ABC News: Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain declined to sign Susan B Anthony List’s Pro-Life Presidential Pledge, while the organization says five other GOP 2012 candidates have signed the pledge.
SBL List called on each GOP presidential candidate to agree to four specific anti-abortion pledges including only nominating pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to key positions in their administrations if they were elected president.
Cain issued a statement to explain why he chose not to sign the pledge. He said he agrees with the first three parts of the pledge because he “adamantly” supports the appointing pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to his Cabinet and the Executive Branch as well ending taxpayer funding for abortions, but he had a problem with the last part of the pledge.
“The fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” he said. “I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues. In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.” [MORE]As several of you pointed out in the comment section of the Romney post, Herman Cain has also declined to sign the same pledge. So what is the difference? Simple, it is a matter of trust. For Herman Cain, there isn't anything in his record to question his sincerity on the abortion issue. Not so for Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that Romney has changed positions on this issue (along with a few other issues).
Fair or unfair people will question the true motives of Romney's decision. Is his refusal exactly what he states or is Mitt reverting to his old ways. That is why for Herman Cain, refusing to sign SBA List's pledge won't effect him as much as it will Romney.
On the plus side for Romney, Cain's refusal will give Romney some much needed cover.
Via: ABC News
Posts
8 comments:
Another way to respond would have been that this is a state issue, which in my opinion it is. I would have liked to hear Cain say that. Or any candidate. Not everything needs to be decided by the federal government. Ugh.
Can't argue with you on Romney's flip flop on the abortion issue. His credibility is lacking.
This is a non issue. The president, regardless of party, has little to no say at all in abortion. While it is true that federal money does end up going to fund abortion, legally speaking it does not.
On top of that it is admitting that you are putting a test on judge nominee's which is unconstitutional.
Abortion is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. I could care less where a candidate that is for a federal office stands on abortion or guns. They can't really do anything about either.
This is a state issue.
No government (state or federal) has the right to okay the killing of a human life without due process. Placing a lower value on a human life because it is unborn, diseased, or just not what the mother wanted is completely ignorant of the fact that it is a human life and should be protected as such. Anyone who would cower from taking a stand on such a basic issue is fundamentally flawed as an individual.
People can not choose which lives are worth living and which lives deserve to be extinguished. I'm actually surprised that so many people would waver on such a basic human right, but hold firmly to issues like DOMA or DADT.
The primary function of government is to protect the rights of people- period. To allow some people to execute other people is a complete perversion of the role of government, whether it be euthanasia or abortion.
@justaconservativegirl,
With all due respect to abortion and guns being a "state issue," you're wrong.
They are constitutional amendments, and from the same constitution that all fifty states are beholden to.
Period.
Your type thinking is exactly why nobody can have a gun in cities like Chicago and San Francisco and Washington DC because "it should be a state issue."
I'm a Texan, but I'm an American first. Most states could not exist solely without being part of the UNITED States.
Furthermore, my years in the military were spent defending AMERICA, not my home state although it benefited as well.
There are constitutional issues that affect all fifty states. That is why we have a constitution. Washing your hands, as Cain has now done on TWO constitutional issues and claiming they are "state issues, is why I no longer support him.
He benefited from a lot of FEDERAL laws that states HAD to adhere to, such as Affirmative Action and EEOC doctrines, not to mention inter and intrastate commerce laws he had to deal with at Coca-Cola and Pillsbury, plus his other organizations.
Where were his "state issues" stances back then? I've researched him through various industry rags and have no found one single quote or mention from him about it being okay for one state to inhibit restaurants while another state is friendlier.
I was a HUGE Herman Cain supporter early on. But then I began doing some looking at him.
Put simply, he is more than qualified to be a Cabinet member, such as Secretary of Commerce.
He is NOT qualified to be POTUS.
--AOA
AOA:
You kind of made my point. Those are issues for the court, not the federal legislator or the executive branch. Now, where they come into play is with the judges that are nominated and approved to be seated. But the president has no way to change the current laws on abortion. You want to stop federal funding of abortion, you have to do it on the state level. The money gets trickled down to the states and they use it to pay for abortions at the community clinic levels. That is where you will stop it. There is already a law in place saying that federal money can't be used. It has to be stopped at the state level.
If states stop funding planned parenthood, it won't matter that the federal government alots money to it, because the state won't give it to them. Planned Parenthood gets it's money at the state level.
Roe V. Wade won't be overturned in our lifetimes. You have to stop the money.
ConservativeGirl,
Understood, however, it's not about "funding."
Gun laws need no funding. The Second Amendment is clear--shall not be infringed.
Period.
The fact that Cain would not stand on EITHER foot and instead tossed that issue out to the states "to decide" blew it for me and for millions of other veterans who fought for that constitution and the rights therein.
Whether I agree with Roe v Wade (and to be the uber-conservative I am, my views on abortion are almost a dichotomy), it's not about the funding--it's about the legality.
I don't want Roe v Wade overturned. What I want is the morals of our nation called into question that in turn cause the need for Roe v Wade.
Same with guns. If we had a government we could trust, a justice system that did what it's supposed to do, and an administration that utilized the military correctly (national defense), we would have zero need for guns for self-defense.
But human nature being what it is, we don't and we won't. Thus, we have a constitution with its Bill of Rights to guarantee us these rights and freedoms.
That document is sacred to most conservatives. If Cain can't--or won't--take a firm stand on the Bill of Rights, then he has exactly zero business even thinking about running for president.
Regards,
--AOA
HYPOCRITES!!!! When Cain doesn't sign it, you are all very quick to give him a pass, but very quick to jump on Romney when he also didn't sign it out of wisdom. If romney is considered to be a flip flopper, than Cain is no longer a true pro life after this. He also flipped and tried to cover himself with the appointing an Muslim. "Flip we Cain"...
GO ROMNEY 2012
Post a Comment