For those who think the GOP has done nothing to stop abortion

[Andy T.]

See this study here that shows parental consent laws help reduce abortions anywhere from 19% - 31%:

http://www.lifenews.com/state3492.html

And let me ask, which political party has been largely responsible for enacting such laws? And which political party has been largely responsible for opposing such laws and/or reversing them? And where does Obama stand on this issue? How about McCain?

Just some food for thought for those who think there is absolutely "no difference" between the two parties. Thank God for those parental consent laws that have saved many, many innocent lives.

 

[OldRegular]

The Republican Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion twice in the 1990's: twice it was vetoed by Bill Clinton. It was passed again after the 2000 election, signed by George Bush, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Does anyone believe that Gore or Kerry would have not vetoed the bill? In Partial Birth Abortion

1. An unborn baby feet first from its mothers womb until the base of the skull is exposed.

2. The abortionist then punches a hole at the base of the skull, inserts a catheter and suctions out the brain.

3. The skull collapses and delivery of a dead baby is accomplished.

This procedure was developed to avoid the birth of a live child during an abortion procedure.

 

[JustChristian]

See this study here that shows parental consent laws help reduce abortions anywhere from 19% - 31%:

http://www.lifenews.com/state3492.html

And let me ask, which political party has been largely responsible for enacting such laws? And which political party has been largely responsible for opposing such laws and/or reversing them? And where does Obama stand on this issue? How about McCain?

Just some food for thought for those who think there is absolutely "no difference" between the two parties. Thank God for those parental consent laws that have saved many, many innocent lives.

The number and percentage of abortions of women 15-44 fell during both the Clinton and Bush administrations but they fell faster during the Clinton administration.

 

[Wesjr]

My problem with the GOP on this issue is disappointment. They had control of the office of president, the House, the Senate, and 7 of the 9 on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents. They was never a better chance to get a constitutional amendment. They may not have gotten it. But they should have tryed.

 

[JustChristian]

My problem with the GOP on this issue is disappointment. They had control of the office of president, the House, the Senate, and 7 of the 9 on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents. They was never a better chance to get a constitutional amendment. They may not have gotten it. But they should have tryed.

Think about this. The Republican party isn't a church. It's by nature political. Why would they EVER want to get Roe vs. Wade reversed? It's too good an issue for them. As long as they can keep the status quo with them saying they're against abortion and doing very little about it, they can keep evangelical Christians in their back pocket.

 

[saturneptune]

Think about this. The Republican party isn't a church. It's by nature political. Why would they EVER want to get Roe vs. Wade reversed? It's too good an issue for them. As long as they can keep the status quo with them saying they're against abortion and doing very little about it, they can keep evangelical Christians in their back pocket.

That is 100% correct. The Democrats pushing an agenda of murder does not excuse the minimal and surface efforts of the Republicans. The slaughter has continued through all administrations. Blood drips from all political hands.

 

[webdog]

Think about this. The Republican party isn't a church. It's by nature political. Why would they EVER want to get Roe vs. Wade reversed? It's too good an issue for them. As long as they can keep the status quo with them saying they're against abortion and doing very little about it, they can keep evangelical Christians in their back pocket.

I keep hearing they can "do something about it"...what can they, and should they do in your opinion?

 

[saturneptune]

I keep hearing they can "do something about it"...what can they, and should they do in your opinion?

Well, from 2001-2007, the President and Congress could have passed legislation that either outlawed or limited or put restrictions on abortion, or returned the question to the states. Then, the President could have requested an immediate hearing before the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional. If the court rejected it, write one again using the ruling as a guide. That is what they could have done until the Democrats took back over.

 

[christianyouth]

Webdog, they can also appoint pro-life, conservative judges. That's a really important thing that most Christian democrats seem to ignore.

 

[Andy T.]

I find it sadly ironic that BB and SN cannot refute the OP - just more bitter cynicism. I think most of us agree that the GOP has not done enough on the abortion issue. But to say they have "done nothing" or there is "no difference" between them and the abortion-loving Democrats, is an absolute lie.

 

[Revmitchell]

I find it sadly ironic that BB and SN cannot refute the OP - just more bitter cynicism. I think most of us agree that the GOP has not done enough on the abortion issue. But to say they have "done nothing" or there is "no difference" between them and the abortion-loving Democrats, is an absolute lie.

