The Twelve Days of Clarity - Day Five - Protecting Innocent Life?

Many conservatives consider social issues when voting a candidate.  Did you ever wonder why the Contract with America contained no social issues when it was done to elect Republicans who are mostly conservative? Found it very strange but then when I realized that Newt Gingrich as Speaker had the final say, it made sense.  You will learn at the link below for Gingrich that he is not a big supporter of protecting innocent life unless it can buy him votes.  Mitt Romney has been all over the place and takes the side of where he can get votes which is detailed below.  Neither man has any core values when it comes to protecting innocent life.  The facts speak for themselves:

The Twelve Days of Clarity - Day Five - Protecting Innocent Life?

by ThinkFirst


The Twelve Days of Clarity
Day Five
Protecting Innocent Life?


Which of the candidates, Gingrich, Perry, or Romney has actually done something about the protection of innocent life in the womb - rather than merely pontificating about it?

Can conservatives risk a candidate whose record is not clear on the matter of life?

Why would conservatives settle for anything less than one who has a real-world record of leadership in the defense of life as the chief executive of a State which is larger and more-diverse than many nations?

Among the 418 bills Newt Gingrich has co-sponsored with Nancy Pelosi there are a number of heinously anti-life bills.

Since February 2, 1994 Willard “Mitt” Romney has made at least 21 mutually-inconsistent statements on abortion. And it appears that his condemnation of a critical ad by Sam Brownback as completely false is itself false.


Social Issues

Rick Perry is a conservative of conviction, not of convenience. On the bedrock issues of life, marriage and the Second Amendment, Perry’s conservative values are clear and consistent, and his record backs up his rhetoric.

MORE:

Source:  http://nevils-station.com/qp_files/quam-plures/blog5.php/2011/12/08/the-twelve-days-of-clarity-day-five-protecting-innocent-life

Rep. Bart Stupak admitted plan to betray pro-lifers in Cheboygan, MI, Oct 29, 2009

Cong Stupak (D-MI) had no intention of voting against Obamacare going back to last October from this video of his own words. We believe that his 'pro-life' stance was all for show, and he knew all along that he was going to vote "YES" for Obamacare. We also believe that the Obama Executive Order, which is meaningless, was going to be offered at the last minute was part of that sham. Stupak needs defeated on November 2nd, 2010, and discover you cannot go around saying one thing while doing another when it comes to pro-life or any other agenda item of the Congress.

Bart Stupak personifies the low class of Democrats in the Congress who will lie, cheat, and steal to get their agenda passed even though it conflicts with the Constitution. To Democrats like Stupak it seems the Constitution is the same as an Obama Executive Order -- worthless.

All you can say is that Stupak was another sell-out but have to wonder if he would have gotten his airport money if the Democrats knew about this video



From Human Events email that provided the link to the email:

Shockingly, Bart Stupak was back-pedaling to explain to the Washington Times the secret videotape (now on YouTube here) from one year ago, where somebody caught him admitting he planned to betray pro-lifers all along. "STUPAK: If I'm given a clean shot, and I'm allowed to bring it up, and a rule comes up, and I'm allowed to have my amendment, and let's say we lose that 218 to 216, would I then vote for health care? Yeah, if it's a good bill, I would, because I want health care, and as long as I had a shot to vote my conscience, then I would feel comfortable. I've done all I could as one member to protect the sanctity of life.

PICKET: Then how come you didn't vote for Pence's amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood back in 2009?

STUPAK: I don't think I ever voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions.in my district...when they do it, there is a segregation of funds that go with it." In other words, Stupak believes we should pay Planned Parenthood's abortion doctors, abortion counselors, their rent, utility bills, and phone bills, so long as the money doesn't pay for abortions. (Huh?) Money is fungible. I've had enough. We're taking a stand.

Stupak considered himself pro-life and never once voting to de-fund Planned Parenthood? That is mind boggling to say the least. How could this man be considered pro-life and vote to fund Planned Parenthood? Shows that the Democrats like Stupak are Pro-Life in Name Only. They stand for nothing except the Democrat Party. Is Stupak a member of the Progressive House Democrat Caucus because he sure sounds like one?

Truth Comes Out - 'Stupak 11' Requesed $4.7B in Earmarks

Suprise, suprise! 'Stupak 11' so-called pro-life Democrats sold out for $4.7B in earmarks which we are sure that Obama/Pelosi willingly granted them. The travesty by these so-called pro-life Democrats should put an end to any discussion of a pro-life Democrat in office because they all have their price to sell out the unborn. Now we know what that price is -- $4.7B!

After voting ‘yes’ on health care, ‘Stupak 11' requested $4.7 billion in earmarks
Sunlight Foundation
3/26/10
Anupama Narayanswamy and Bill Allison

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the "Stupak 11" released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion--an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money this week than they did a year ago:

Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa., Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Ohio.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, which passed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Excerpt: Read more at reporting.sunlightfoundation.com