ABC News has the story:
Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.
“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”
Perry is not shy about touting his pro-10th Amendment beliefs, despite being a staunch social conservative who opposes same sex marriage and promotes pro-life initiatives. Late last week, he labeled same-sex marriage as a states’ rights issue, a position shared by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” Perry said Friday at a speech in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
Hat-tip: Hot Air.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
The guy is trying to be Fred Thompson with hair.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
You mean like former Democrat, Reagan?
July 28th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Perry just dropped below Romney on my depth chart today.
The rights of babies to live trumps the rights of states.
Does Rick think other fundamental rights are really “states’ rights” issues? I don’t think we should nominate a 21st century George Wallace.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Perry is right of course.
Consevatives can’t play fast and loose with this: Claiming states rights to protect themselves from liberal issues and then trying to enforce their own agenda on a national level.
Even if you think God is on your side, it still looks like a double standard in a democracy…
July 28th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
So, as MWS is saying, we need to move the discussion about abortion to the “right for life” level, which falls under the Constitution.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Jerald,
I’m not sure how to reconcile the meaning of #4 and #5. Do you think the states’ rights trumps the right to life?
July 28th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Does Rick think the “right to discriminate” is also a states’ rights issue?
Does Rick think “separate but equal” is a states’ rights issue?
July 28th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I think what Perry means is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the federal right is thus removed, it would then be a state issue. I believe that is true. Essentially we would return to a world of pre-Roe v Wade.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Pablo,
Yes, that’s a fact. But he went beyond that and stated it should be a state issue.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Pablo,
Read what he said again:
July 28th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
I want to know if Rick thinks segregation is one of those issues “You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,”
July 28th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
This won’t endear Rick to evangelicals in Iowa or South Carolina. This lends some credibility to the theory some have that Perry will pull more from Romney than from the more conservative candidates.
Stalking horse?
July 28th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Matt,
Is Michele still ahead of Mitt on your depth chart?
July 28th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Maybe Perry can take back the land the Government gave to the American Indians and send them back to Oklahoma and Arkansas.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Finally, someone who doesn’t just invoke “states’ rights” on current national policies with which he/she disagrees. At least he’s not a hypocrite.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Matt – You are going overboard here. Did you read his clarification on the Gay Marriage issue? It’s the same with abortion. He would happily support an amendment to constitution to ban abortions, but that would have to go through the states as 3/4 of the states must approve it thus maintaining state sovereignty.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
The 10th Amendment was totally neutered by the outcome of the Civil War. Since then there have been mountains of Supreme Court decisions that have further weakened the 10th Amendment. Of course Rick ‘Secession’ Perry wants to completely ignore all that has happened since his traitorous state got handed it’s regurgitated lunch back to it after the Civil War, but that doesn’t change reality.
Furthermore, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, which predates the 10th Amendment, gaurantees that rights enjoyed in one state must be honored in other states. If a gay couple gets married in NY, moves to TX and TX refuses to acknowledge the legality of their marriage, then they have a gold plated case to take to the Supreme Court to force TX to honor their marriage. Same goes for abortion rights.
Full faith and credit trumps 10th Amendment and most certainly would in this current court as Kennedy is not a states rights believer.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
A shout out to Matt for being the most honest contributor to this discussion today.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Has anyone researched the judges Perry has appointed and supported over his three terms?
Or if he was in cahoots with Planned Parenthood while appointing any of them or during policy making?
July 28th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
MWS,
Not to defend Perry on this but, as others have pointed out, technically nothing about Perry’s statement would preclude him from supporting a Human Life Amendment. The constitution (probably) doesn’t allow a federal law banning abortion. Interstate Commerce is already too much of a catch-all. This has been a pretty common opinion on the right. Even conservative justices like Scalia have hinted they’d strike down such a law. So it’s a states rights issue. Under our current constitution. But a Human Life Amendment quite obviously takes that constitutional argument off the table. Now if someone asks Perry for clarification and he says, effectively, “yeah I not only think the constitution doesn’t permit us to ban abortion nationwide but we shouldn’t do so even if it did” then…well, that’s bad. But I’m generally inclined to give (relatively) trustworthy pro-lifers some leeway on how they frame some of the trickier aspects of the abortion debate. Dubya winked and nodded on Roe. No conceivable nominee is even that dodgy about the issue (as far as I know, our entire field is on record as anti-Roe). It’s considerable progress if someone can be anti-Roe, anti-legalized abortion on the state level, and rather hazy about under what circumstances they’d make it a federal issue- and come out looking a little bit moderate. Frankly, since even a HLA is a decade or more away from even dream status, I HOPE Perry is given a pass on this and can avoid clarifying that either he holds essentially the same position as everyone else (i.e, you can’t ban abortion under current law, but a HLA would be nice) or he really means it. Either clarification would hurt him if he actually becomes our nominee.
