Marco Rubio Forgets He Cosponsored Abortion Ban With Rape, Incest Exceptions
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio argued with Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly Thursday on his record on abortions, claiming he does not actually support exceptions to an abortion ban in cases of rape or incest. Kelly had started a question asking how he can support rape and incest exceptions when Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently called them “preposterous” and said they “discriminate against an entire class of human beings.”
“If you believe that life begins at conception, which you do, how do you justify ending a life just because it begins violently through no fault of the baby?” Kelly asked Rubio during the debate. Rubio responded by saying he’s not sure Kelly had a “correct assessment of my record.”
When pressed on whether or not he favors the exceptions, he said he has never supported or advocated for them. But Rubio was a cosponsor on the Senate’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, introduced in 2013.
The bill would have prohibited abortion except in certain circumstances, including if “the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor.” The legislation would have also included an exception if the woman’s life was at risk.
This is what Marco Rubio is in favor of:
Raped 10-Year-Old Denied Abortion
The girl is pregnant after being raped by her stepfather but the government of Paraguay has refused to grant her an abortion, stating that her life is not in danger. Activists are arguing that “life is not only a matter of having a pulse." A 10-year-old pregnant with her stepfather’s child will not be allowed to get an abortion because the government of Paraguay doesn’t believe that her life in immediate danger.
On April 23, the unnamed girl was reportedly checked into the hospital by her mother. She complained of stomach pains and tests showed she was already 21-weeks pregnant. Earlier this week, her mother apparently requested her daughter be given an abortion, and when it was revealed that her stepfather impregnated her, the mother was taken into custody.
Doctors requested permission to perform the procedure. In Paraguay, abortions can’t be performed in the case of rape or incest, and only if the government decides that a life is in danger. In this case they decided it wasn’t.
Irish abortion law key factor in death of Savita Halappanavar, official report finds
Ireland is grappling with controversial reforms to the Catholic country's anti-abortion legislation after Savita Halappanavar died after being admitted, while 17 weeks pregnant, to a Galway hospital last year with symptoms of contractions prior to a natural miscarriage.
Thursday's report into her death by Ireland's Health Service Executive, an investigation chaired by Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, the British professor of obstetrics and gynaecology, has charted a series of failures compounded by the fear that doctors could fall foul of criminal law if they saved the mother by aborting a miscarrying foetus.
“The interpretation of the law related to lawful termination in Ireland is considered to have been a material contributory factor,” the report found. “There was a lack of recognition of the gravity of the situation which led to passive approaches and delays in aggressive treatment. The investigation team is satisfied that concern about the law, whether clear or not, impacted on the exercise of clinical professional judgment.”
As her condition worsened two days after entering hospital and despite her repeated request for the termination of her pregnancy ahead of an “inevitable” spontaneous miscarriage, Irish medical staff failed to recognise “increasing risk to the life of the mother.”
This is what happens when a particular religion's prohibitions are encoded into a country's law, which then forces women who do not ascribe to that particular religion to suffer and die, or for a child of 10 to be forced to carry an incestuous pregnancy to term.
A a girl's or woman's right to choose must be between her and her doctor. Not all religions agree on abortion, and these are just two cases that illustrate why it is wrong for a country to force one religion's dogma onto all people whether they're of a different religion or of no religion.
State-enforced pregnancies are no different from state-enforced abortions.
Both are wrong.
INTERESTING NOTE ON DONNIE:
After years and years and years of being pro-choice, he changed his mind and now is anti-choice. That's what a phony pandering blowhard does when he knows he needs the TGOPers' support. They see nothing wrong with this hypocrisy because that's how they roll. Sure people can "evolve" on issues, but it's such an amazing coincidence that Donnie changed his mind just as he decided to be a TGOP candidate. Isn't that cute?
Donald Trump:
I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice.
Donald Trump shocked attendees at the conservative CPAC conference in February when he declared himself pro-life after years of supporting the pro-abortion position.
Infidel753 posted on this as well.
Interesting:
14 comments:
Why I read Booman Tribune:
"No doubt, the president had made the right crazy, but their real rage is reserved for their own leaders.
And it's not just that they haven't gotten what they were promised. It's become evident that there never really was any real intention to try to deliver on the big ticket items. And, in the process of leading the base on for the last thirty-five years, the GOP elite mastered the art of destroying faith in all our institutions, from the universities to the scientific community to the media to the government and its agencies.
The more that Trump disrespects these institutions and their values, the stronger he gets. The more he points out the ineffectiveness and hypocrisy of the Republican leadership (where are the results?), the more people rally to him.
This is the triumph of not believing in anyone or anything. It's partly a result of failure, partly the result of lies, and largely the result of the base being trained to think this way.
We're seeing a gigantic backlash against the right by the right. Insofar as the left shares any responsibility, it's only through poaching the intelligent people until the brainpower on the right was too weak to spark.
