Politics

After Rick Santorum exits race, pro-life groups endorsing Mitt Romney for president

A Photo of the Romney Family’s Early Years

The exit of Rick Santorum from the campaign earlier this week all but assures that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president in November.

Over on the Democratic side, President Obama’s record on and advocacy on behalf of abortion is well-known at this point, as is his support for Planned Parenthood.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that major national pro-life groups are coming out in support of Mitt Romney for president:

A national pro-life women’s group has issued an endorsement for Mitt Romney now that his leading opponent, Rick Santorum, has dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination.

The Susan B. Anthony List, which endorsed Santorum and campaigned feverishly on his behalf by taking a campaign tour bus across the country, is now supporting the former Massachusetts governor for the GOP nomination to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama. [Life News]

Another major national pro-life organization is jumping on board as well:

Determined to secure a pro-life victory in the November election, which will decide the fate of unborn children for decades to come, the National Right to Life Committee [NRLC] announced today that it has endorsed Republican candidate Mitt Romney for president. [Life News]

The Mitt Romney for President campaign has already released a statement thanking the NRLC for their endorsement:

The National Right to Life Committee has been on the front lines of the fight to protect the unborn and uphold the sanctity of life. I appreciate their leadership and the tireless commitment of their nationwide grassroots pro-life effort. I am grateful for their support and honored by the trust they have placed in me. And I look forward to working together to carry out the great responsibility of defending and protecting innocent human life. [Ohio Right to Life on Facebook]

I realize that some people have expressed doubts about the authenticity of Mitt Romney’s pro-life convictions, but, speaking personally, I believe him. [Update: as does the Massachusetts Citizens for Life PAC, which also just endorsed Romney.] I do think he means what he says when he talks about ending all funding to Planned Parenthood and about his intention to be a strong pro-life president, as well as his promise to nominate pro-life nominees for the Supreme Court.

What I would like to see in the comments thread is a discussion about what role our pro-life values play in our decision about whom to support for president. Are the right to life and dignity of the unborn the most important things we think about when choosing whom to support, or are there other factors we feel are important as well?

It’s an important conversation that we should begin having as soon as possible.

Live Action on Facebook
  • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

    Leading pro-life blogger Jill Stanek also endorsed Romney: http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/04/stanek-endorses-romney/

    The right to life has to be at the forefront in evaluating candidates not only because the issue itself is so important, but also because it’s a window into a candidate’s broader conception of liberty. If a candidate buys into the abortion logic — “I may take the life of another if it benefits me to do so” — then there’s no reason to believe he’ll take seriously the lesser rights of the American people.

    That said, no candidate exists in a vacuum, and voters have to exercise a certain degree of prudence in weighing all the pros and cons of each candidate, not to mention whether the stakes in any given election justify supporting the lesser of two evils. I reluctantly voted for John McCain last time, will happily vote for Romney this time, and could have comfortably supported any of the credible challengers to Obama who ran this season.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001431111624 Jordan F. Mooney

      I’m all with you on practicing prudence Calvin! That said, I can’t find it as a “prudent” option to attempt justification of a man who subsidized abortions in his own state *after* his so-called “conversion”–a conversion which he has apparently undergone 6 other times from one position to the other during his political campaigns. The man is also the godfather of socialized medicine in America, and has demonstrated an ability to make it more attractive to the American people (Scott Brown campaigned on this), so we will only see Obamacare metastasize into something entirely more formidable with Romney in the Oval Office. And again, the same man who single-handedly forced the counties in Massachusetts to start issuing same-sex marriage licences, an agenda followed up by firing an ultimatum to the Catholic Church’s adoption network to either surrender children to homosexual couples, or be shut down. The Catholic adoption services no longer exist in Massachusetts as a result. And further, he has instituted a ban that includes numerous firearms, an over-reaching move which is part of the steady march towards gun control in Massachusetts. Given that Romney is now actively subsidizing the abortion industry, they have more power than ever in his state, and as president he will only continue to destroy this nation using the great skills he has as a businessman and negotiator. Prudence? High Stakes? Yes indeed, the stakes are high, and if I believed in the lesser of two evils, I would stick with the devil I know rather than the devil I don’t.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

    I wonder if the issues of abortion and guns became irrelevant if you single issue voters would even vote.