July 28th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
16 & 20 should cause Matt to bump Perry back
July 28th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Rick Perry claiming that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban abortions is about as hollow and meaningless as MWS promising that he would never cheat on his wife with Scarlet Johannson. Matt has as little chance of hooking up with Scarlet as an amendment banning abortions has of being ratified by 3/4 of the states.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I have a theory: Rick Perry is making all these statements in order to lower the hype – because he’s not going to run.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Perry is a big government guy. I know that based on the expansion of TX CPS while he was governor. He persecuted a religious minority in order to please his buddies in the Christian re-education community and was smacked down, at a huge cost to the state. The only principles Perry believes in is what’s good for Rick Perry, and what’s good for Perr’s friends.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
This is part of the vetting process. Just wait until someone looks into the pardons, commutations etc.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I want other candidates to ask Perry if states should be able to legalize murder, or drugs, or child porn, or public decency laws.
See what he says then.
“uh…. um……………”
July 28th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I hope Perry changes his mind about running.
He only splits the conservative vote with Michele who I prefer in IA, SC, then to Florida and through Super Tuesday.
I think a Mitt vs. Michele showdown in ’08 would be good if not epic for our party with the victor in fine campaign mode and shape to whip Obama in November.
I know others would like a Romney-Pawlenty two man race or a Romney-Palin one on one.
I wonder who Romney would like on that debate stage when it gets down to our final BIG TWO.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
#23…T.C. Robinson…..
You could be right….I don’t think he wants to run either, but he feels obligated to run because of loyality…..Just like Daniels and Barbour.. they let people think they would run never and never said no, until the hype was over then they just kind of left the spotlight.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
#27 – Don’t go presuming Flipper will be one of the two.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Interesting that HotAir has a video clip of Mike Huckabee talking about Fred Thompson’s states rights view of abortion:
“If Abortion is a moral issue, you cannot have 50 different versions of what is right.”
Huckabee on the Human Life Amendment
July 28th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Here is a real leader exerting real leadership.
The POWER of Palin
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/palins-well-timed-reminder-to-freshmen/
She brings the real heat with this line:
“Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”
That’s not too subtle for these guys is it?
July 28th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Mike Huckabee really should be running this time around. It is a shame that he is not.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
The reason so many Republicans these days are experimenting with the federalism strategy is that there is a growing cultural chasm between conservative Christians and everyone else, and as such, it is almost impossible to stake out social positions that appeal to both parts.
Now I know that abortion is one of those issues on which the polls haven’t moved basically in 40 years, but on issues like gays, gender roles, and pretty much anything related to sex, you’ve got a country whose leading demographics are moving rapidly in a very specific direction, while conservative Christians experience little to no movement. As the increasingly foxy Margaret Hoover pointed out in her address at the Reagan Library last night, Millennials are the most non-religious generation possibly ever in American history, with only a quarter identifying with an organized religion. Since traditional religious beliefs correlate strongly with so-con positions on the, let’s be honest here, big sex issues like gays, porn, STD vaccinations, etc, that means you’ve got an electorate that is going to become increasingly uncomfortable with the demands of so-cons on these issues.
So the Giuliani/Perry strategy, which may work better with Perry than with Giuliani, is to remove the federal role from these issues, hoping that those on each side of the issue will be confident in their ability to win the battle on the ground in their states and localities.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
30 TC
I’m with Huck on this one.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Perry is nothing like what the lemmings thought he was.
“Oh, he’s the next Reagan because he’s from Texas!”
“He’s soooo religious, he must be a great social Conservative!”
“He created tons of jobs in Texas!”
“He will hold the line on spending!”
Turns out he’s a mix between George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson.
He thinks that abortion isn’t murder. Otherwise, why would he allow it to happen in some states?
The jobs created in Texas were low-paying jobs. The unemployment rate there skyrocketed as well.
And of course, he doubled the Texas budget.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
DaveG — I agree almost wholeheartedly with your #33. Gay marriage especially is a losing issue moving forward for the GOP, but is exemplary of other social issues as well.
However, I view abortion quite differently. Over the past several years, I have grown quite libertarian on most social issues, but abortion is one I have remained staunchly conservative on — and I see many other people around me and online who are following this same trend. You want two gay guys to be able to get married? Okay, whatever. Doesn’t hurt anyone. But kill a baby? Now you’re not talking victimless any longer. And, like you pointed out, the opinions of Americans on abortion haven’t moved like they have on other social conservative issues.
