Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Pro-Life Blues: Not Much to Get Fired Up About in Governor's Race

There was a long article from the Democrate-Gazette on abortion recently. The word was that this was an attempt by DZ editor Simmons to trap pro-life candidates with gnat-straining hypotheticals.

I assume the candidate responses were accurately reported, or we would have heard from their newsletters by now. After going over them in detail, I have to say that there is no one in the governor's race that a pro-lifer can really get behind with any enthusiasm. I don't mean a pro-life poser whose tells themselves they are pro-life because it makes them feel good, I mean someone who actually wants to see the number of homicides by abortion decrease dramatically.

I make this distinction because being "pro-life" in today's GOP has become merely a feeling in your heart, not a commitment to any action. It just means that you 'feel bad' that so many babies are getting ripped up, not that you would spend any precious political capital trying to stop any of it. In fact, you only mention your feelings when it will GAIN you political capital.

(continued- click "WEDNESDAY" below and scroll down for the rest of the article, or if sent straight here just scroll down).

37 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Let's start with the Democrats side. Attorney General Bebee's statements were nonsensical. I don't know which of the three writers interviewed him, but there is either a problem in reporting, or Bebee is insultingly illogical in his answers. For example, Bebee actually contended that overturning Roe v. Wade would not have much effect! He said the decision was "only a shell of its original self".

If accurate, this is the quote of an insane person, or a person who wants to fool most of the people all of time. The restrictions on child-murder in the womb are minimal. Courts overturn even bans on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion unless the bills contain loopholes so wide as to make them meaningless.

Roe v. Wade a "shell of its original self"? I will tell you what is a "shell of its (his/her) original self". A baby that has been cut up and sucked out of the womb by an abortionist. And it happens in your country one million times per year.

Even the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion, which no civilized society should ever permit, is still carried on in America and in this state. Courts have thrown out our partial birth abortion ban on the grounds that it was a violation of "Roe v. Wade".

Enforcement of the national ban has also been suspended until the Supreme Court hears the case this Fall. In other words this "shell of its original self" called Roe v. Wade is still being used to give legal protection to those who kill babies up to the day of delivery. In fact, the head can be delivered outside the womb, and the brains can then be sucked out of the birthing baby right there because this "shell of its original self" is still keeping even partial birth abortion as legal as feeding your cat.

Bebee amplified by saying, "much of the original substance of the decision modified by subsequent ones, it is not clear what practical effect would be served if Roe v. Wade were ‘overturned. ’”

The practical effect is that we would be able to put people in jail for killing babies again. Babies that right now, to our shame, do not enjoy the protection of law. Mike Bebee is giving some disingenuous slick lawyer talk here. Anyone who wants to listen to four or eight more years of such talk can vote Bebee. Personally, it gives me the runs.

Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision, and it needs to be struck down post-haste. Any man who would try to pass it off as something that should stand beacause it is only "a shell of its original self" is either too stupid or too dishonest to become Governor of this state.

The rest of his answers were equally objectionable, but time does not permit.

Bebee has convinced pro-lifers to vote AGAINST him, but who do we vote for? Asa Hutchinson. We vote for him so we don't have to wade through Mike Bebee's triple-talk, not because Asa Hutchinson has made a case that he deserves the active support of pro-lifers. Frankly, there are other candidates who are more deserving if that is your motivating issue.

Hutchinson said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but he has no plans to help bring that about. I heard someone say that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

South Dakota has passed a bill that will directly challenge Roe v. Wade. Would Asa be in favor of a similar law for Arkansas? No, because he favors "exceptions" for rape and incest. The rape issue is very troubling to me because of how unfair the situation is to the woman. I have turned it over in my head time and again and it comes down to this: Abortion does not unrape a woman, and I don't believe in executing children because their fathers are criminals.

