Palins extremist views concerning Choice are about be exposed nationwide

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/05/abortion-rights-groups-target-palin/

Abortion Rights Groups Target Palin
By Liza Porteus Viana
Sep 5th 2008 3:29PM

A number of pro-choice groups are targeting Sarah Palin, spending a ton of cash in an effort to make sure women - particularly undecided voters, no doubt - don't take too much of a liking to the feisty Alaska governor and cast their vote for John McCain in November. snip

"This is the most anti-choice ticket in history of the Republican Party," NARAL Political Director Beth Shipp told the paper. "McCain put someone as outside the mainstream as you can on his ticket, which is Sarah Palin."NARAL says Palin is especially troublesome for the Independent and Republican pro-choice women in suburban and exurban swing districts who may play a pivotal role in the election. The group will reportedly spend $10 million to target 34 to 35 congressional districts in battleground states.

NARAL also points out that Palin, a member of the anti-abortion group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. But she also said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. But when it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund says of Palin: "This selection may satisfy the right wing of the Republican Party, but it will further alienate mainstream women voters." This group is also spending $10 million to reach out to pro-choice voters in battlegrounds.

EMILY's List, which supports female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, will spend a similar amount. This group on Wednesday released a new poll on what women voters, including Sen. Hillary Clinton supporters, think of Palin and the McCain-Palin ticket as compared to the Obama-Biden ticket.

Of the 800 likely Democratic, Republican, and Independent women voters, the poll found, among other things:

-Palin's background and personal narrative are not particularly appealing to women voters

-Several of Palin's positions on issues, including that on abortion, alienate large segments of the women's electorate and add to the perception that the GOP ticket is out of step with women voters' views and priorities.

-Women voters conclude that the Obama/Biden ticket is more in step with the issues and concerns that are important to women than is the McCain/Palin ticket.

not the tripe about her kids

all her extremist views need to see the light of day!

I knew that issue would be their demise. Really. That's a sick, demented view on abortion.

unqualified VP choice.

:kick:

people have no trouble in sending children off to war.

This does not seem like smaller less intrusive government to me....

Sun rises in East?

The question is, how often has her record backed up her rhetoric on issues of interest to families?

Not much, it turns out. Restrictions on abortion in Alaska have actually been loosened during her tenure. Last November, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected a 1997 law requiring girls younger than 16 to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion. Palin slammed the ruling as "outrageous" and had her attorney general file for a rehearing, but it was promptly denied.

...

Even Palin's commitment to pro-life legislation has been questioned back home. In April, the governor denied the state legislature's request for extra debates on two controversial anti-abortion bills, one requiring minors to obtain parental consent before having abortions and another outlawing partial-birth abortion except to save the life of the mother. After state senators failed to reach agreement, the chamber's president tried to attach them to the agenda of a special legislative session being held on Palin's top legislative priority: a new natural gas pipeline. Palin demurred. "Alaskans know I am pro-life and have never wavered in my belief in the sanctity of every human life," she said in a statement. "These issues are so important they shouldn't be diluted with oil and gas deliberations."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157541/output/print


We don't really know. If we take her at her word she didn't just get the chance to do it yet.

Despite the pandering by Bush and the GOOP, the Republican government did nothing to try to outlaw abortion. Now Palin, who made strong statements while campaigning, has not delivered on the rhetorick either. Someone really needs to call them on that: for all the pandering over the last decade, they have delivered nothing. And you (anti-choice, "values voters", etc) keep voting for them because they make tall promises. They get your vote, you get talk. And a government that is 99% against your self-interests.

You still need to explain what her views are to the pro-choice majority. But the history of all talk, no action needs to be said to the anti-choice crowd as well. That would certainly dull the excitement that Palin dug up. That message would need to come from someone other than the campaign. Who wants to start a 527?

Remind everyone that the only way to "ban" abortion (which sounds so benign to some) would mean backing it up with criminal penalties.

I think the polling for "throw women in jail for having an abortion" might be in the low single digits.

and sway women voters away from her.

Sid

Edit: spelling

first let me point out that i am pro-choice as far as abortion is concerned.

HOWEVER- i do understand the argument and the point of view of the pro-life side- they view the zygote and the fetus as a human life, and feel that abortion is the unwarranted taking of that life, and therefore murder. whether the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or a loving relationship- it's still to them a human life. how the pregnancy was initiated has no bearing on that life- it's just as human either way.

some people call it EXTREME to oppose abortion "even" in cases of rape or incest, but in terms of being 'pro-life' it's really the only defensible position the other side can take.

And eggs don't even get fertilized, let alone to zygote stage, with the pill. Anything preventing pregnancy is aborting God's Will, at least that is the rationale.

The real reason: Palin's idealogy is not about saving the zygotes, it's about controlling half the population.

and tampons to see if any woman should be charged with murder?
There might be a zygote in that rag!
If an un-implanted zygote is a human being because it is human; what about an unfertilized egg?
IF the egg why not the sperm?
Are we going to charge every male who spills his sperm on the ground with murder?

The question is and will always be "When does a life begin?".
That has been answered legally.
Anything else is a philosophical and/or religious discussion and does not belong in a political platform.

and miscarriages are not considered abortions.

as far as the question of when life begins being 'answered legally'- legal definitions can be changed, and that's their ultimate goal.

personally, as i said- i'm pro-choice. i also believe that once an egg is fertilized, it becomes a human 'life'- but i also believe that abortion should be legal until the point of viability- when that life can exist on it's own, outside the womb.

as a vasectomized male, i'm just glad that it's a decision i'll never have to face or be part of again.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-wills4nov04,0,7799993.story?coll=la-opinion-center

<snip>Defenders of the fetus say that life begins only after the semen fertilizes the egg, producing an embryo. But, in fact, two-thirds of the embryos produced this way fail to live on because they do not embed in the womb wall. Nature is like fertilization clinics -- it produces more embryos than are actually used. Are all the millions of embryos that fail to be embedded human persons?

The universal mandate to preserve "human life" makes no sense. My hair is human life -- it is not canine hair, and it is living. It grows. When it grows too long, I have it cut. Is that aborting human life? The same with my growing human fingernails. An evangelical might respond that my hair does not have the potential to become a person. True. But semen has the potential to become a person, and we do not preserve every bit of semen that is ejaculated but never fertilizes an egg.

The question is not whether the fetus is human life but whether it is a human person, and when it becomes one. Is it when it is capable of thought, of speech, of recognizing itself as a person, or of assuming the responsibilities of a person? Is it when it has a functioning brain? Aquinas said that the fetus did not become a person until God infused the intellectual soul. A functioning brain is not present in the fetus until the end of the sixth month at the earliest.

Not surprisingly, that is the earliest point of viability, the time when a fetus can successfully survive outside the womb.

Whether through serendipity or through some sort of causal connection, it now seems that the onset of a functioning central nervous system with a functioning cerebral cortex and the onset of viability occur around the same time -- the end of the second trimester, a time by which 99% of all abortions have already occurred.

a zygote does. that is why a zygote is human life, and hair is not.

no matter how many semantic games you want to play.

sorry. :hi:

From the above article:

Defenders of the fetus say that life begins only after the semen fertilizes the egg, producing an embryo. But, in fact, two-thirds of the embryos produced this way fail to live on because they do not embed in the womb wall. Nature is like fertilization clinics -- it produces more embryos than are actually used. Are all the millions of embryos that fail to be embedded human persons?

and yes, once it's fertilized, it's human life. but you'd have to ask someone who believes in a soul if it's actually considered to have one.

I know a woman who twice almost bled to death during a miscarriage. One doctor refused to do anything until the fetus fully passed. Another doctor helped even though the fetus had not passed knowing he could go to jail even though there was no way to save the pregnancy and the woman was about to bleed out.

A more recent case of miscarriage being a crime is a state rep from Virginia a few years ago wanted to require women to report all miscarriages past the first couple months gestation that did not occur in a hospital. If i recall correctly he got such an uproar that he had to change it to full-term only.

As long as that choice is the one she made. Otherwise, it's up to the government to meddle in your choices. Oh, and too bad if you have to make Palin's choice, but don't have Palin's resources. You should have chosen to be governor of Alaska.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

It seems a majority is pro-choice, so this should hurt the repugs. I think they take the anti-choice position only because they are trying to secure the vote of the groups that feel so passionate about it. It gets them to vote against their interests on every other issue. Only corporate fatcats should be voting for the Republicans. This and a few other social issues, including gay marriage is how they get this vote.

Recently I've personally had success with some efforts to get people to see what they are giving up for this one issue and how little they are getting in return. Catholics are specifically the group.

They need to be convinced that the Obama/Biden approach is better and likely to lead to fewer abortions. The Repub angle - appointing Supreme Court Justices, who conveniently, will also twist the language of the Constitution and prior case law to find holes in the bill of rights - is highly ineffective at preventing abortions. Some states will still allow it and women will go to those states or to other countries. There will flourish an abortion industry at the Canadian border. I believe the right to choose is even in the California Constitution.

She is against abortion in any and all circumstance, including rape or incest.

That's about as extreme as it gets.

I will defend Mrs. Palin's right not to get an abortion or to impose her morality on her minor daughter.

I will fight Mrs. Palin tooth and nail if she wants to impose her morality on anybody else's daughter.

K&R!

The tipping point for overturning Roe is at hand; while she is not the Presidential Nominee the actual Nominee could very well have to step down during the next 4 years. There is the very real possibility of HER being able to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

We can not stress enough how imprtant this election is for the women of America: Lives are at stake. This extremist anti womens rights advocate must be exposed and stopped.