    I also find it amusing that the right seems to blame Obama for abortion even though he was only 9 years old when it became legal. And the 20 years combined of having Reagan, and Bush I and II didn’t put a dent in the legality of abortion. 

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      “I also find it amusing that the right seems to blame Obama for abortion
      even though he was only 9 years old when it became legal.”

      Name me one person who sounds like he or she blames Obama for making abortion legal. We blame him for his support for continuing it – and we also blame him for his belief that doctors should be able to starve newborns to death in broom closets if the survive botched abortions: http://liveaction.org/blog/newt-gingrich-reminds-america-that-the-media-covered-for-barack-obamas-babykilling-past/

      “And the 20 years combined of having Reagan, and Bush I and II didn’t put a dent in the legality of abortion.”

      Yeah, it’s remarkable how entrenched something can get when the Supreme Court takes away the rest of the country’s right to decide an issue.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

         Pretty much everyone on this website acts like Obama started abortion and that he is the anti-Christ, Hitler, and their mother in law rolled into one. Keep electing your presidents on the basis that you believe they are “pro-life” though.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          You can take the lazy route and derisively characterize your perception of our writing, but can you actually defend Obama on the merits? You think we should go softly on a man who worked against efforts to protect newborns from being starved to death in broom closets after botched abortions.

    • Stepheniekdicarlo

       It does not matter how old Obama was when abortion became legal. What he is responsible for is his own choices in his own lifetime, with the power he has been given.  He has done much to advance the cause of abortion, telling women that their chance of success is limited if they do not have a chance to kill their children if they need.    In his speech to Planned Parenthood he says, “the 39th anniversary of Roe v.
      Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right”
      to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters
      have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to
      fulfill their dreams.”  He has signed legislation to fund abortion with federal money through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Comparing Obama to past leaders who have failed does not make him a good leader.  It only puts him in line with them.  The logic is flawed.  Judge him by his actions and hold him accountable.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

         He has not advanced the cause. He has simply upheld the law as it has been for 40 years. He has voiced the opinion that the majority of Americans ultimately agree with. He hasn’t taken away your guns either.

        The other leaders didn’t “fail”. They simply trot the issue around to get votes. They also upheld the law as it currently stands.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Supporting the law as it currently stands IS advancing the cause. Perpetrating the lie that we can’t know when life begins IS advancing the cause. Pledging his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase virtually every state restriction on abortion including conscience rights, IS advancing the cause. Overturning the Mexico City policy IS advancing the cause. Appointing Supreme Court Justices who’d uphold Roe IS advancing the cause. Supporting federal funding for abortion IS advancing the cause.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

             And Regan legalized abortion in California while he was governor but the right worships him.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            And the significance of a bill Reagan himself called his greatest mistake, after which he was an outspoken pro-lifer for the rest of his life, is what exactly?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

            Wanting access to contraception makes abortion unnecessary but the right is anti-contraception. I guess that makes the right pro-abortion.

            And despite the anti-science articles on this sight contraception does work. That is why there are less pregnancies and less abortions today than there were in the past.

          • MoonChild02

            No one here has actually wanted to make contraception illegal. What the people on the right want is for religious institutions to not have to pay for contraception, since many of them self-insure. That is the problem at hand. Many on this site, including myself, do not believe in using contraception, but we aren’t trying to outlaw it, either.

            As for why there are less pregnancies, you may say that it has to do with contraception, but it also has to do with abstinence education. Obama hasn’t been in office so long that all abstinence education has been nixed. In fact, there were significant drops in 2008 and 2009, both part of the current trend, when abstinence education was still well funded. It’s not due to an increase in contraception or contraception education. According to a study from 1995 (I know, it’s old, but still relevant), with typical use, contraceptions often fail to prevent pregnancy. It has been reported that in the first 12 months of contraceptive use, 16.4% of teens will become pregnant. If the teen is cohabiting, the pregnancy (or “failure”) rate rises to 47%. Among low-income cohabiting teens, the failure rate is 48.4% for birth control pills and 71.7% for condoms.

