WorthyNews: Abortion issue powerful enough to swing Senate race in Alabama

[WorthyNewsBot]

(Worthy News) - Given the tenor of the campaign in the state, one might think Doug Jones was a doctor performing abortions on young women, not a former prosecutor and now Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.

But Republicans have been merciless in attacking the man some of them have dubbed “Abortion Jones,” hoping to find reasons to rally a base they fear might stay home on Election Day rather than turn out for embattled Republican nominee Roy Moore.

“I believe the people of Alabama do not understand how important this U.S. Senate race is in the future of the country, but people from outside Alabama do,” former state Sen. Scott Beason said Thursday on his radio talk show. [ Source (Read More...) ]

View the full article

[Guest Butero]

Abortion is definitely one of the key differences in the race.  The Democratic Party is pro-choice, and they will oppose any future Supreme Court nominee that could tip the scale in the direction of overturning Roe vs. Wade.  This is a valid reason to turn out for Roy Moore, especially when you consider that no charges made against him have been proven.  We saw something similar to this happen in Alaska.  We had a GOP Senator that was well respected in the state charged with a crime.  The Democrat wound up winning in a Republican state, and after the election, suddenly it was decided there was no crime committed and the charges were dropped.  This is just politics as usual.  If I lived in Alabama, I would vote for Roy Moore with no reservations.  

[Justin Adams]

Roe vs Wade. Was that just not a judicial precedent? Not a 'law' as such. Therefore possibly a little more difficult to 'change'.

Roe vs Wade was a courtroom thing. Not a bill.

[Guest Butero]

39 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Roe vs Wade. Was that just not a judicial precedent? Not a 'law' as such. Therefore possibly a little more difficult to 'change'.

Roe vs Wade was a courtroom thing. Not a bill.

It can be overturned by the Supreme Court.  That is the only realistic way to undo it.  Judicial nominees must be approved by the Senate.

[SavedByGrace1981]

Whenever I think that I need to vote for the republican because "he/she is a reliably pro-life vote in the Senate/House/White House", I consider these inconvenient facts:

1.  Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade atrocity, was a Nixon (R) appointee.

2.  Republican appointees have been the majority on the SCOTUS since as long as I can remember.  In that timeframe, Roe has only been strengthened and more etched in stone.

3.  Republican candidates perennially run as pro-life candidates.  Yet in republican controlled Congresses, Planned Parenthood continues to get funded and - whenever some kind of 'threat' to unlimited abortions might be coming through the congressional pipeline - you can count on 'republicans' like Collins or Snowe to stop it in its tracks.

How does the saying go?  Oh yeah . . . "fool me once . . . "

Face it.  Unlimited abortions is one of those issues - like open borders and socialized healthcare - that the ruling party has decreed that we will have.

And I ain't buyin' 'republicans are the pro-life party' any longer.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[Guest Butero]

40 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Whenever I think that I need to vote for the republican because "he/she is a reliably pro-life vote in the Senate/House/White House", I consider these inconvenient facts:

1.  Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade atrocity, was a Nixon (R) appointee.

2.  Republican appointees have been the majority on the SCOTUS since as long as I can remember.  In that timeframe, Roe has only been strengthened and more etched in stone.

3.  Republican candidates perennially run as pro-life candidates.  Yet in republican controlled Congresses, Planned Parenthood continues to get funded and - whenever some kind of 'threat' to unlimited abortions might be coming through the congressional pipeline - you can count on 'republicans' like Collins or Snowe to stop it in its tracks.

How does the saying go?  Oh yeah . . . "fool me once . . . "

Face it.  Unlimited abortions is one of those issues - like open borders and socialized healthcare - that the ruling party has decreed that we will have.

And I ain't buyin' 'republicans are the pro-life party' any longer.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

The Democrats are the pro-death party.  100 percent of the time, Democrat judges are pro-abortion.  You have a chance with Republican appointees.  