I am not excited about the GOP but on this issue the hype is just ridiculous.

 

[Andy T.]

The number and percentage of abortions of women 15-44 fell during both the Clinton and Bush administrations but they fell faster during the Clinton administration.

Please provide a detailed statistical analysis that shows a direct correlation between the decrease in abortions and Bill Clinton. I know that Bill holds sway over many women, but I never realized that he could also talk them out of abortions, too.

 

[Andy T.]

Well, from 2001-2007, the President and Congress could have passed legislation that either outlawed or limited or put restrictions on abortion, or returned the question to the states. Then, the President could have requested an immediate hearing before the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional. If the court rejected it, write one again using the ruling as a guide. That is what they could have done until the Democrats took back over.

Under the makeup of the SCOTUS in the early 2000's, they would have never allowed this. Even after Roberts and Alito, it is still a 4-5 losing battle. Yes, the GOP has appointed a couple of stinkers on the Court that keeps it from a majority. But they also appointed the 4 conservatives, and if we had Democrats in the Presidency instead, then there would be 0 conservatives - is that what you want - a 9-0 court of all liberals? That is what you would get if Democrats hold the White House.

Meanwhile, if McCain is elected and he gets to appoint even one justice, then there is a good chance that conservatives will gain a majority. But if Obama is elected, there is absolutely no chance that the SCOTUS will become more conservative - no chance at all.

 

[saturneptune]

Under the makeup of the SCOTUS in the early 2000's, they would have never allowed this. Even after Roberts and Alito, it is still a 4-5 losing battle. Yes, the GOP has appointed a couple of stinkers on the Court that keeps it from a majority. But they also appointed the 4 conservatives, and if we had Democrats in the Presidency instead, then there would be 0 conservatives - is that what you want - a 9-0 court of all liberals? That is what you would get if Democrats hold the White House.

Meanwhile, if McCain is elected and he gets to appoint even one justice, then there is a good chance that conservatives will gain a majority. But if Obama is elected, there is absolutely no chance that the SCOTUS will become more conservative - no chance at all.

First of all, 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans, so why isn't it conservative. If you are refering to Suiter and Kennedy as liberal, they were appointed by Bush the First, another liberal Republican.

Even if it is 4-5, which you are including moderate justices with the liberals, that is no excuse for not passing legislation and trying. No excuse whatsoever. You keep saying that is what we would get with Democrats in the White House, which is true, but what do we get with Republicans in the White House? Not anything beyond token effort.

If in fact the court is 4-5 liberal today, it is the fault of the Republicans. Until we stop voting into office liberal Republicans, nothing is going to change.

So your whole argument boils down to, if we have a Democrat Obama in the White House, we got a 3-6 liberal court at most because the four you call conservative are fairly new. All Obama can do is appoint new justices that are liberal to take the place of the old ones you claim are liberal.

What is McCain going to do? Who knows?

If the Republicans had done their job the last eight years, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?

 

[Andy T.]

No, my point is, with all the dynamics at work, I will take baby steps towards progress vs. no steps at all or backwards steps. When you talk about legislation restricting abortion, you have to realize that even when the GOP had a majority in the House and Senate, not all them were pro-life, which is sad, but true.

And my broader point going back to the OP (did you read the article?) is to once again debunk your lie that the GOP has done nothing or is no different than the Dems on abortion. If not for some GOP politicians, the abortion holocaust would be greater in number and we would be much further away from ever seeing an end to it.

 

[saturneptune]

No, my point is, with all the dynamics at work, I will take baby steps towards progress vs. no steps at all or backwards steps. When you talk about legislation restricting abortion, you have to realize that even when the GOP had a majority in the House and Senate, not all them were pro-life, which is sad, but true.

And my broader point going back to the OP (did you read the article?) is to once again debunk your lie that the GOP has done nothing or is no different than the Dems on abortion. If not for some GOP politicians, the abortion holocaust would be greater in number and we would be much further away from ever seeing an end to it.

It is not a lie. Actually it is your inablility to see the Republican role in all of this. The lives of the unborn are not there to pander for conservative votes. The slaughter goes on to this day through both parties in power.

Legislation could have been tried. With proper leadership, it could have passed.

