Archive for abortion

John Delaney’s Pro-Abortion Extremism

John Delaney

John Delaney is a pro-abortion extremist. Nominating a pro-abortion Republican, or one who is otherwise confused on the issues, won’t make it any easier to knock him off in November.

John Delaney’s Extremist Views

On September 18, 2015, Delaney voted against H.R. 3504. That bill, also known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would protect babies born as the result of a botched abortion.

More from GovTrack:

H.R. 3504 would require that a child born alive during an attempted abortion be given the same medical treatment as any other child born at that gestation time would be. It would impose criminal penalties of fines or imprisonment of up to five years on medical practitioners that fail to do this, as well as punish medical practitioners that intentionally kill or attempt to kill a born-alive child for having intentionally killed or attempted to kill a human being.

A friend and former colleague of mine, Jill Stanek, witnessed babies being left to die after botched abortions when she worked as a nurse in Illinois. She testified before a U.S. House Committee on legislation in 2000 and before that she testified before a State Senate committee in Illinois. She noted that in both cases Barack Obama opposed protecting children who were born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion.

John Delaney thinks it’s just fine to let living, breathing babies die after a failed abortion. Any candidate running against him who is pro-abortion or otherwise wobbly on the issues involved will forfeit any moral authority.

Also on September 18 last year, Delaney voted against H.R. 3134, which would have defunded Planned Parenthood.

On October 23, 2015, John Delaney voted against a reconcilation bill, H.R. 3762, that also would have defunded Planned Parenthood. The bill passed the Senate and was immediately vetoed by President Barack Obama. On February 2, 2016, Delaney voted against overriding the reconciliation bill’s veto.

In light of all the video evidence that emerged last year, and all the other evidence against the nation’s largest abortion provider, it is unconscionable that anyone would support continued funding for the abortion giant.

Delaney also voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in a vote last May. This bill would have restricted abortion at the 20th week of pregnancy and beyond, where the unborn child is feeling pain, except in the case of rape and incest. This restriction is supported by the vast majority of Americans, with a higher percentage of men supporting it than women.

If you’re seeking the nomination to run against Delaney, and all you say is that the abortion issue is “settled law” then you show your ignorance of all the issues and nuances involved.

Who Shares John Delaney’s Views?

Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have shared Delaney’s views. In fact, the Gipper famously proclaimed, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

While some “libertarians” in the Republican Party claim that a position supporting abortion is “pro-liberty”, that’s just not the case. Rand Paul is one of many in the pro-liberty movement who don’t find supporting abortion to be consistent with liberty.

David Vogt and Frank Howard don’t share John Delaney’s views. Vogt was endorsed by Maryland Right to Life in the Republican Primary next week in MD-6. Howard is pro-life and a supporter of Susan B. Anthony List, a national pro-life group.

Others who actually share John Delaney’s views include Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Martin O’Malley, and Donna Edwards. It’s notable that Edwards was endorsed by the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. Edwards has also been endorsed by Emily’s List.

Read More…

Pro-Abortion Republican likely to lose in MD

Pro-AbortionA Pro-Abortion candidate in the Republican primary wants to go to Washington and represent you.  Thankfully, she has little chance of winning.

In one questionnaire, this candidate disagreed that life begins at conception and that all life should be protected from conception through a natural death.

On another question in the same survey, this candidate  indicated her support for continued funding of Planned Parenthood. This coming from a candidate who calls herself a “fiscal conservative.”

Lynn Richardson, who is running for U.S. Senate is who I am referring to. She gave these responses to a questionnaire from the American Family Association PAC, which rated her “somewhat liberal”

I’ll have more soon on another pro-abortion candidate running in the Republican primary for a federal office from Maryland.

Pro-Abortion Responses

One question asked the respondents to agree or disagree with this statement:

Human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection at every stage until natural death.

Richardson’s response was “Disagree.”

She later gave this muddled response for what circumstances she would support abortion:

A woman must be allowed to control her own health and if that includes a choice for abortion, so be it….except such a decision should be made within the first 30 days, thereafter, the choice should remain for raising a child or allowing the child to be adopted.

It makes no sense that this was her response when she disagreed with the first question I mentioned. It’s a muddled, ignorant response that shows someone uneducated on the issues involved. In fact, earlier restrictions on abortion would be less likely to withstand legal scrutiny in the courts now as opposed to late-term restrictions.

Another statement Richardson disagreed with:

Planned Parenthood should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments.

In other areas, Richardson seemingly supported gay “marriage” while also supporting the First Amendment Defense Act, which is a measure forwarded by those who oppose it. She thinks religious liberty is at risk in the United States but is neutral on whether Judeo-Christian values provided a framework for limited government.

In a question designed to ask candidates to present evidence to support their self assessment of their ideology, Richardson (who described herself as moderate) said “I do not need to ‘defend’ my answer.”