If life is sacred, it is sacred, and the life of the mother is the only justifiable exception. If other exceptions are valid, why aren't they all? The rape/incest exceptions are hard to defend intellectually if you hold that life is sacred. Of course, this issue is not being decided rationally. There is a lot of emotion and deception involved, and that is a bad way to conduct government.

So if someone else did all the heavy lifting and got Roe overturned, would Hutchinson push for the abortion restrictions that he says are his position? The article notes: "Neither Hutchinson nor Beebe would say what action they would take as governor if the Roe decision were overturned."

He won't say! Now that's an agenda that inspires confidence and enthusiasm, right? Blech! After 30 years of work, pro-lifers deserve better.

Asa Hutchinson knows most of the right answers. He knows Roe should be overturned, he knows the "health" exception is a sham, and he knows abortions should be greatly restricted. He knows the right thing to do. According to the parable, the slave who knows the right thing to do and does it not will get more lashes than he who does not know what the right thing to do it.

I hope we just have to wait until the Washington wears off, but I am not opptimistic. I fear that unborn children have no friend and no protector in the race for Governor of this pro-life state.

12:25 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous down with theocracy said...

Nice rant but I think you are under the misconception that overturning Roe will end abortion in America. Anyone that can read knows that if Roe is overturned, the individual states then get to decide. The only thing that this will accomplish is pushing the price of abortion up. If Roe is overturned, only women wealthy enough to take a trip to Illinois, California, or some other non-theocratic state will be able to afford an abortion. This will also put an even heavier burden on our already strapped medicaid system here in Arkansas because we will be adding more and more unwanted poor children. I am guessing that after Roe is overturned you will want to go after Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized birth control. Why don't you take care of your own business and keep your nose out of everyone elses? I am sure there are some things in your life that I wouldn't approve of but you don't see me snooping around your house.

1:54 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

"Nice rant but I think you are under the misconception that overturning Roe will end abortion in America."

No misconceptions here. I am aware that it will not end them all, but if it saves the life of even one innocent child it is worth it. It will really save a lot more than one. The law is a great teacher. Many of those who could even fly to California to get one would not, because the law adds moral impetus to the truth that this is wrong.

"This will also put an even heavier burden on our already strapped medicaid system here in Arkansas because we will be adding more and more unwanted poor children"

A lot of abortions are performed on the children of people who can afford children, like women who don't want it to interfere with their "careers". But even if it does not, being poor is not a capital offense.

On the other hand, social security and medicare are in trouble precisely because there is a shortage of younger workers. 45 million lives have been subtracted from the economy. To replace them, the government has turned a blind eye to illegal immigration. Wrong produces more wrong.

I am guessing that after Roe is overturned you will want to go after Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized birth control.

You are not a very good guesser.

Why don't you take care of your own business and keep your nose out of everyone elses? I am sure there are some things in your life that I wouldn't approve of but you don't see me snooping around your house.

Call me a crazy, right wing nut job, but I just think it should be against the law to kill people. Sometimes I wish I was more "moderate", like the centrist, sane, "moderates" who think it OK to suck babies brains out.

If there is reasonable cause to suspect that I am killing people, the authorities are perfectly within their rights to "snoop around my house". You expect me to "mind my own business" if there is a crime? That is a receipe for anarchy.

Maybe you think the civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s should have "minded their own business". No? Only when it steps on your toes then. Social policy should be designed around what does and does not offend you because it is all about you.

3:04 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, I too was concerned about Asa's comments so I called them and they said that Bill Simmons had sent over a HUGE questionaire that was nothing more than a trap. Asa is very solid on Life issues - Nothing has to be done after Roe is overturned because AR is already a pro - life state (it's in our constitution). Therefore, no need for the S.D. legislation.

Asa has been walking in the right to life marches since the early 80's and has a 100% voting record with right to life.

I think you need to do a little more research before you make attacks like that - try talking to the campaign next time. I know they will love to explain things like this to you or anybody else.

