Making America Stronger One Abortion at a Time
By Scott Editor | Scott's Archive
April 23, 2004

It's been a good year for babies. President Bush has signed two pieces of legislation that give vital protection to defenseless children. The first law bans the procedure properly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Pro-choice activists were upset to see a law that prevents doctors from collapsing a child's spine while being born. Apparently the far-left thinks it's rational for a woman to change her mind when giving birth to her son or daughter. It's okay for a woman to incubate a child for nine months and then have it terminated at the last second because it's her body and she has the right to do what she wants to do with her body.

Another law President Bush signed that has feminist and misguided liberals shrilling at the top of their lungs is one that makes it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. This means that if a mugger violently attacks a woman and consequently disrupts or kills her unborn child, he can be charged with something more than a measly count of aggravated battery that will have him back on the streets by the end of the year.

These two measures are great victories and welcomed by the moderates in this country. It's not a far-right position to think it's nothing less than barbaric to terminate a full-grown fetus as it's being born, and it's certainly not extreme to believe an assault on a growing fetus warrants criminal charges.

Now we bring in John Kerry who has suddenly shifted his focus from environment and energy policies to abortion, an issue he's vocally supporting just days before tens of thousands of people are expected to march into the nation's capital for a women's rights rally this Sunday.

Kerry will meet with leaders of women's groups today to compare his stance on abortion with what he says are President Bush's "extreme" anti-abortion positions, even though Kerry has said he would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support his position; a more radical and extreme position than Bush's take who approves of abortion in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life. (By the way, don't ask a liberal how often a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, but if it ever has happened don't ask a liberal why it takes nine months to decide if she wants to keep it.)

So why is Kerry beating this drum? Obviously he wants the attention of the tens of thousands of pro-life activists (up to one million), but he should be focusing on a more important group than one that will probably vote for him anyway. The phrase "nominate only Supreme Court justices who would support his position" does not resonate well with moderates and Independents. And there are 1.4 million of us in the great state of Florida, and with two more electoral votes since the 2000 election giving us a total of 27, we'll be even important than time.

Promising to only nominate pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court, Kerry is sending a message to the millions of Independents across the country who don't want a liberal Supreme Court. A justice who supports abortion is likely to also support marriage for homosexuals. Poll after poll indicates the majority of Americans, while accepting gays, don't want them to get married for reasons I've outlined in recent articles.

Kerry's making a huge mistake. By addressing the National Organization for Women, Pro-choice America and the Planned Parenthood Federation, Kerry will not gain a single vote. These people already hate Bush and will most likely vote for him anyway.

A recent Gallup Poll finds that Americans are evenly divided on the abortion issue, but voter activity is stronger on the pro-life side and they are more likely to vote for the candidate protecting fetuses than the pro-choice people voting for the candidate protecting "women's rights."

At one rally earlier today, Kerry had this to say in front of a large group of supporters:

"I believe that in the year 2004 we deserve a president who understands that a stronger America is where women's rights are just that, rights, not political weapons to be used by politicians of this nation."

So, senator, how is your support for the right to abort not a political weapon especially since you personally oppose it? How does America become stronger when you give all the power of creating life to one gender when it takes two to create a child?

He goes on: "We are going to have a change in leadership in this country to protect the right of choice." And to deny the rights of unborn babies, I should add. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said: "John Kerry's position in favor of partial-birth abortion shows how far outside the mainstream he is." Why doesn't Kerry realize this?

Since I will not be voting for President Bush this year I must now look for a third party candidate. I will definitely not be voting for John Kerry whom if president would blacklist the most qualified judges in our country if he/she would not protect an illegal procedure that has no protection is the United States Constitution. How is that making America stronger Mr. Kerry?

[  Home  |   O'Reilly Watch  |   Coulter Analysis  |   Movie Reviews  ]
Copyright 2004 All rights reserved. Contact Editor: Scott