            Also, the CDC report apparently looks at the teen birth rates, not really teen pregnancy rates, nor teen abortion rates, which have actually gone up. We also don’t know the amount of teens resorting to emergency contraception, which consumption of is not measured. Furthermore, according to Guttmacher Institute, 54% of women who get abortions were using contraception. It should be noted that the CDC also stated that the drop in birth rates may be due to the recession, since birth rates over the whole spectrum are dropping, not just among teens. Furthermore, it has been found in Oklahoma that high teen pregnancy rates have been linked to abuse, so maybe a drop in teen birth rates could also be linked to a drop in abuse.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10224543
            http://studentsforlife.org/2012/04/10/why-are-teen-birth-rates-really-dropping/
            http://www.abstinenceassociation.org/newsroom/new_abstinence_study_shows.html
            http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/greater-access-to-contraception-does-not-reduce-abortions.cfm

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

             Pregnancy rate is counted separately from the birth rate as well as the birth rate. All three are down.

            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

            Abortion peaked under Reagan

            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

            The fact is there are better forms of contraception that exist in the past that are more long term and less susceptible to human error. People are much more likely to use condoms than previous generations due to STD education. 

          • MoonChild02

            I could care less about Reagan. I was born days before his second presidential election. However, from what my parents have told me, and the few things I remember, he had dementia while in office, and even couldn’t remember what day it was. Reaganomics sucks, the trickle-down theory doesn’t work, and it led to these extremely inflated prices we now have, and severely increased the national debt. He opened up the flood gates for Big Business to step on the little people, and for Big Brother to become a reality. He also villainized a country that turned out to be extremely poor, and then, when the Iron Curtain fell, took credit for it, even though he didn’t want to be friends with them in the first place, and it was Mother Mary and Pope John Paul II who did the work.

            Hence, the reason I didn’t mention him, because I don’t admire the guy, in fact, far from it. I may be Catholic and pro-life, but I’m not on the right. If you haven’t noticed, I have disagreed with the right a few times on this site. The only reason I don’t disagree more is because the subject of this site is pro-life, and that’s the part of politics, other than religious freedom, I’m willing to concede to them.

    • Ninek

      It’s not “single issue,”  it is triage.  There is a lot wrong with our country, and even our world.  Like a doctor at a disaster scene, we must go first to who needs our protection most. That is the pre-born, the disabled, and the elderly.   

      If the abortion industry would stop killing for money, we certainly would be thrilled to move on to solving other problems.

  • MoonChild02

    There are other issues, which is why I have prefered Romney over Santorum, but prefer Ron Paul over any of them. I don’t like the attack ads that many of the candidates have resorted to. It’s disgusting, and shows how awful they really are, that instead of being about the actual issues, they attack the credibility of their opponents. It’s vicious and mean-spirited. Ron Paul doesn’t do attack ads, his ads are about the issues and his plans for the country. Also, Ron Paul is more of an Independent, but he can’t win on that ticket – [sarcasm]thank you 2-party system[/sarcasm] – and he isn’t going to be accepted by the Democrats.

    Also, I hate capital punishment, I hate unjust war, I think gay people should have the same rights as everyone else so long as they’re not infringing on religious rights, I hate Reaganomics, I love the environment, and, despite my support for the Constitution, I think that gun-control laws are good so long as weapons aren’t outlawed completely. Hence my dislike for the Republican party, hence the reason I’ve stayed out of the politics in this presidential race so far.

    I’m not a single-issue voter, but Obama needs to go. He doesn’t even treat women with real respect: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/21/the-white-house-boys-club-president-obama-has-a-woman-problem/

  • Matthias

    I’m really not at all happy with Romney, and I’m very dubious about his chances against Obama. Santorum would have absolutely been the better Pro-life candidate. With Romney this election is more just about defeating Obama than electing a good President.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Romney’s definitely an imperfect candidate, and Santorum was stronger on this particular issue, but I think Jill Stanek made a good case for why pro-lifers should be optimistic about him: http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/04/stanek-endorses-romney/

      • GuEsT

        Optimistic about Romney? on abortion? You need to visit you tube and watch the Mitt Romney videos prior to the 2012 bid for POTUS.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Did you read the link?