6:34 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats are of course hopeless, and the "pro-life" GOP only throws the lifers a bone where the demographics demand it. Look at the Republicans beating their chest over Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell funding. They'll milk that photo-op for all it's worth in order to distract attention away from the fact that they refuse to outright ban such research-- frankenstein "researchers" can continue killing human embryos with private and state funding.

7:05 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

This blog is an open forum. Asa's staff or Asa himself is welcome to come on here and dispute anything I say. This is one of those cases where I WANT to be wrong.

I allowed at the beginning for the fact that the Democrat Gazette is NOT a reliable source of information, and that the questionaire was a trap. If it is just a matter of being skittish, that is one thing, but I'd like to know what Asa's pro-life agenda is from ANY forum.

You mention the constitution. I guess you mean Amendment 68. It is a toothless placebo unless one enforces the civil penalties in seperate enabling legislation. If Roe v. Wade were tossed out tomorrow what specifically in Amendment 68 prevents twenty doctors from performing 20 abortions a day on the Capitol steps? Nothing in the amendment itself!

The amendment is only good for protecting enabling legislation from being tossed out by the activist judges on our state supreme court. But where is the enabling legislation that the amendment is there to authorize?

You may say 5-61-102, which makes performing an abortion a felony. So is Asa's position that he will enforce this law from 1969? If so, that sounds good to me. I thought he was for exceptions though, and the law on the books gives none!

Here is the law....

5-61-102. Unlawful abortion.

(a) It is unlawful for any person to administer or prescribe any medicine or drug to any woman with child with the intent to produce an abortion or premature delivery of any fetus before or after the period of quickening or to produce or attempt to produce the abortion by any other means.
(b) Any person violating a provision of this section is guilty of a Class D felony.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the charging or conviction of a woman with any criminal offense in the death of her own unborn child in utero.

History. Acts 1969, No. 61, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2553; Acts 1999, No. 1273, § 5; 2005, No. 1994, § 428.

Now that is a strong pro-life law. If it is his position that this would become the law of our state once Roe is overturned then I don't think pro-lifers would have a problem with that. This has not been made clear in ANY forum.

As for the 100% pro-life voting record, it is better than Bebees, but legislators have protected themselves from tough abortion votes. Even Bebee voted for our state Partial Birth Abortion Ban. You can have a 100% pro-life voting record without being 100% pro-life, or even an ardent pro-lifer, because tough votes are so rare.

I am glad for every statesman in the march, including Asa. And every statesman in the march has benefitted politically for doing it, including Asa. It is not like the politician is doing ARTL a favor. Both benefit from those marches.

8:07 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You would think you of all people know better than to believe what the Democrat Gazette writes. Asa Hutchinson was the first politician to take a strong, firm pro-life stand in this state. He was out there marching with Right to Life two decades ago. You ought to get your facts straight.

8:30 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey down with theocracy, you just proved once again that the Democratic party wants nothing to do with Christians. And you think that we are so nosy as to "butt in" to your business? Why is it that the same political party that says the government has no right to go into the bedroom thinks the government has the right to go into a woman's womb and murder a baby?

9:07 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, good article. I disagree only on one point. As long as some of us have gotten up on our moral high-horses and said ALL abortions should be abolished except for the life of the mother, we have gotten nothing.
At this point, I want to save babies. I would be happy to vote for politicians who took a firm stance against abortion except in the case of rape, incest (both of which would have to be documented with a police report or some other measure), or the life of the mother. That would save a million babies a year, and I really believe most people would support such a measure. I would be happy to work on educating the woman who had been the victim of rape and incest to see if we could change her mind, but at least the other babies would be safe.
By the way, I'm shocked at how few people who claim to be pro-life have the Choose Life license plates. The cost is $60.00, but the amount above the regular cost goes to support adoption services.

9:08 PM, July 19, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

8:30

You are welcome to point out any specific facts you feel that I am in error on.