That’s why this REALLY doesn’t make sense for Perry. If this is truly what he believes, and he’s not just attempting to carve out a unique political niche, then he is way out of step with the Republican base and conservative leaning independents.
And, as MWS and MassCon have both illustrated so well, some things simply cannot be “tenth amendment issues” — particularly where issues of overwhelming morality is involved. Somebody needs to ask Perry whether or not slavery was a states’ rights issue. Or if he was President in 1861 whether or not he would have fought to hold America together.
Perry is becoming a self-parody.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Interesting that HotAir has a video clip of Mike Huckabee talking about Fred Thompson’s states rights view of abortion: “If Abortion is a moral issue, you cannot have 50 different versions of what is right.”
Amen. This was one issue I was with Huck on.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Over at Entrade there are some interesting moves going on between Perry and Romney……
July 28th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
What is interesting now is if this truly does come down to a Romney vs. Perry race, might we see hardcore pro-lifers endorse Mitt over Rick? Politics does indeed make interesting bedfellows.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
#4 I have to agree with Jerald on this one…
We’ve become too federalist and have given away our birthright to the likes of Obama et al. We states hardly have any self-determination any more. Not even with our children’s education.
If issues like abortion had been kept as state rights, we wouldn’t have to now bend to a national ruling saying abortion has to be everywhere. There would be a fair amount of states where babies lives are being saved. Because it is currently decided on the national level, there are no babies being saved.
The President of the US does not have the power to enact or dissolve those kinds of laws. That’s through a different process. Social conservatives are now a minority in this country and expecting to be able to flip the whole country to anti-abortion status all at once is not logistical.
Give the rights back to the states. Some states and demographics will be more sane than others, but at least sanity will exist in more parts of our country than it does now. Most social conservative values will vary by the region. What is good for the south may not fly in the northwest, and since the more populous areas also tend to be more liberal, they govern the rest of us socially conservative types.
Take back the power the Feds have usurped. States are manageable, the whole US is not when it comes to social and moral policies.
I don’t believe it’s really about state’s rights being more important than babies’ rights, but rather, you’re not going to get a socially conservative majority anytime soon – so win the battles you can. Give the states back their ability to self-determination. We will gravitate to the states whose ideology fits us the most. Whether it be marriage policies, abortion, education, fiscal, immigration, etc.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Over at Entrade there are some interesting moves going on between Perry and Romney……
Oooh… could the “new” be wearing off of Perry already? This guy really is Fred Thompson redux… only with a healthy dose of the worst of Dubya thrown in for good measure.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Since we’re talking about Perry’s position on abortion, I thought this might be relevent to the discussion…since so many Rombots seem apalled by Rick’s position.
Mitt Romney’s Planned Parenthood Questionnaire
The following is a list of questions Mitt Romney answered for Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts in 2002. I realize, and can accept that minds can be changed on the issue of life. However, I have one question for Romney’s supporters. Do you believe that Mitt’s answers reflected his sincere views at the time?
1. Do you support the substance in the Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade? YES
2. Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES
7. In recent years, a campaign of violence, intimidation and harassment has been waged against reproductive health providers, parents, and their families. Planned Parenthood believes the federal government should take an aggressive role in enacting and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients. YES
9. In 1998, the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as “the morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support the efforts to increase access to emergency contraceptives? YES
A copy of the original document can be viewed HERE
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/03/mitt-romneys-planned-parenthood.html
July 28th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
#38 Intrade is becoming obsolete because of changes in how it operates. Please see comment #43 under the last Intrade post.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
#42 I live in 2011 and I’m hoping that I’m not the same person I was in 2002 and that others would let me evolve and let me look forward and move on. There’s a lot of things I would change if I could live life over again and nine years is a long time ago for all of us.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
#32 – he’s not so get over it.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Abortion, for almost all cases, is murder.
Murder is not a states rights issue.
A human being’s right to life and the importance of children to our society is no less in California than it is in Alabama.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
I can make a very good argument that abortion should be made Constitutionally illegal based on the equal protections clause (certainly a better argument than abortion being a right). I can also be in favor of a life amendment. Neither of these views invalidates fidelity to the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment argument is there, and it’s the most likely result of Roe finally being overturned, but it’s not the optimal outcome by any stretch of the imagination.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
MEM,
I think you’re being too generous. I don’t think Perry was waxing on Constitutional theory. He’s an elected official, not a jurist or legal scholar. He’s been answering abortion questions since he first started running for office. He meant it’s a state issue, and should be. Period.