    • GuEsT

      People need to look into Santorum’s record. He has voted to fund abortions. What he says and what he does are very different things.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

        Welcome to politics.

  • Sparky

    In the words of Andy Borowitz, “Romney’s message, ‘Sorry you have no other choice’, seems to be gaining traction with [conservative] voters.”  Romney’s a great candidate.  He’ll take whatever side of an issue he thinks will get your vote…  Good luck with that. BAHAHAHAHA

  • Pingback: After Rick Santorum Exits Race, Pro-Life Groups Endorsing Mitt Romney for President | Foundation Life

  • http://twitter.com/reeldealpro Justin Machacek

    Hypocrites.  Why wouldn’t they endorse Ron Paul?  An OBGYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, has plans to actually revoke Roe V. Wade, and hasn’t EVER held a “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion” stance.  I wonder how much federal aid or additional contributions will come to the National Right to Life now through Romney affiliated donors.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Actually, Ron Paul has spoken in favor of abortifacient contraceptive drugs (which he justifies with some pretty freaky logic: http://liveaction.org/blog/dr-ron-pauls-backward-position-on-rape-abortions/), and while he’s generally pro-life, he doesn’t believe the 14th Amendment applies to the issue. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a good case for the “leave it to the states” position, but there’s also a good case for pro-lifers to prefer a national solution.

      Beyond that, Paul has A LOT of scandals and baggage that disqualify him from serious consideration in lots of people’s minds.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1379946180 Ryan Hunter

      Also, basic study of the Constitution shows that the President cannot “revoke” a law passed by Congress or a decision of the Supreme Court (what Roe v. Wade actually was!).

  • Stephanie

    I have decided to not vote this time. It was a very hard choice to make but I do not feel that I can morally support either Mitt Romney or Obama. Obama is obviously very pro-abortion and anti-religious freedom and I can not support him. But Mitt Romney, and all of the other Rep candidates are in my opinion only pro-life when it comes to the unborn. I know many pro-lifers disagree and that is okay but I know poverty first hand, and I am currently living in poverty. I know that many women would keep their babies if they had more support, so to me, ending things like food stamps, WIC, etc is a very bad idea. Many poor people work very hard, but at minimum wage with no college education and they need assistance. There are so many reason why many people need assistance, like em and my husband who both have disabilities and children. I the idea that welfare makes people “comfortable” and causes them to “rely on hand-outs” is a very incorrect and offensive belief system around poor people. I think that pro-life needs to involve ALL human life, including the unborn. And like I said, we need assistance for poor Mothers- in NJ you only get TANF for ONE child per family, no matter what and I know someone who had an abortion because she already had a toddler and could not afford another baby. I am not justifying her choice, I believe in always without question choosing to keep  the baby or give the baby for adoption- the fact remains that this is a big reason for abortion. What we need is equal access to education, from elementary to college, and jobs with a living wage. And so that is why i cannot, in my opinion, morally vote for either Candide. 

    • Sparky

      Ah Stephanie – you really should reconsider.  A wise person once said if you want a candidate who agrees with you on every issue, you should run for office yourself.  A lot of people have sacrificed for your right to vote, and it would be a shame if you declined to exercise it.  On a partisan note, if you got past some of the rhetoric of these guys, I think you might find Obama is a lot less anti-religious and pro-abortion than you think.  There are lots of ways to be anti-abortion.  For example, you can be anti-abortion by supporting policies that help prevent it from being necessary in the first place – like making contraception available to anyone who needs it and providing real and effective education to kids in school.  You are exactly the kind of person who should be supporting Obama because unlike the other guy’s policies which say to people like you “you’re on your own”, the policies he supports will actually help you get back on your feet.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        Wrong on all counts. First, there is no sane way on this Earth Obama could seriously be described as even slightly anti-abortion. Beyond some empty words, he has done virtually everything the abortion lobby could reasonably expect him to do for them, he opposes even the mildest restrictions on abortion or abortion funding, he’s not a fan of conscience protection for those who don’t want to participate in it, and he even worked to prevent Illinois from protecting newborns who were being starved to death in broom closets after forced abortions.