4:14 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

9:08

I'd be for anything that is better than what we have now, but Asa gives no evidence, in this article or elsewhere, that he would even push for what you are suggesting. Asa Hutchinson is issuing specific policy proposals every day- where is his policy proposal on abortion? Is it to resurrect the 1969 law? Is it his position that the law needs no resurrecting because it automatically becomes enforcable should Roe be overturned? What?

Also, while I would welcome that legislation for the good it would do, I don't want to confuse that with what just laws would look like. I don't want to leave the impression that is the final goal. Saving every innocent life should be the goal.

4:22 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

When I said "that" legislation in the last paragraph, I meant your suggestion that abortion be illegal with exceptions. That would be acceptable to me as something that is better than what we have now, not as a a just law in its final form.

4:24 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hutchinson has been very clear in his position -- clear long before you were ever around cliamin to be the only guy who cares about protecting life. He has said he would fight to make abortion illegal -- period -- allopwing for exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Now you can say that these three exceptions don't go far enough for you, but that is a different point that the ludicrous suggestion that Asa isn't really pro-life. You sound lie John Brummett. Maybe you think Ronald Reagan wasn't really pro life either. He held the same view as Asa on this.

6:12 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

He has been clear on his position?

Ok, I tell you what, you post the link to his site where he talks about what he will do to end, or even reduce, abortion in this state if he is elected Governor. If you do that and it turns out he has said he will push for laws to end abortions except in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother then I will apologize and write an article explaining I was wrong. Fair enough?

I can show YOU his plan for dealing with almost any issue you can name on his website. YOU show ME his plan to end or even reduce abortion, if he has adavanced one. Put up, or shut up.

6:19 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is all a little silly. Asa has been a leader in the pro-life community for decades. Call and ask Rose Mimms, head of Right to Life. Call and ask Jerry Cox, head of Family Council. Call and ask Betsy Hagin, head of Eagle Forum. There is no reason to make this personal. We need men like Asa.

6:37 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

Then I take it you also are unable to find anything on his website that says he will push for laws to end abortion- with our without those exceptions.

You say this is silly, I'll tell you what is silly- pro-lifers getting energized over a candidate who will not pledge to actually DO anything about their issues.

I don't need to ask Rose Mimms, or Jerry Cox or anyone else about this. I have observed at close range what is going on here. Abortion is not on the Hutchinson plate. He does not really want to talk about it anymore. That is a shame, because we are winning the debate among the people, and Bebee is all wrong on it.

Maybe you missed the thread on how the GOP has co-opted conservative organizations so that they serve the interest of the party, not their grassroots membership. Here is the URL...

http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/co-opting-conservative-organizations.html

I am not saying it fits with the people you mention, just emphasizing that asking "Conservative Leaders" is no longer a guaranteed way to find out who is serious about your issues. Some of them got to liking being wined and dined by the high and mighty a lot more than shaking hands with their own members.

10:16 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asa Hutchinson on Abortion


Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research.

Vote to prohibit human cloning for either medical research or reproductive purposes. The bill would make it illegal to perform, attempt or participate in human cloning. It also would ban shipping or importing cloned embryos or products made from them. Bill HR 2505 ; vote number 2001-304 on Jul 31, 2001
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy. Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt. Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk. Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

11:13 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abortion Issues
(Back to top)


2001 Mr. Hutchinson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Mr. Hutchinson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Mr. Hutchinson supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Mr. Hutchinson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.


How to Interpret these Evaluations:
(Back to top)

Project Vote Smart collects performance evaluations from special interest groups who provide them, regardless of issue or bias. If you have any comments concerning performance evaluations or know of a group that provides ratings not included here, please contact us at ratings@vote-smart.org.

11:15 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Village Voice:

Conservative lawmakers in Washington are ready to make hay under the new administration. Representatives have set their sights on RU-486, with Louisiana's David Vitter and Arkansas's Asa Hutchinson doing their best to impose weird and burdensome restrictions on doctors dispensing it. For starters, Vitter and Hutchinson would insist that a doctor who prescribes the drug have both the ability and equipment on hand to provide surgical backup. That's a little like asking a doctor who prescribes heart medicine to be able to do open-heart surgery, right there in the clinic.

