

 

Chuck Baldwin

 

A double Amen to that.

 

One of the fascinating things about the Court is that its life-time appointments relieve a judge of having to worry about towing a party line. I wonder if Reagan was surprised at Sandra O'Conner's record as judge, for example. Reagan is, imo, partly responsible for what she did as judge.

Even though presidential candidates rarely do in office what they claim they'll do while campaigning, and much less than what they try to do makes it through the legislative branch, and even though Supreme Court justices are often hard to predict, we must consider what candidates for president promise and claim they will do and who they will appoint to the Court. If one party claims they will nominate candidates that are in alignment with Godly values while the other party claims they will nominate candidates that will support ungodly and evil values, our duty is clear, whether we are skeptical of candidates or not. We must always try to do good when we can, even if we don't get all the good we'd hoped for. And we must always stand against evil when we can, even if we don't believe our stance will change the outcome.

I agree other tactics should be tried, but I don't think we should abandon efforts (and the consequent voting necessity) of changing the Supreme Court.

 

I think it is also important to accept the fact that those 6 appointees were made by Eisenhower and Nixon - neither of whom were particularly conservative. In fact, it could be argued that JFK was more conservative than either Ike or Dick. So your silly rhetoric you keep repeating serves no useful argument, other than we need to elect more conservative Presidents (no matter what Party they belong to). Of course, you support Obama and he's far from conservative and he would never nominate a conservative judge, so you are being quite hypocritical on this matter.

 

I agree. While I constantly disagree strongly with Bush, and despite my oft disagreement with Roberts, the man is a thoughtful scholar who is eminently qualified for the position.