If you think GOP stands for God's Own Party, that is your priviledge. If you choose to vote for liberal Republicans and get the same result, that is your right also.

Oh, you never did explain how 7 of the 9 Supreme Court members were appointed by Republicans, yet according to you, the court is 5-4 liberal.

 

[windcatcher]

I find it sadly ironic that BB and SN cannot refute the OP - just more bitter cynicism. I think most of us agree that the GOP has not done enough on the abortion issue. But to say they have "done nothing" or there is "no difference" between them and the abortion-loving Democrats, is an absolute lie.

I agree Andy T.
The President can only appoint judges when there's an opening: But it takes a Congress to approve. The judges are screened and determined from a list of qualifiers according to a professional group of judicial lawyers and justices....thus the list from which the President may choose is already limited because the Congress has established the entering standards by which one qualifies to be an appointee.

Repeatedly the Republicans in Congress..... caveat 'for the most part'..... have agreed with the Republican President that there will be no public funding for abortions, and have prevented such legislation. Republicans and a few Democrats also stand against partial birth abortions. Likewise they have also restricted the funding of stem cell research to that which does not take the life of a baby in utero. A developing baby in the womb may have many as yet undifferientiated cells..... but there is no proving of the normalcy of such cells and it is a contridiction of ethics as well as morals to take the life of a baby to do research which may or may not be useful to treat conditions: and especially when there are other alternatives for research with stem cells from placenta, umbilical cord, or within the bone marrow and blood of a donor which does not require their life in return.

 

[windcatcher]

While I'll agree the dividing issue between many Christians and the parties over the abortion issue is significant..... The truth is the pattern of philosophies behind those who respect life and the life of the unborn is reflected differently in their views and legislation on other issues which have to do with life values....not just abortion.

 

[Andy T.]

It is not a lie. Actually it is your inablility to see the Republican role in all of this. The lives of the unborn are not there to pander for conservative votes. The slaughter goes on to this day through both parties in power.

Yes, it is a lie. There is a difference between the two parties - not as much as you or I would like, but there is a distinct difference, a difference that has resulted in actual legislation like parental consent, defunding of abortions with tax dollars, and partial-birth abortion bans, all of which have reduced the number of abortions, which is what the article in the OP evidences.

I agree that some GOP politicians have probably pandered for the pro-life vote, but I am not ready to broad-brush all of them like you do. In fact, in another thread, I asked you to provide specific examples of GOP politicians pandering for the pro-life vote and then going back on their promises. I am still waiting to see those examples.

If you think GOP stands for God's Own Party, that is your priviledge.

Not in the least. Like I've said other times, I don't carry water for the GOP. But I'm smart enough to see a difference between the GOP and Democrats, generally.

Oh, you never did explain how 7 of the 9 Supreme Court members were appointed by Republicans, yet according to you, the court is 5-4 liberal.

Yes, I have explained it - a couple of the justices (one appointed by Bush I and the other by Reagan) have ended up less than conservative. There is evidence that both Souter and Kennedy have drifted towards liberalism since they were appointed. The other is Stevens who was appointed by Ford (a liberal), who BTW, was not even elected, since he was appointed by Nixon and then took over after his resignation. But I agree that these three are failures on the part of the GOP. But they have also appointed 4 very good judges in Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Had it not been for the GOP, we would be looking at a 9-0 liberal court. But according to you there is "no difference." Yeah, makes a lot of sense - keep telling yourself that lie.

 

[OldRegular]

Well, from 2001-2007, the President and Congress could have passed legislation that either outlawed or limited or put restrictions on abortion, or returned the question to the states. Then, the President could have requested an immediate hearing before the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional. If the court rejected it, write one again using the ruling as a guide. That is what they could have done until the Democrats took back over.

I will repeat my earlier post since you apparently did not read it.

The Republican Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion twice in the 1990's: twice it was vetoed by Bill Clinton. It was passed again after the 2000 election, signed by George Bush, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Does anyone believe that Gore or Kerry would have not vetoed the bill?

In Partial Birth Abortion

1. An unborn baby feet first from its mothers womb until the base of the skull is exposed.

2. The abortionist then punches a hole at the base of the skull, inserts a catheter and suctions out the brain.

3. The skull collapses and delivery of a dead baby is accomplished.

This procedure was developed to avoid the birth of a live child during an abortion procedure.