11:18 AM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous uknowwho said...

You have shown me his RECORD. I never complained about his RECORD, I am complaining about his PLAN or lack thereof, to move forward.

I have asked you to show me his plan more than once, and it appears you are unable to do so, even though he has lots of plans about lots of things.

It reminds me of when Congress demanded documents X and Y from Clinton and he sent over documents A-U. Then when Congress complained about the lack of cooperation his people would say "we have sent over thousands of documents". True, just not the ones they were interested in.


I ACKNOWLEDGE that he is conservative enough to vote against partial birth abortion- so did Mike Bebee. That vote is a no brainer that risks almost no political capital for any Republican. Ditto with cutting off Planed Parenthood from taxpayer dollars.

Every one of those votes was a "safe" vote. He has shown a willingness to take risks before if he believed in the cause- prosecuting Clinton for example- where is that determination on this issue?

So far, nothing you have shown here has impacted the point of the article one bit. Asa Hutchinson is not terrible for pro-lifers, but he is not the man to get excited about either. Look, I like the man. I plan to vote for him, but I am not going in with any illusions. I would that he were the next great statesman of our day, but so far there is too much Washington on him for that. D.C. makes you P.C.

It is not possible to be great and de-emphasize this great moral issue. It would be like Abe Lincoln running on other issues besides slavery.

12:11 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, HIS PLAN IS TO DO WHAT HIS POSITION IS - MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL EXCEPT FOR RAPE, INCEST AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER. Why is this so hard for you to understand. His position IS HIS plan.

He also says that he believes that there should be no sales tax on food - your response -- YEAH, but what's his plan.

HIS PLAN IS TO FULFILL HIS POSITION - ELIMINATE THE SALES TAX ON FOOD.

This is a debate over symantics. LET IT GO ALREADY.

2:52 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt has no PLAN on his website. He only has positions - just like Asa. Mark, I love you, but you are trying WAY TOO hard to find fault in Asa when, on this issue, there is none. Here is Jim Holt's website - I see no plan:

Abortion

What is your position on the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion?

The decision is a terrible decision, and should be overturned. It is an early example of the judicial tyranny plaguing our nation today. The law in all 50 states was overturned, and the consent of the governed as the basis for all just governmental power was thrown out.

Unfortunately, many conservatives have made the mistake of being judgmental in saying things like, "you’ve killed your baby!" I’ve counseled many that have aborted their babies. I know that it is one of the most difficult decisions that many women will ever have to make. We should continue to focus on the dangers that abortion presents to women who undergo the procedure. The physical, mental, and emotional scarring has proven to be almost irreparable. If we truly care for the women of our great country, we must end this cruel and gruesome procedure—not just to protect the lives of babies, but for the mothers as well.

Fortunately, we are finally beginning to win this war through educating Americans on this issue. But it’s already cost us over 40 million American lives. That is over 25% of our potential workforce since 1973! This has had consequences for individuals, and for the nation as a whole. It has made Social Security harder to fund. It adds economic pressure driving the illegal alien crisis. Injustice is like that—it always has unintended consequences.

Let me be clear. I would not vote to confirm a federal judicial nominee who I believed would vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade.

Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?

Ideally, none. Though even if our government ended all abortion except for cases of incest or rape, it would definitely be an improvement over what we have now, because it would eliminate approximately 98 percent or better of all abortions performed.

Are there circumstances under which taxpayers should pay for poor women to have abortions? If so, what are they?

No, taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions. They should not be forced to give tax dollars to organizations that support abortion, such as Planned Parenthood. Nor should they be taxed for international aid programs that support abortion. I’d like to cut all such spending from the budget.