Now, I wouldn’t be too shocked if he does another 48 hour flip flop, like he did with gay marriage.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
#42 – Yikes!!!!
Perhaps most relevant is this question and answer: “2. Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES.”
Its important because Romney has claimed that Romneycare provices cheap abortions because the courts required medicaid to offer that service. Romney’s answer shows he supported medicaid-funded abortions.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Has anyone seen data on how many abortions Romneycare has paid for? When I googled it I saw that other people have asked, but I did not see an answer.
July 28th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
49
Or, how about #7?
7. In recent years, a campaign of violence, intimidation and harassment has been waged against reproductive health providers, parents, and their families. Planned Parenthood believes the federal government should take an aggressive role in enacting and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients. YES
Wouldn’t that be a state and local issue?
July 28th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
#51 – Romney was in favor of federal hate crimes legislation so I am not surprised he also wanted federal protection for abortion providers.
But you raise an excellent point. Its not just issues that Romney has flip-flopped on, but an entire philosophy.
July 28th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
49:
Romney doesn’t “claim” that. It’s a fact. Romney had converted to pro-life by the time his healthcare passed and the answers he gave in this questionnaire no longer reflected his beliefs.
July 28th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
53. Perfectly understandable.
He was for it before he was against it.
Is it the water in Massachusetts or what?
July 28th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Huh. No wonder he sold his properties and fled the state right after his term of “successful” governance ended. He probably knows what psycho-pharmaceutics were placed in the drinking water supplies…
July 28th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
After all this…..
After all this……
After all this State Right Bullcrap on the issue of life that Perry is spewing out….
…you all still tell me Palwenty can’t win Iowa on Caucus Night?????
I’ve finally made it home from Ontario…I’m sipping on some tequila….and all I’m hearing is great reports coming out of Iowa for TPAW this week.
It’s good to be alive.
July 28th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Good to see you again, Smack. I’m sort of rooting for Tpaw at Ames, only because I feel bad for him.
I give him a 50-50 chance to win Ames.
I expect TPaw, Bachmann, and Paul to be bunched up around a percentage somewhere between 20% and 30% each. So if he doesn’t come in 1st, there is a chance he comes in 3rd.
Let’s just say he needs to turn out his folks, or it could be a rough night. But I think he has what it takes to turn them out.
July 28th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
3- Matt, similar to my thoughts.
I guess Perry thinks states should be able to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of the consequences.
July 28th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Massachusetts Conservative,
Thanks…it’s good to be back.
I see where Poltico ran with a story today about the Bachmann’s getting upset that the TPAW camp is using groups like “Strong America Now” as launch pads for the buses going into AMES. This is something I told you all a 2 months ago that this was happening, and now finally the Bachmann team catches on and is starting to piss and moan.
Let them piss and moan…this was the plan the whole time. Romney was smart enough to stay out of AMES…Bachman wasn’t….and now Bachmann is getting caught in the TPAW TRAP!
The Bachmann team is in panic mode…they have their Iowa Radio hosts blaming TPAW for all the smears……without no evidence…………….. good……….good……they are wigging out.
It’s all going according to plan.
Remember MC,
Stay alert!
If want the latest TPAW scoops then you must stay close to RACE42012…this is where you will get it before anyone else.
I got more info I will give out Saturday morning.
It’s going to blow the roof off this place!!!!
July 28th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Who writes murder laws? The states or the feds? For decades Calif. Penal Code 187 has been the CA law against murder. Whether or not you consider abortion an actual murder, the states write the laws and bring offenders to justice. Huck’s in favor of a “Right to Life” amendment. Uh, no. The Constitution already guarantees the right to life, but the states adjudicate those who take the life of another.
Defeat Roe and send abortion law to the states. Same with marriage law. Even tho Mitt supports a Traditional Marriage Amendment, I disagree. Let the people in the various states have their voices heard–unless it’s Loving v. VA, where race became part of marriage law. In the case of race, the SCOTUS was right to rule.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
#3 So like Romney is at the bottom of the barrel and Perry is underneath the barrel?
July 28th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
60- Perry would disagree. Doesn’t matter if it’s dealing with abortion (i.e., the killing of innocent children), banning interracial marriage, or allowing gay marriage. The States can do anything they want…it’s in the 10th Amendment, didn’t you know!