        http://liveaction.org/blog/pro-abortion-radicals-whine-that-obama-hasnt-done-enough-for-them/

        http://liveaction.org/blog/newt-gingrich-reminds-america-that-the-media-covered-for-barack-obamas-babykilling-past/

        Second, liberal policies don’t actually reduce abortion rates or the “need” for abortion:

        http://liveaction.org/blog/safe-legal-and-rare-ross-douthat-exposes-the-emptiness-of-pro-aborts-claims-to-fight-unplanned-pregnancy/

        • Sparky

          Oh settle down, Calvin, and step off your right-wing soapbox for a minute.  Are you saying you can’t even agree that Stephanie should exercise her right to vote?  You know, it’s people like you and me that cause people like Stephanie to throw up their hands and walk away from the political process.  Don’t you think the least we could do is encourage her and people like her to come back and participate whenever we get the chance to do so?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “Are you saying you can’t even agree that Stephanie should exercise her right to vote?”

            If you’re going to read such shameless falsehoods into my words, instead of honestly responding to my actual words, then further discussion is probably an exercise in futility.

          • Sparky

            I don’t know, Calvin.  I’m pretty sure you said “Wrong on all counts”.  Your words, not mine.  Come on Calvin.  I know you can say it.  You agree with me, don’t you?  Just say it.  You’ll feel better.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            So in your mind, “Wrong on all counts” = “don’t exercise your right to vote”? If so, please seek help.

          • Sparky

            You are priceless – lol.  You can’t even bring yourself to say you agree with someone on something that you clearly agree with simply because that person holds a different view than you do.  It kind of reminds me of something Kathryn Schulz said in her book Being Wrong:  I’m paraphrasing but something to the effect of People who disagree with us are not necessarily misinformed, stupid, crazy or evil – they just hold a different view.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Seek help.

          • Jdjdjeeeeerrrryyy

            It’s a sad day when we can’t debate without resorting to personal attacks. I find myself doing it sometimes too, but I’m going to try to work on that.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            In this case, discussion was futile. Expressing the ridiculousness of what was in front of me was the only option.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      First, abortion is a unique evil, unlike any other issue in American politics. I would suggest that it’s a crisis of such urgency that saving babies from intentional destruction requires all of us who recognize it to work toward legally protecting them every chance we get, even if it means putting up with other policies we don’t like.

      Second, the issue with Republicans and poverty is not whether the poor deserve help, it’s whether the federal government is the effective mechanism for getting them that help. Historically, that’s actually been a failure over the past several decades, which has expanded poverty and made people less free and more dependent on government. Please check out Romney and the Republicans’ actual economic plan and positions – not the media’s caricature of them – before making up your mind.

    • BCSWowbagger

       Hey, Stephanie.  My sister used to believe as you do (and she is still a long way from warming up to Mitt), so I have some sympathy for your perspective.  I won’t argue your principles, because I don’t disagree with your general belief, just the particulars.

      But, about those particulars: Gov. Romney has made no indication that he wishes to end food stamps, WIC, or the rest of the social safety net for the poor.  All the Republican candidates are essentially in favor of the social safety net.  (Indeed, the Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, are the only party willing to redesign Medicare in order to *save* it from bankruptcy and collapse.  The Democrats just want to keep it exactly as it is to score political points.)  Some candidates — like Ron Paul — would like to see each state, rather than Washington D.C., be responsible for dealing with its own poor, but, even there, with the most libertarian major-party candidate in over a hundred years, even Ron Paul wants to keep benefits in place for the millions of people who are blamelessly suffering from unemployment and low incomes.

      Republicans also believe — rightly, according to economists — that minimum wage laws only raise wages by reducing employment (that is, employers have X amount of dollars to spend on minimum wage employees, and, if each employee costs more, they’ll higher fewer people).  Thus, Republicans favor an economic “rising tide that floats all boats,” so the wages of the poor rise *without* eliminating the jobs of other poor people.