As I’ve said before, the number of candidates running in this U.S. Senate primary, as well as some other races, show that there are some candidates who are not serious and increasing the filing fees to run for these offices would be a good way to weed them out.

“Pro-Choice” is NOT Pro-Liberty

LibertyThere are some Republicans in Maryland this primary season – multiple candidates or their supporters – who have a hard time with the concept that the truly pro-Liberty position is the pro-life one.

They justify their pro-abortion position by talking about things like personal choice and keeping government out of our lives. The former is straight out of the abortion industry’s talking points while the latter is an attempt to co-opt Tea Party language to justify the killing of innocent life.

In 1809, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Maryland Republicans: “The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

Let’s look at what Senator Rand Paul said at a speech just over a year ago (I witnessed it from the front row):

“Some have said to me that ‘you’re big on all this liberty stuff, why do you want to restrict a women’s right to choose?'” he said.

“And I say, you know what? The government does have some role in our lives. One of the main roles that government has is restricting you from harming another individual, which gets us back to the original debate. When life begins, there is a role for the state so it’s not that I’m against people choosing things. I’m in fact, one of the biggest believers in choice, in liberty. But you can’t have liberty if you don’t protect where your liberty originates from and that’s your right to life,” Paul explained.

Stephanie Slade has written at Reason.com about Sen. Paul and why she is a pro-life libertarian. Her story notes that the attacks on Paul for this position came from Salon.com, among other left-wing pro-abortion outlets.

I’ve written before about Libertarians for Life, which is a group within the national Libertarian Party. That group is based here in Maryland and they have some principles they wrote about that pro-Liberty Republicans who support abortion need to think about:

  • Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
  • Abortion is homicide — the killing of one person by another.
  • One’s right to control one’s own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
  • A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother’s body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
  • No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally “de-person” any one of us, born or preborn.
  • The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Kristen Walker Hatten of New Wave Feminists also wrote a great piece on “Why Libertarians Should Be Pro-Life on Abortion.”

The above arguments don’t rely on religion at all, if you’ll notice. Secular Pro-Life also does a lot of good work in this area as well.

Watch Rand Paul discuss Liberty and the Right to Life

I will be discussing this issue in-depth this week. I’ll name names and look at specific candidates and their supporters as well.

Bernie Sanders: No Constitutional Protection for Unborn

bernie sandersBernie Sanders has joined Hillary Clinton today in reaffirming that the Democratic Party is the party of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up until birth.

As I noted earlier, Hillary Clinton spoke on the issue on Meet the Press this morning.

On that show, she told Chuck Todd that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

When asked by George Stephanopoulos on This Week if there should be “any restrictions”, Bernie Sanders told him the decision “ultimately has got to be made by the woman.”

Sanders didn’t initially answer the question and instead went through the Democratic Party’s pro-abortion talking points.

He finally did say, “I don’t believe there’s any constitutional protection for the unborn.”

Here’s more from Daily Caller:

Stephanopoulos asked Sanders about his position on abortion and whether or not he agreed with Clinton that unborn children do not have constitutional rights, to which the Vermont senator replied, “All I know is that I will fight as strong as I can to defend a woman’s right to choose. I believe that it is an outrage that Republicans who tell us how much they hate the government now want to tell every American — every American woman what she can and cannot do with her body. And I do agree with the Secretary. I don’t believe there’s any constitutional protection for the unborn.”

When asked if he was “for any restrictions on abortion,” Sanders said, “I think that decision ultimately has got to be made by the woman. I have a 100 percent pro-choice voting record throughout my career. That decision must be made by the woman, must be made by her family and her physician, not by the federal government, not by the state government.”

“And let me tell you something. If elected president, I will not only fight to protect Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, I will take on the Scott Walkers of the world and the other right-wing governors who are trying to restrict and limit that right,” Sanders said.

Watch Bernie Sanders Say There’s No Constitutional Protection for the Unborn

Hillary Clinton: No Rights for Unborn Persons

Hillary Clinton

This morning on Meet the Press on NBC, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that “the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

Here’s a transcript:

NBC’S CHUCK TODD: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

CLINTON: “Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.”

The Republican National Committee responded:

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly avoided giving a definitive stance on the rights of unborn children throughout her career, but when pressed this morning by NBC’s Chuck Todd to define her positon on what limits to abortion she believes in, Clinton revealed that she believes no unborn child is subject to constitutional rights. Voters now know Clinton’s extreme stance against the value of protecting life, and can no longer be misled by her deceptive pandering.

Sadly, this is no surprise. Hillary has said before that she couldn’t favor any restrictions on abortion until very late in the 9th month. Also, last year Planned Parenthood pledged to spend millions to work for her election and endorsed her.

Hillary also carried Planned Parenthood’s water when it came to defending them for their harvest and sale of body parts from unborn babies. That practice was exposed last year by videos by the Center for Medical Progress.

Watch Hillary Clinton Say the Unborn Have No Rights