So what the guy wants to make a comment supporting a pro-life statement,... so what? He has the right to his opinion, and the right to express it - I don't see what the debate it about.
in reference to: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0131/Tim-Tebow-Senior-Bowl-Disaster-or-first-step-to-NFL (view on Google Sidewiki)
|
"'The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive,
public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to
this isolated incident,' Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a
statement. 'It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,' Mr.
Nelson said. 'That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as
spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed
to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult
materials sent to children.'"
"Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a
dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political
candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts
said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide
which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering
with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text
messages."
"So instead, our Democratic contenders for President talk about a 'woman's right
to choose' and how abortions should be prevented. They want to make abortion
'rare,' which I suspect hides their real wish - that the abortion issue would
just disappear and stop ickying up their campaigns. There's virtually no
recognition of the fact that abortion care is already rare in this country, and
getting rarer. Poor women and teenagers in particular have already had their
'right to choose' taken away, thanks to numerous and onerous state and federal
restrictions passed over the years, including the Hyde Amendment that gutted
abortion funding."
Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else”
Source: “Abortion foes’ new rallying point: Conservatives take on
contraception,” Judith Graham, Chicago Tribune (Illinois), September 24, 2006
“I would like to outlaw contraception. … [C]ontraception is disgusting –
people using each other for pleasure.”
Source: “Steinberg right on Bush,” Jeff Robertson, Chicago Sun Times, March 20, 2006
“Contraception is not the answer to this nation’s high abortion rate. On the contrary, flooding our society with contraceptives has only encouraged the kind of irresponsible
sexual behavior and anti-child mentality that directly leads to abortion.”
Source: “Planned Parenthood Battles Scheidler over Contraception,”
Pro-Life Action League, Christian NewsWire, October 23, 2006
“The issue of contraception is coming out of the closet and is becoming a major issue in
the ongoing battle for souls.”
Source: Joe Scheidler, Action News Hotline, Wednesday 14 March - Thursday 15 March 2007 ,
http://www.prolifeaction.org/hotline/2007/0314.htm
Abortion will never end as long as society approves the use of contraception.
The practice of contraception means children are unwanted and provides the
rationalization for abortion. It is a violation of human dignity to promote or
accept the use of contraception.
Abortion has always been a divisive issue for the GOP so you can't blame Mitt
Romney for wanting it both ways. But after saying this week he would allow
individual states to keep abortion legal - just two weeks after stressing his
support for a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide - the
Washington Post thinks he should make his mind up.
But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.I think one of the fears that I have about the right and their attack on abortion is that it is just the lead to a larger effort to control peoples private lives. Once abortion is made illegal, there is serious reason to believe that other forms of birth control will be pushed into the definition. Such common tactics of birth control like the morning after or even the birth control pill be the next targets. I don't trust the religious right with that power, they have their own concepts of right and wrong, which is fine, but they are determined that the rest of us should accept them - which is not fine.One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
"Republican Presidential candidate Sam Brownback refuses to back off his attacks on Mitt Romney, saying that the facts on Romney's pro-choice credentials are clear. Normally, Republican spats don't interest me, but this is one to watch for two reasons.
First, Romney is trying to weasel out of positions he stated publicly. Flip-Flopping was the weapon of choice used against John Kerry in 2004, and it was effective because the Republicans never let up on it. It will be interesting to see if it works as well in a Republican primary."
"The GOP Presidential Candidate Debate on this morning’s “This Week” started off with a bang as moderator George Stephanopolis played a robo-call sent out to Iowa voters from Sam Brownback’s campaign which attacks Mitt Romney’s stance on abortion and his claim to be pro-life. Brownback, who is not only pro-life, but whole life, stands behind the message, but Romney fires back claiming the ad was almost completely false and referred to Brownback as “holier than thou.”"
"HUME: This is not an abortion scandal, in my view. This is a billing scandal.
And what I think this tells us is…it may tell us the extent to which clients are
sometimes billed for work done by the people they engage–lawyers, lobbyists and
the rest–that is so insignificant that the person doing it, they don’t even
remember. I believe Thompson didn’t remember this, and I don’t believe he did
very much for that abortion group"
"Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion
Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the
first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according
to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.
A
spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying
work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning
and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.
His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush
to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that
received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the
matter.
The abortion 'gag rule' was then a major political flashpoint.
Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the
antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected
declaration of a presidential bid"
"[L]last month’s Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act marked a milestone for a different argument advanced by anti-abortion
leaders, one they are increasingly making in state legislatures around the
country. They say that abortion, as a rule, is not in the best interest of the
woman; that women are often misled or ill-informed about its risks to their own
physical or emotional health; and that the interests of the pregnant woman and
the fetus are, in fact, the same...."
"Several news outlets uncritically repeated or paraphrased a claim Sen. John
McCain (R-AZ) made during the May 15 Republican presidential debate on Fox News,
in which he said: 'I have kept a consistent position on right to life. And I
haven't changed my position ... on even-numbered years or have changed because
of the different offices that I may be running for.' But, as Media Matters for
America has documented, McCain has in fact waffled on the issue; some
conservatives have responded by accusing him of incoherence and of trying to
appeal to both sides in the debate.Several news outlets uncritically repeated or
paraphrased a claim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made during the May 15 Republican
presidential debate on Fox News, in which he said: 'I have kept a consistent
position on right to life. And I haven't changed my position ... on
even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may
be running for.' But, as Media Matters for America has documented, McCain has in
fact waffled on the issue; some conservatives have responded by accusing him of
incoherence and of trying to appeal to both sides in the debate.Several news
outlets uncritically repeated or paraphrased a claim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
made during the May 15 Republican presidential debate on Fox News, in which he
said: 'I have kept a consistent position on right to life. And I haven't changed
my position ... on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different
offices that I may be running for.' But, as Media Matters for America has
documented, McCain has in fact waffled on the issue; some conservatives have
responded by accusing him of incoherence and of trying to appeal to both sides
in the debate."
"It's all so confusing. Just two weeks ago, Rudy came out opposed to civil
unions, even though he was previously for civil unions. Now today Rudy is again
for civil unions. While it's nice that Rudy is finally telling the truth about
his being a liberal, it's still disturbing that he's flip-flopped twice in the
past two weeks on this issue. He did the same thing on abortion (the media has
been paying attention to the abortion flip-flop, but missed the gay one). So
which Rudy is which, why did he flip flop (twice), and how do we know he won't
flip flop again when it's next convenient? I mean, the man lied to the American
people during the presidential debate, got caught, and now is changing his
position again as a result. Lying is kind of a big deal."
"So which one is it? Is Mitt Romney's Mormon religion off limits for everybody
but Mitt Romney? It's okay for him to give a religious reason for policy
decisions, but not okay for anyone else to inquire more about Romney's religion.
What other policy decisions is Mitt Romney going to make based on the Mormon
religion? Romney, like so many folks on the religious right (even though Romney
isn't really religious right, he's a far-left liberal who's only now pretending
to be a right-winger) firmly believe that their religion should be the basis of
every political decision they make, but when you ask just what their religion is
all about, they get all offended, when they're the ones who made their religion
an issue to start with.
And let's not ignore what's really going on
here. Romney is worried that the religious right, and a lot of Americans, won't
vote for him because he's a Mormon. So he's now quoting the Bible to show that
he's really one of us. The real reason most Americans won't vote for Romney is
because he's a lying hypocrite whose views on everything from guns, to gays, to
the environment, to abortion change every two years based on the political
winds."