2:55 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous 21st majority said...

And you wonder why the GOP does not like you? If you had still been on the staff of Holt I would seriously consider not voting for him. Asa has been very strong in his pro-life stance. It is obvious that your memory only goes back a few years. You have to realize Arkansas is not South Dakota, and trying to force it will only set us back. I would like to know if Holt supports you out landish attack on a good pro-life candidate? Just when things were looking up for the GOP (and Holt) you go out of your way to hurt the
GOP tick, and Holt.

3:45 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

Look guys, I feel your love and am glad that conservatives can disagree without it getting personal. I want to stick to logic and reason here. Pursue the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

The claim from the anonymous blogger is that "his position is his plan", but this thread was in response to a long newspaper article on this issue. The candidates were asked to elaborate on their plans. Here is what the article said,

"Neither Hutchinson nor Beebe would say what action they would take as governor if the Roe decision were overturned."

YOU say his position is his plan, but HE won't say it.

You say it is just symantics, but here is the real word game: If one says he THINKS abortion should be illegal (with exceptions) but is not willing to ACT on those beliefs, operationally it is the same thing as being "personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to legislate that". This is Bebee's position.

Brummett gleefully reported something similar in a column about a month ago. That is, that Asa would not act on his beliefs (position) on abortion.

But you know what, I don't need those guys to tell me that Asa is going soft on abortion, just like I don't need any party loyalists to tell me he is above error. I heard Asa speak maybe 50 times this year. He ignores the issue as much as possible. I don't know that I have ever heard him mention it. You can't talk me out of this because I am going by what I have personally observed, not strictly by the media. Instead of riding my case, ride your candidate's case until there is no grounds for complaint.

3:51 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

21st Majority

No, I don't ever wonder why "the GOP" does not like me. The best of them do, and though I care about the rest, I am not going to worry about it. If they hate me for doing evil I would care. If they hate me because I dare write the inconvienient truth then so be it.

I DON'T go out of my way to hurt Asa. I go out of my way to report the truth, regardless of who it helps or hurts. Nine times out of ten, it will help Asa. Occasionally, like all men including me, he falls down. You want me to ignore that, too bad, I never have liked Kool-aid.

3:57 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Mark M said...

Anon 2:55

You say that Holt has no "plan" on his website, just positions. I did not want to mention this, because I don't want to get a competition going between Jim and Asa, who need to find a way to work together and so far seem to be doing it, but here it is- Holt was quoted in the same article and his answers are better than Asa's.

I mean click the link and scroll down and you will see that the Lt. Governor's race is covered too. Pro-Lifers DO have something to be fired up about in that race.

Read the article. Holt said he would sign a South Dakota like bill. They asked him if we would PUSH for such a bill. He said if the timing was good to overturn Roe he would. It sounds like he not only is opposed to Roe, but would push for a bill that would challenge it, if he thought he had the votes on the Supreme Court to get it done. SOMEONE has to be the one to push the envelope. What an honor it would be if a case from Arkansas was the one that ended the horror of Roe!

I tell you what, try to find something on Asa's website about abortion. Something strong like the stuff you quoted from Holt. I can't find it.

Then the papers ask them some questions. Asa has some good ideas, but won't say if we will try to enact any of them or not. Holt forthrightly answers that he would act if he thought he had a chance to help save babies lives. It's all right there in the article that I link to at the top of this thread.

Does this mean Asa Hutchinson is a bad guy? No. It just means that he should not be surprised if he reaps what he has sown from campaign workers who are motivated by a desire to protect innocent human life. They may not be fired up. No need to get hacked at me about it. I am nothing, except maybe the little boy who was blunt enough to comment on the Emperor's new cloths.

4:15 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous 0t99 said...

Good, good stuff Mark on modern day infanticide.

6:07 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, you obviously haven't heard Asa talk very often. He spoke about abortion in front of 600 people at the Farm Bureau meeting last week. Beebe refused to talk about it util some members of the audience asked him about it.