[other one]

Don't confuse the terms "Republican" with "conservitive",  there are many Republicans who are not conservative.

[SavedByGrace1981]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

The Democrats are the pro-death party.  100 percent of the time, Democrat judges are pro-abortion.  You have a chance with Republican appointees.  

I understand that and I don't disagree.

It's just that I am of the opinion that there is more at work here.  Otherwise, why is abortion on demand still the law of the land?

Especially given all those reasons I listed - republican majorities as appointees on SCOTUS; republican presidents; republican majorities in Congress.

I haven't voted democrat since Carter's first term in '76 - and I certainly wouldn't consider doing so now that it is essentially the communist party.  Yet I refuse to wear the partisan blinders that on the issues I care about - abortion; illegal immigration; the destruction of our health care system - that the republicans are any better.

They're good at running on issues and counting on their voters to support them - no matter that they do nothing to actually AFFECT those issues they run on.

People are waking up - that is the good news.  At least there seems to be a growing consensus among pro-life conservatives that the fossils in Congress who happen to have an R after their name (the McCains, McConnells, Collins' and others) are NOT necessarily our friends.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[SavedByGrace1981]

15 minutes ago, other one said:

Don't confuse the terms "Republican" with "conservitive",  there are many Republicans who are not conservative.

True.

I've always had an issue with the term "RINO" (republican in name only).  The TRUE 'rino' s are the conservatives, given the party's hatred of TRUE conservatives going all the way back to Goldwater and Reagan.

It's a sad fact, but the Rockefellers, the Cabot Lodges and the Bushes have always represented the TRUE republicans.  And we're still dealing with that, today.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[Guest Butero]

8 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I understand that and I don't disagree.

It's just that I am of the opinion that there is more at work here.  Otherwise, why is abortion on demand still the law of the land?

Especially given all those reasons I listed - republican majorities as appointees on SCOTUS; republican presidents; republican majorities in Congress.

I haven't voted democrat since Carter's first term in '76 - and I certainly wouldn't consider doing so now that it is essentially the communist party.  Yet I refuse to wear the partisan blinders that on the issues I care about - abortion; illegal immigration; the destruction of our health care system - that the republicans are any better.

They're good at running on issues and counting on their voters to support them - no matter that they do nothing to actually AFFECT those issues they run on.

People are waking up - that is the good news.  At least there seems to be a growing consensus among pro-life conservatives that the fossils in Congress who happen to have an R after their name (the McCains, McConnells, Collins' and others) are NOT necessarily our friends.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

You make good points, but there are some other things at work when it comes to the Supreme Court.  A lot of the picks are based on being non-confrontational to allow confirmation.  We know there are always a handful of RINO members of the Senate, like John McCain, that you can't count on, so the bigger the GOP majority, the better judges they can nominate.  Sometimes, the Democrats were in control of the Senate, and that meant mediocre judges.  We lost what would have been an outstanding nomination in Robert Bork to a liberal Senate.  We need the biggest Republican majority possible when Supreme Court vacancies occur, in an ideal world.  

On the issue of illegal immigration and borders, GOP Supreme Court judges are better than Democrat judges.  Democrat judges would support open borders.  On health care, we were let down by Judge Roberts.  He hasn't been nearly as conservative as advertised.  When it comes to Republican lawmakers, I agree with you that they are not much better than Democrats when it comes to illegals, and you can't count on all of them on healthcare.  Still, 49 Republican Senators did vote to repeal Obamacare.  No Democrats voted to do so.  No Republicans voted for Obamacare to become law.  Every Democratic Senator voted for it.  There are still differences.  It is just that Democrats are more united than Republicans, and we know going in that there will always be a handful of our members we can't count on.  We need a big majority, not what we have today.  One other point is that Susan Collins is in a liberal state, and if she was a real conservative, she wouldn't be in the Senate.  That is a bonus seat we have, so I always cut her some slack.  There is no excuse for the Senator from Alaska or Arizona.  They are just bad.