Why Is This Discussion STILL NEEDED?

Abortion. Freedom of choice. Telling women what they may or may not do concerning their own bodies.
This is still a concern for many of us.
And it should be, because many politicians oppose reproductive freedom.
Why does one noted politician think it is right to say things like this:
The decision to have an abortion is between “a young woman, her family, her physician and pastor.”
Her PASTOR? Really?
Or:
Abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”
What good is a right if it is NOT exercised?
Who says that about ANY OTHER right?
Freedom of Speech should “
not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”
Or:
Abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.”
Will there be an acceptable National Abortion Quota?
Would any other right be so easily and glibly dismissed?
Free speech should be safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness should be safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean
rare.
Here is another comment from a politician. Do you support this view?
“I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available.”
One politician had THIS exchange with an anti-choicer:
“I know you’re pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions. Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?”
The politician nodded, telling attendees of the nationally televised event: “Yes, yes.”
A politician also said THIS about wanting to END ABORTION if the republicans ALLOW her:
“I am where I have been, which is that if there’s a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that takes into account the life of the mother and her health, then I’m open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.”
REMEMBER:
When they say rare – they mean NEVER.
And who said these things?
SHE did: the last time she ran for president. And lost.
6a00d834515c5469e201b7c77c51c5970b
So it’s 8 years later and time for her to whistle a different tune.
I will vote for someone who will protect the right of ALL women to control their bodies. Without interference from a government that will “provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.”
Or involve her Pastor

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Why Is This Discussion STILL NEEDED?”

  1. Election Time Is America’s FEAR-A-PALOOZA | Rev. E. M. Camarena's Blog Says:

    […] Where Politics & Religion Meet To Eat!™ « Why Is This Discussion STILL NEEDED? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: