On the one hand, it may be true that he didn’t write this stuff and didn’t know what was in them. In this case, he was just foolishly oblivious for several years when it came to the contents of a newsletter that bore his name. But then there’s the other hand. Assuming the best, it’s a huge oversight, especially for a political figure. Perhaps it’s just a testament to the weakness of the Republican field.
“Ms. McCorvey said she changed from being an abortion-rights supporter to opponent in 1995 when she saw children playing outside the abortion clinic where she worked â€“ a sight that she said warmed her heart â€“ and became a Christian.”
There’s nothing like a precious moments social gospel, is there?
I wonder what “overturning Roe” means to certain folks. Sure seems like one interpretation could be that it simply becomes a states’ rights issue again, since Roe seemed to be more about who gets to decide than may she or mayn’t she; which, technically, could mean that there could be plenty of states for Jane to go to. But to listen to tcertain moral-federalists, it always sounds like “overturning Roe” means a lot more than that.
Speaking of Fred, when is his assistant DA going to finally put his name on a ticket? Maybe I will just have to write Jack McCoy in this time.
Jeff- They gave me pause. But the feeling passed. Dr. Paul clearly distanced himself from the comments. What more would you ask of him?
McCain is a war hero and can be trusted to tell the truth even when it hurts. His comments on being willing to stay in Iraq for a hundred years give me greater pause than Paul’s newsletters. He has not repented of his wild ideas. Nor of his support for amnesty for illegal aliens. Thus, it is hard for me to get excited about McCain.
Instead of my being “harsh,” I thought maybe the critique would be more along the lines of a damnable media misrepresentin’. Sounds like maybe you think they got it right; but, if they did, well, I won’t get repetitive. But last I checked it is the Law objectively preached and the Spirit invisibly (and radically) moving to convert the dark and depraved human heart…not children playing, buttlerfiles dancing or the dew of the early morn. For my part, I am underwhelmed at how certain presentations are accepted simply because it props up a certain, seemingly more important social and political ethic. The transparency is blinding.
Speaking of harsh and damning, I really don’t have anything against ethics, and the g-word never crossed my mind. I was simply saying that the “overturn Roe” rhetoric seems to be code not so much for literally giving rights back to states as much as it seems to have evolved into yet applying a moral-federalist rule, only this time more in favor of the unborn and less for the upright one in which the former is housed.
So, does Paul want to literally “go back to pre-1973” (states’ rights) or, more figuratively speaking, “overturn Roe” (outlaw reproductive rights at the federal level)? I am assuming there are plenty of “overturn Roe” proponents here: what do *you* mean?