July 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
I’m not a Perry fan – I’m not sure one way or the other about him. Still collecting data BUT statements like “states can do whatever the hell they want” is a slant and a spin on what the gentleman actually said.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
#6…..Matt
In answer, NO. (The post was written poorly)
But I think the strategy of trying to use states rights on one day to fight abortion and the next day trying to pass a federal anti-gay marriage amendment is bound to backfire. Especially when protecting the unborn should be the utmost fight we are making at the federal level…
PS. We also have another problem. Some pro-life people are against abortions for any reason. Others allow for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and to save the mother’s life. This creates a problematic wedge in the movement and weakens our ability to counter the pro-death people…
July 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
64 Jerald: For many the abortion issue is very simple: It’s murder straight up and anybody performing or submitting to an abortion should be charged with murder and punished accordingly. My Catholic sister-in-law feels this way. Put a young woman who sumbits to an abortion on trial. I give my SIL credit for having the courage of her convictions.
However, for the majority the issue is more complex. They are the willing to consider exceptions for rape, incest, the mother’s life. Others want to charge the abortionist but not the mother. Others believe abortion is wrong, but don’t want it to be illegal. Others are fine with the legality, but don’t want tax dollars to be spent.
Anybody that says it’s simple is nuts. It may be a simple moral issue (what is the will of God?), but it is not a simple legal issue (At what point does the fetus enjoy Constitutional rights whose life is protected by law?).
The primary issue re: Roe is not whether or not abortion is moral, but should abortion be a constitutionally protected procedure? But alas, people run around with their hair on fire, reason goes out the window and people are quick to cast stones at politicians who see abortion as a complex LEGAL issue and sometimes change their legal attitudes from one day to the next.
It was a lot easier to criminalize slavery that it is to criminalize abortion.
July 28th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
So let me get this straight. Perry has backtracked on his gay marriage commentary, now saying he supports a federal amendment banning it, while embracing a federalist solution on abortion. The first will piss off suburban swing voters, while the second will frustrate the base. Perry probably would have been better off, as a political calculus, going federalist on gay marriage while simply saying that he’s pro-life without any qualifiers. My guess is that he’s miscalculating in terms of what’s more important to which group. This does not suggest to me that Perry has a strong political antenna outside of Texas politics. He’ll need one if he plans to succeed in defeating Mitt Romney.
July 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
To this day Perry never said he will run.
Many hacks,people who need well paid jobs are pushing the idea of him
running.
After all huffing and puffing he will not run,most likely.
He will endorse Sarah Palin.
Her endorsement had huge impact in Texas primaries.
July 28th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
66 Dave You’re right.
Mitt’s second time at the rodeo. Perry’s first. Perry should have thought this all out long before now–and be ready to ride the buckin’ bronc.
July 28th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Tex, to quote Forrest Gump: Stupid is as Stupid does.
The queen is only taking your cash. She won’t run. jury duty, ya know. (wink wink).
July 29th, 2011 at 12:14 am
How’s mirror and broom business?
July 29th, 2011 at 12:31 am
54:
Yes, yes. Romney is a pro-life convert. We’re breaking new ground here.
July 29th, 2011 at 12:35 am
66
Very important point here.
July 29th, 2011 at 3:22 am
[...] link [...]
July 29th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Abortion is simply a more socially accepted word than murder. Abortion is murder. Fact.
Bad play Perry. I for one am very happy that Romney saw the light years ago. I wish more would. Many more.
July 29th, 2011 at 8:47 am
74 Heath
I doubt he “saw the light.”
He couldn’t win in Mass. as a pro-life Republican.
He couldn’t win the GOP nomination as a pro-choice Republican.
It’s as simple as that.
He has no moral compass.
July 29th, 2011 at 9:44 am
So last week Rick Perry says that Gay Marriage should remain a State issue. Five days later, he flip-flops and says there should be a Federal ban on Gay Marriage.
*Now* he says that Abortion should be a State issue and that we can’t just pick and choose which laws are State and which are Federal issues.
So, now I’m totally confused. Does he still believe Gay Marriage should remain a State issue or a Federal one? Rick Perry’s flip-flops are making me dizzy!
September 13th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Perry is following the modern “conservative Christian” movement which isnt BIBLICAL. There are two specific abortion references in the Bible and neither are sins the first is in Jerimiah ch 20 and the second is Psalms 58, Isaiah 65:23 explains that most are doomed at birth. Paul wrote that RIGHTEOUS women would be saved by child bearing within race* see KJV Hebrews 12:16 referring to Esau’s sexual sin in Genisis of wedding foreign brides, likewise Jesus condemned believers for the same thing in Revelation ch 2 and Paul refers to Balaam’s plague saying it is a lesson for you believers not to fall to their sexual sin of interracial mating. Even our traditions are not “one man one woman” Dont believe me? see Pastor Pittman* a 100% documented miracle man.
November 24th, 2011 at 2:03 am
I have to say that for the last couple of hours i have been hooked by the impressive articles on this blog. Keep up the great work.