Asa talked about it at the Arkansas Press Association, the Chamber of Commerce conference, and every other speech he has given in the last 3 months. I don't know if you read the papers, but on occasion, even the DemGaz has reported on his abortion speeches.

In everyone he says that he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade and allow abortions in AR for only rape, incest, and life of the mother. What more of a plan do you need.

6:13 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous gsm0519@sbcglobal.net said...

Mark, although I have come late to this discussion, I believe what you have to say is valid. I know that many conservatives love the idea of Asa as a conservative, but as a Pro-Life person I just cannot get excited about Asa's position. I am not sure that the Pro-Life community will do any better with Asa than Beebe. For me I will vote for Asa becuase he is the lesser of two evils, but he is not a strongly convicted Pro-Lifer.

6:54 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My God people, how strong do you have to be. He talks about it everywhere he goes, he has sponsored legislation in Congress, always been there for pro-lifers, is getting attacked by the left for being an extremist and for some of you, its not enough - Listen to yourselves. It's absurd.

What would you have him do to prove his "committment"? Bomb a clinic - that is about all that is left for him to do.

7:38 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous nooneabovecriticism said...

No, he would not have to bomb a clinic. He would have to give a better answer than this when asked what he would DO to end abortion....

""Neither Hutchinson nor Beebe would say what action they would take as governor if the Roe decision were overturned.""

That is a far cry from bombing a clinic. Just answer the &*^% question. Holt did.

From the link....

"Holt answered the questions point by point. Halter didn’t. Holt said “absolutely” the Roe v. Wade decision should be overturned. ..... He said the Arkansas General Assembly should pass a bill similar to South Dakota’s."

7:48 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess the pro-lifers are tired of working their hearts out for people in exchange for vauge hints of the possiblity of action. They are such babies. They have only been used for 33 years, what are they crying about? We will get around to their agenda right after the next round of give-away programs is passed- maybe.

7:52 PM, July 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt has no PLAN on his website. He only has positions - just like Asa. Mark, I love you, but you are trying WAY TOO hard to find fault in Asa when, on this issue, there is none. Here is Jim Holt's website - I see no plan:

But Asa has no plan OR positions on his website about abortion. Holt has his positions on his website, then when the press asks him if he is willing to do specific things to implement those positions, he says "yes" straight up. Asa has NO positions on his website, and when the press asks him what he would actually DO if Roe were overturned he does not answer.

5:34 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guys, Asa does have positions on his website. I promise you that if someone else besides Bill Simmons asked him about abortion, he would talk forever about the issue and lay out exactly what he thinks should be done.

He has been talking about it in every speech he has given. My point is: Don't read one article that the campaign did not spend alot of time working on and assume that he is ducking an issue.

Read everything in context. Use the analytical part of your mind. Look at his comments over his almost 30 years in public service and then make up your mind about whether he is committed to the unborn of this nation.

5:59 AM, July 21, 2006  
Anonymous Craighead Conservative said...

Ok Guys, lets set some points straight. The only problem with the South Dakota Ban on Abortions is the timing. There are not enough votes (YET) on the SCOTUS to overturn ROE. The South Dakota Ban is exactly what Arkansas will need WHEN Roe is overturned. From what I have read, ASA does not support such a ban, beucase it does not exclude Abortions performed because of Rape and Incest. Regardless of how much Asa proclaims himself Pro-Life, he is not 100% so. Therefore those of us who are 100% cannot get excited about working for someone who does not support our goals of enacting legislation that will protect ALL human life from fertilization to natural death. Asa will get my vote, but he will not get my support in this race. I will not campaign for him. I will spend my time and money helping Jim Holt and Gunner Delay to get elected.

10:43 AM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your site is on top of my favourites - Great work I like it.
»

1:12 PM, August 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like it! Good job. Go on.
»

4:58 PM, August 17, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home