So the Democrats in their own platform strongly support the right of a mother to kill her baby regardless of ability to pay. Sounds like their platform always intended to have government funded abortions. Bart Stupack was a member of a party with this platform and then conceded to a solution that 4 pages later they had said they would never use. Read the following from Page 50 of the 2008 platform:
"Choice
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right
to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all
efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed
choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education
help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for
abortions." Link to PDF of platform
Page 54 and 55 under the heading "Reclaiming Our Constitution and Our Liberties" we reject torture of terrorist and the use of signing statements to alter law. So pouring water on the face of a terrorist is bad but killing unborn american babies is a right of people who made it through that early portion of their life. He used a signing statement to alter law in getting Bart Stupack to support healthcare by using a signing statement to alter the healthcare bill. Lies on top of lies.
Here it is directly from the 2008 platform:
"We reject torture. We reject sweeping claims of “inherent” presidential power. We will revisit
the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight
years. We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. And we will
ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-
Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.
We believe that our Constitution, our courts, our institutions, and our traditions work."
Kill babies and let the government pay for it but don't pour water in the face of a terrorist and never attempt to alter law with presidential signing statements. How can any democrat hold their head high to be a part of this turning America into a weaker nation as socialist and marxist country based upon lies and misdirections.
Here is the bill in PDF and I must admit there if you search the word Abortion it comes up 25 times and is very confusing as it seems to say it is not to be paid with federal funds but then later is says that States can decide to allow it if they want. Very confusing and makes you understand why Stupack wanted an amendment that Reid and Pelosi would not agree to. It is confusing enough that I would imagine the end goal is that as stated in the Democrats platform they want access to abortions regardless of ability to pay.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf
More information on signing statements and rule of law:
Q: Didn’t the American Bar Association declare that Bush’s use of signing statements was unconstitutional?
A: In July 2006, an ABA “Blue Ribbon Task Force”—not “The ABA”—found that these presidential assertions of constitutional authority “undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” The report of the bipartisan commission, which relied on the American Presidency Project database, can be found here: http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf
Q: What does the ABA Task Force say the president should do if he thinks a bill passed by congress includes unconstitutional provisions?
A: Veto the bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment