|
|
Charlie Crist on AbortionRepublican |
Not exactly your standard Democratic primary platform. But the voice in the robocall really is Crist's and so were the positions he stressed. But it was Charlie Crist circa 2006--not 2014. Back then he was running in the Republican primary for governor and paid for the calls to shore up his conservative support and push back against rival Tom Gallagher's assertion that Crist was a moderate. They certainly were never intended for Democratic voters.
A spokesman for the Crist campaign called it a "shady voter suppression tactic."
Looking back, that vote took some nerve for a first term Republican, but it didn't feel huge to me at the time. While I didn't like abortion personally, I was equally opposed to government inserting itself into such a personal medical decision. I thought this should be a woman's decision--period--with whatever input she sought from her doctor, her partner, or her clergy. I was only voting my judgment and my conscience. Isn't that what legislators were supposed to do?
On Oct. 15, 2003, with the court's approval, Terri's feeding tube was finally removed.
Terri's parents were joined by a well-organized band of anti-abortion activists. State Republicans passed "Terri's Law." As all this craziness unfolded in Florida and Washington, it seemed there was only one Republican officeholder in either place who wasn't bellowing loudly about Terri Schiavo and what she and her husband should want.
The Republican attorney general of Florida.
Me.
I thought the whole thing was an abominable circus and a cruel embarrassment. The best evidence we had said Terri would never wish to live like this. I certainly understood it. Neither would I.
I understood the passions and the politics, but I didn't think the people of Florida had elected me to second-guess a suffering family at a time like that.
What's the point of that? It certainly isn't rooted in traditional conservative principles, one of which is "Stay out of other people's lives." If the thought is less government and more freedom, where's the freedom part? Seriously! Instead of trying to tell other people how to live their lives, just go and live yours!
Isn't that obvious? To me it is.
And what could be more important--or more personal--than a woman and her own body? Abortion has been legal since 1973 when the US Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. I understand not everyone agrees with the court's decision. Still, it is the established law of the land.
"The Republican Party and the right wing of that party went so far right, it's exactly why Marco Rubio stayed there, it's exactly the same reason that I left," said Crist. "He wants to overturn--listen to me, women watching-- overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does not support stem-cell research; you know, these are extreme views that I am not comfortable with."
Meek said Crist's decision was more pragmatic. "We know why the governor is running as an independent--because he couldn't beat Marco Rubio," Meek said.
As an independent candidate, Crist vetoed an education package championed by Republican legislators, along with a bill requiring women to get ultrasound exams before abortions.
"I think it's always funny to listen to the governor attack me for the positions he himself held just six months ago, when he was trying to be the biggest conservative in the world and win the Republican primary," Rubio said.
A: No, I would not. I think this is a very personal decision. And I think it is a decision that a woman should make and have the right to make after consulting with her family, her physician, and her clergy. But not her government. Having said that, there's another issue that's on the table right now that deals with this sensitive area, and it's called "partial birth abortion." And I must tell you, I think it is wrong. I think it should stop. And I think that as a member of the United States Senate in January of 1999, I would vote to stop it. Unfortunately, my opponent, Bob Graham, has voted not once, not twice, but three times to continue to allow this brutal procedure to go forward. And I just don't think it's reasonable. And I think it's extreme.
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research". [Supporting this statement means the candidate would ban such research; opposing it means the candidate would allow such research].
Congressional summary:: Women's Health Protection Act: makes the following limitations concerning abortion services unlawful and prohibits their imposition or application by any government:
Opponent's argument against (Live Action News): This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.
Congressional Summary: Congress finds the following:
Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(National Review, July 17, 2014): During hearings on S. 1696, Senators heard many myths from abortion proponents about the "need" for the bill's evisceration of all life-affirming legislation.
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Public Funding of Abortions (Such as Govt. Health Benefits and Planned Parenthood)' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."