That, and winning.
Winning elections, and winning on issues.
In fact, the single biggest explainer of Trump's success is probably that the GOP did so well in 2010 and still lost every important battle, and then won in 2014 and still can't stop the president.
Winning elections was supposed to be the solution, but the last two years have been catastrophic for the right.
So, they're not listening to advice anymore. They're not even going to listen to Fox News anymore.
They've gone around the bend, and political correctness has virtually nothing to do with it."
Latest polls show Donald Trump has already lost points since last weeks GOP debate. Those who predict that he'll trounce the other candidates must be smoking funny Palin weed. We want Trump to keep talking and acting like the jackass he is and show the majority of Americans what the Republican party has become.
Trump the Rumps slide. Hopefully it is into obscurity.
You simply can't make this s*it up!
WorldNetDaily: God May Use Donald Trump To Usher In Second Coming Of Jesus
Donald Trump Is Winning The Polls — And Losing The Nomination .
"In the modern Republican Party, making sense is a secondary consideration. Years of relentless propaganda combined with extreme frustration over the disastrous Bush years and two terms of a Kenyan Muslim terrorist president have cast the party's right wing into a swirling suckhole of paranoia and conspiratorial craziness. There is nothing you can do to go too far, a fact proved, if not exactly understood, by the madman, Trump." --Matt Taibbi
Off topic but in the political mix.
If the deleted emails can't be recovered, Clinton will never be able to clear her name. Only the most blindly loyal and partisan voters will accept her word and ignore the serial deception. Even people like me who have known and respected Clinton for years will walk into the voting booth asking ourselves, "What is she hiding?"
Sure, she might win. Just look at the weak spots in the GOP line. But why win this ugly? Why commit Americans to another four years of a politics and government they can't trust? Why run a grind-it-out, 20th-century campaign amid the rise of purpose-driven millennials?
Why not be an aspirational, transformational leader—the architect of a presidency that matches her potential.
RN, I don't think it's possible for an aspirational, transformational leader to be elected in this country anymore. Whoever fits that description will be vilified and detested by the opposition party. Right now, we are a hopelessly divided country. A dynamic candidate would have to unite the country, and because right now that would have to be a Dem or a Rep, I don't see how we get around the fact that each side distrusts and detests the other, and then there are those who detest and distrust both.
On a good note, we both know that Trump will not be the next president. Only the brain-dead and idiots believe he's a viable candidate.
That Shaw is because both sides have given reason to be distrusted at one time or another.
If both liberals and conservatives are so damned stubborn and self righteous they are unable to find a way to work together then this demcratic republic has most certainly seen its better days.
We are indeed at this point in decline and no one seems to be concerned. We just keep telling ourselves our better days are ahead of us. Frankly I've finally accepted it is just so much BS.
Name on great society that hasn't receeded from power. You can't. Our nation's fate will be the same, it has started, and it is going to be from internal strife.
We can all point fingers and place blame my friend, but the truth is we all have a share of the blame.
For goodness sake, you two. Cheer up. Wasn't Obama transformational enough for a generation? I think the only president liked by both parties in modern history was Eisenhower. Maybe Truman. TR, FDR, Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Clinton all had their fair share of detractors, yet all were great men, surely.
Hillary will be wonderful. Let the PUMAs have their day!
FJ, IMO, Mr. Obama IS a transformational president. However, because I am a liberal/progressive, I was sure RN would find that opinion tainted, so I was speaking about a post-Obama presidency.
Marriage equality, the ACA, reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba, addressing climate change, the Iran deal, for example, are all transformational. There is also the fact that Mr. Obama has been exemplary in his personal conduct as president: He has been a role model as a loyal, loving husband and father, and his family has been free from any scandal, as has his presidency, which is no small accomplishment.
(Think of the enormous Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan Administration.)
The GOP has tried to make Benghazi into a scandal, but their own committee investigating it found that there was no coverup. That, of course, doesn't stop the noise machine on the right from trying to make it into one.
There are a number of things in this administration that can be criticized: NASA's domestic spying, the drone policy, the handling of the never-ending crises in the Middle East, etc. I'm no historian, but I'm pretty certain Mr. Obama will be seen as one of our better presidents, despite the GOP/Tea Party's derangement over Mr. Obama.
Thankfully, historians write history, not crazy people who believe a jackass like Trump is worthy of the American presidency. There's no way, IMO, anyone should respect a group who believes that.
Shaw , a point of clarification; your statement Obama is a transformational president Iwould not consider tainted as in many ways has been.
That does not mean I agree with, or think all of his transformational activity has been right for the country.
History repeats itself FJ, and it is in the process of repeating itself again. This time we are in its cross hairs.
This funny post from Mad Mike's America by our friend, Joe of Truth 101, is hilarious.
Post a Comment