      I have no idea why New Jersey has its stupid TANF rule — and it is pretty stupid — but please bear in mind that, with the exception of Gov. Christie, New Jersey has been run almost unilaterally by *Democrats* for over a decade.

      I think you should reconsider, and vote for Romney.

      If, however, you choose not to vote out of protest, that’s a perfectly legitimate conclusion to reach.  (C’mon Sparky!  Lay off Calvin, who never even hinted that she shouldn’t vote, and come after me instead!)

      • Sparky

        HAHAHA – on a scale of 1 to 10 what are the chances that I could say something that would change your mind?  I do agree with you on one thing, though - I should probably give Calvin a rest.  He seems to have run out of things to say :-)

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          If you were presenting good-faith arguments, I’d be happy to continue. But you’re not interested in that, so I won’t waste my time. Better luck next time.

        • BCSWowbagger

           Probably a zero!

          He has a point.  Between your deliberate thickness and bizarre red herrings, one does develop some concern for your mental wellness.

          Then one remembers that one is on the Internet, and no one is as crazy in real life as they are on the Internet.  :-)

          • Sparky

            Hey, Calvin’s the one talking to bubbalouwee about the Bilderber Group, but I’m the one who is crazy?  Okay so I thought of a better question.  When was the last time a liberal said something you agreed with?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            You mean the sarcasm? You took that as me being serious? Man, you are desperate.

          • Sparky

            oh the irony, Calvin.  The irony.  You crack me up, buddy.

          • BCSWowbagger

            Calvin was speaking *against* conspiracy theories.  Maybe you’re not crazy.  Maybe you’re 12?

            Yesterday, in my last comment thread, I agreed with an anonymous gay liberal atheist about the role of religious doctrine and moral philosophy in public policy, especially with regards to marriage definition amendments.  I don’t consider myself all that bad at finding common ground with libs, honestly.  They just have to have a very basic level of intellectual honesty. 

            And, I must say, Sparky, you do manage to defy a number of stereotypes.  Normally, intellectual honesty corresponds closely with the ability to spell, and — if I may say so — you are quite a good speller.  Good show on that.

          • Sparky

            Sticks and stones … please.  Okay, so far you’ve managed to question my sanity, intelligence, maturity and integrity.  Now I have to tell you that I draw the red line when it comes to my grammar, so it’s a good thing you didn’t go there because then I would just have to … to … I don’t  know ask you for your birth certificate or your immigration papers or something like that.  What’s next on the list, by the way, “Evil” or are you just making this stuff up as you go? 
            So, a gay liberal atheist, huh?  Well, good for you.  I’m glad you were able to find common ground.  I am curious though – based on your recent comment above you seem to rely on stereotypes even though I seem to have caused you to question their reliability.  So, I’m wondering if you’d like to share what other stereotypes you rely on and how they inform your thoughts on politics and on the policies of our President?
            Finally, since you shared, it’s only fair that I return the favor.  Here’s one of my favorite quotes from someone who was a prominent Republican:
             ”Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”  – Barry Goldwater.

          • BCSWowbagger

             Have a “like,” Sparky.

            Since you bring up the fearsome Christian theocrat conspiracy of which I am a member, I’m going to invoke my Matthew 7:6 rights and sign off.  I hope you have a most pleasant day.

          • Sparky

            So am I the dog or the swine?  Sorry I lose track.  I have raised both and contrary to popular belief they’re both quite admirable. But rest assured I have no intention to rend anyone.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “Okay, so far you’ve managed to question my sanity, intelligence, maturity and integrity.”

            I support BCSWowbagger 100% on that point.

    • MoonChild02

      Stephanie, please don’t give up and let the two party system win! Vote for another candidate, or start a write-in campaign! You don’t have to vote for Romney or Obama. You can vote for whomever you deem worthy of your vote.

  • Stepheniekdicarlo

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
    that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
    deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That
    whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
    the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
    Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
    powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
    Safety and Happiness.

