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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JustChristian, Oct 10, 2008.

  1. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not much. What exactly has McCain proposed that he wopuld do (specifically) to stop abortion. Nothing that I'm aware of. Oh, but Sarah Palin is the Anti-Abortion leader on the Republican ticket, right? Wrong. She recently expressed a very Pro-Choice perspective. She wouldn't have an abortion herself (commendable) but she respected the rights of other women to make a different decision. That is, she supports choice.

    Furthermore, Palin said that this whole question should be left up to the states. So, what is she going to push for in the federal government? Nothing.

    We have been deceived by the last three Republican presidents over the issue of abortion. That's 20 years that nothing has happened. Why should we be deceived by another one? The Republicans are just using Christians for their own political gain over this issue. Wake up and see the truth.
     
  2. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,242
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, so who do we vote for, BB ?
     
  4. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's up to you.
     
  5. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  6. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    It's already been rampant for many generations because of the action of the Republican Supreme Court that ruled on Roe vs. Wade. I do not support abortion except in the case in which the mother's life is in danger.

    What I'm pointing out is that the Christian Right has been deceived by the Republican party for almost 30 years about this. Why not try to reach across the aisle and join with other anti-abortion Christians who are Democrats? Instead you characterize all Democrats as murders and question their faith. That will never get you anywhere.
     
  7. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.)
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    I agree that some minor steps have been taken. But aren't these just a drop in the bucket?
     
  9. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush's abortion funding ​


    Audience Question: "... suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?


    Bush: "... My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion." http://www.allamericanpatriots.com

    Reaction to President Bush's statement, "we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion", by Steve Lefemine, Constitution Party candidate for US Congress, District # 2 in South Carolina:

    "President Bush has lied to the American people on a national stage. With 25 days until the November 2 election, he is perpetuating a myth for the ears of his conservative Christian base, that George W. Bush is pro-life.

    As a Christian pro-life missionary, lobbyist, and candidate for public office, let me say clearly to Christian pro-lifers across this country, George W. Bush is NOT Pro-Life!

    As documented below, George W. Bush has been funding abortion throughout his presidency. He is funding selected surgical abortions, chemical abortions, and the nation's largest chain of abortion centers and perpetrators of abortion in America, namely, Planned Parenthood.

    Here is the documentation that President Bush has been funding selected surgical abortions, and chemical abortion, and Planned Parenthood (nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers) throughout his presidency:

    1) President Bush is funding surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX) in the HHS Appropriations bills: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]
    o Check out HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on Jan. 10, 2002
    o Check out HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on Jan. 23, 2004

    2) President Bush is funding chemical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX) and the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]
    o Check out HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on 1/10/2002
    o Check out HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on 1/23/2004

    3) President Bush is funding the nation's largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion, Planned Parenthood (report murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with OVER $50 MILLION per year through each program: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]
    o Included in HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on 1/10/2002
    o Included in HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on 1/23/2004

    4) President Bush has increased the Title X funding levels over $26,000,000 more than the last Clinton budget:
    o The Title X funding level for FY 2001, the last Clinton-influenced budget, was a total of $254 million, of which over $58 million went to planned parenthood
    o In FY 2002, George W. Bush's first full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased over 11,000,000, to $265 million (HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush on 1/10/2002)


    o In FY 2004, George W. Bush's most recently completed full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased even more to $280 million, over $26,000,000 ($26 million) more than Bill Clinton's last budget year! (HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush on 1/23/2004)
     
  10. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  11. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. Chessic

    Chessic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Reformer

    Reformer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chuck Baldwin


     
  15. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    A double Amen to that.
     
  16. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    The major emphasis of Christian Republicans has been to elect a President who will nominate conservative members to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe versus Wade. I think you would agree with that statement. While I think that it's important to accept the fact 6 members of the Roe vs. Wade court were nominated by Republicans and only 3 by Democrats, I agree that Supreme Court Justices are under no restrictions like elections once they become a member of the court.

    So, actually I agree with your statement that the Supreme Court isn't either Republican or Democratic. Doesn't that speak to the bankruptcy of this tactic which has failed ever since the decision was handed down? Don't we need to try a different approach?
     
  17. Chessic

    Chessic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    My personal opinion is that Bush's appointment of Justice Roberts as the Chief Justice was one of the very few things he got right in 8 years. I think justice Roberts is a very strong scholar of the law and very fair. Just imo.
     
  19. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Analgesic

    Analgesic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...