    Our nation was founded on ALL MEN having the right to life.   While this ideal has been imperfectly upheld, from this idea came our nation.  What will make us great again is returning to our core values as a nation.  If governments are instituted to secure these rights, no candidate who does not support these rights can effectively guide our country.

  • Holly Hansard

    Hmm…  Well, we are still voting for Rick in the Ca primaries June 5th, 2012.

  • Holly Hansard

    Rick Santorum Grass Roots is still going strong, Folks!  Vote Santorum in the primaries if your State hasn’t voted in the primaries yet.  I AM SIGNIFICANT!  

  • bubbalouwee

    Neither Obama or Romney will get my vote.  What is the difference between electing a communist Democrat or a communist Republician?  I voted for Rick Santorum in the primary because I thought his chances were better than Ron Paul.  Now with this development of Rick Santorum dropping out,  I plan on voting for Ron Paul.   Go Ron Paul.   I do not plan on voting for the winning candidate, but for an individual that would be good for our country.  Our country has been destroyed and it is too late to save the republic.   

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      I think you need to reevaluate your definition of Communist…

      • bubbalouwee

        How can you belong to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, and/or the Bilderberg Group and then turn around and say you are defending the US Constitution?  There is no such thing as a pro life abortionist and there is no such thing as a Communist Christian.  It is one way or the other.  If these politicians want to go along with the New World Order, then they should be tried for treason.  The problem is the traitors are in the majority.  Our country has been sold down the river. 

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Ohhhhhhh. It’s the NWO and the Bilderbergs. Now I get it. I’ll be sure to warn you if I hear about any black helicopters headed your way.

          • bubbalouwee

            What?  That is your response.  You dismiss the plans for a global government that the USA is being merged into and as a nation we are in danger of losing our national sovereignty and you just make a snide remark about black helicopters. Sorry, Calvin, but you are beginning to lose credibility with me.  Perhaps you should consider that there are people out there who may still want to vote for Ron Paul even though he has virtually no chance at winning.  Does that mean go ahead and rip them to shreads because that view differs from your own?  Oh, and by the way, how can politicians earn a vote when they belong to groups that are directly opposed to defending the US Constitution, which I thought was a legitimate question?    

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            See, Sparky? Even Bubba here knew I wasn’t sympathetic to his conspiracy theories!

          • bubbalouwee

            Theories?  What happened, Calvin, on 9/11/01?  It seems like I have lost a lot of freedom and liberty since that day.  I am really ticked off that Americans, including women and children, get molested now when traveling and all done for security reasons.  It is almost like the whole event was planned to robbed Americans of their freedom.  It almost seems like communists work this way.   Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, wacky theory because I can’t prove it.  Well, I think the fox is in the hen house and I am most fearful of government leaders. 

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution rests.

          • bubbalouwee

            Too bad you cannot come up with a valid argument for supporting a political candidate who joins organizations opposed to defending the US Constitution.  Nothing but snide remarks and still no answer to the question.  Is it OK to belong to the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and/or Bilderberg Group and still take an oath to defend the US Constitution?  There, that is a simple yes or no question.

          • MoonChild02

            That was mean. Just because some people believe that a conspiracy exists doesn’t mean that they’re insane. There are many who actually have put some dots together that make a lot of sense when you look at it. The NWO may not exist in the way that many have said, and the Bilderbergers are pretty defunct, but there is a kernel of truth behind every story.

            Have you looked into the amount of things that J.P. Morgan, the Rothschild family, and the Rockefeller family all have their hands in? The list is LONG, and much of the information is in the public domain. For example, all of them fund Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, NOW, NARAL, etc., they run the banks in many countries, they give to political campaigns (and become partners so that the donations don’t always show), have been backers of many of the bills that have passed into law, fund wars (including having funded both sides of World War II), etc. In the 1800s, Rothschild backed both sides of the Napoleonic wars, and used knowledge he had to take Britain’s stock market down. He then hired Morgan to fund Rockefeller’s oil company, and made both families billionaires. In the 1940′s-60′s, the Rockefellers were the ones behind the taking down of the electric cars all over the country, replacing them with diesel buses and trains, making us dependent on oil, leading to our current situation. It’s even said that the David Rockefeller admitted to a friend of his that the family funded feminism to make sure that they could tax women and men – I’m not saying it’s true, but still.

            When you look into what is going on in the world, most of what is being done has been funded by someone, and many times it’s one of those three groups. There may not be any real NWO, but there are people pulling strings behind the scenes of a lot of what we see.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            With all due respect, I have fairly substantial experience debating conspiracy theorists. Pretending their delusions are anything other than delusions does no good for either society or for the conspiracy theorists themselves.

          • 12angry_men

            So if you can’t argue with em, then just call em crazy?

          • 12angry_men

            Although I do have to give you credit; you definitely post the most responses out of any of the author’s here. I can imagine you get tired of debating people sometimes. 

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            No, just when a threshold like “New World Order” is crossed.

          • 12angry_men

            Ah. I’ve never been the type to really enjoy debating conspiracy theorists as it can get quite frustrating, but it does sometimes force me to research into my own arguments more thoroughly which is never a bad thing. 

          • bubbalouwee

            Debating or calling them crazy?  You are the one that brought up conspiracy theory because you seem to equate global government with a conspiracy.  What has the UN been doing for the last 67 years?  Shoving their agenda on the whole world.  Why are US politicians so concerned about the international community if we are so “free” to run our own affairs? 

            In addition, the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed at Necedah that there are plans for a world government involving the international banking community.  The Bible indicates that the anti-christ will be at the head of this godlessness.  You can call this global mess whatever you want, but to me it looks like reality.  Who is the one suffering from delusions, Calvin?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            You are.

          • bubbalouwee

            In any event, Calvin, thanks for speaking out for the rights of the unborn and working to protect human life.  Although I try to vote, I have little confidence in modern day politics.  I believe life on earth gets  much better when the human heart of each individual decides to pursue the truth, beginning with a relationship with Jesus Christ. 

  • BCSWowbagger

    Ron Paul: signed a Personhood Pledge, vowing to recognize the inalienable civil rights of the unborn at the federal level from the moment of conception.

    Mitt Romney: won’t even discuss the legal personhood of the fetus.

    Frankly, this makes me ill.  I’ll vote for Romney when he nabs the nomination, because he’ll be the best thing on the market, but, until then, I am going to continue to support the only candidate with an expressed believe that the unborn person is ACTUALLY A PERSON.  The NRLC continues to telegraph its utter irrelevancy in the post-Live Action, post-Personhood USA world.

  • mamazee73

    We have no prolife options here in Canada, but you in the US also have Ron Paul, a doctor whose two founding principles for his clinic were :treat everyone, even if they can’t pay and NO ABORTION. I wish we had *one* prolife hopeful here in Canada!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/susan.leach1 Susan Leach

    The respect for life is important, but it is not the major factor in choosing a president.  The economy, national defense, and individual freedom are more important to me.  Of course, I wouldn’t vote for Obama if someone held a gun to my head.  He is the most evil president we have ever had.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

       Why is Obama “evil”?

      • Sparky

        Oh come on, Michelle – you know ‘ cause he’s a “liberal”. Can I even say that word on this site? lol

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Respect for life is intertwined with individual freedom. If society accepts that we can violate some people’s right to life for our convenience, then all other rights are endangered, too.

      • Oedipa

         Nice slippery slope you’ve constructed for our enjoyment! Wheeeee!!

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          I like how you resort to sarcasm when you have no argument. That the pro-abortion side is also the side of ever-expanding government control into so many other aspects of our life pretty much proves my point: liberals don’t respect anyone’s rights – not babies, not adults.

  • kathy

    I support Newt who is totally prolife and is the only one who can save the America we love.  Vote, pray, and donate to Newt Gingrich.

  • J.S.

    Not everyone is completely convinced by his pro-life stance. There’s a petition going around here: 
    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/attention-mitt-romney-we-want-a-pro-life/ calling for him to stick to his pro-life agenda if he’s elected president.