The American Spectator : Cain's Abortion Libertarianism

ENOUGH ROPE| 10.26.11 @ 6:25AM

When rapists are convicted, they are not executed. Why execute the child?

Cosmo| 10.26.11 @ 6:39AM

Go after the abortionists, like Killer Tiller and that
butcher from Chicago. Forget about these silly
polls. These are human babies.

Ruben| 10.26.11 @ 6:58AM

Ronald Reagan was pro-life, and he carried 49 states. Obama is not only pro-abortion, he is
for partial-birth abortion, and he even supported
after-birth abortion for babies who survived abortions in Chicago hospitals

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 11:09AM

Misleading. Reagan barely raised the issue of abortion either in the 1980 or 1984 campaigns. And as president, he never appeared live before an anti-abortion group, only via taped message. Reagan won on economics and anti-Communism, not abortion.

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 11:40AM

exactly. Reagan kept his view pretty much to himself. Cain is merely expressing a personal opinion, not claiming to want his belief turned into policy. Abortion is far and away THE most over-rated issue of all. No one is talking about it over the kitchen table. No one.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 12:01PM

"Abortion is far and away THE most over-rated issue of all. No one is talking about it over the kitchen table. No one."

According to who??

Sorry that you think the slaughter of innocent, unborn children is an "over-rated" issue.

Many of us don't.

And Reagan was QUITE CLEAR about his views on abortion:

"But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right."

- R.R., 1983

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 2:54PM

According to who??
-----------------------------
according to everyone not in your home, apparently. It's not just polls, it's everyday conversation. Regardless of personal opinions on abortion, it is so far down the priority list for most people as to be invisible. There is a reason Bachmann and Santorum are on the ass end of polling; it's because no one is seeking a moralist-in-chief.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:03PM

That's utterly illogical.

The reason is not in the polls this year is because the # 1,2, and 3 issues are the economy.

And as I proved, Reagan did NOT keep his views on abortion "pretty much to himself."

A "moralist-in-Chief"? We had one of those, once.

They crucified him about 2,000 years ago.

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:27PM

Says the majority of the people. Two recent Rasmussen polls (October 16-17 and 18-19, 2011) showed the following as the most important political issues. Abortion isn't even on there.

Economy

84%

Health Care

63%

Gov't Ethics and Corruption

62%

Taxes

58%

Social Security

58%

Education

56%

Immigration

52%

National Security/War on Terror

51%

Afghanistan

28%

War in Iraq

26%

Sarah Mattress | 2.2.12 @ 9:49PM

Must push the abortion issue..

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 12:58PM

It's one thing to say that the economy and governemnt spending are the main issues this election, but quite another to claim that abortion is of no interest to voters.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:03PM

Spot-on correct.

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:28PM

I don't think it's of "no interest". It's just not anywhere near the "most important" issue.

ChocolateJeebus| 10.26.11 @ 4:45PM

"Abortion is far and away THE most over-rated issue of all." I agree wholeheartedly. Mostly because the candidates' opinions are moot. They cannot, as president, change the law or affect it in any way (realistically). I believe that pro-lifers think that human life is precious. I beg to disagree. Aborting a million babies is less than 0.02 percent of the population. Big deal. However, aborting MY baby is a big deal. You see, human life is precious only if it effects us, only if it exists in our personal sphere. You've see those ads for starving refugees, poverty-stricken Jews in Russia, cleft-palated children and you feel bad, you might even donate a few bucks, but then you go on about your day because it doesn't effect you-you don't care and don't try to tell me different. And thank God for that because we would all remain in our beds curled up in fetal positions crying about how horrible the world is. Like hippies. Life is just life. Sure, the next Einstein or, gasp, Jobs could be aborted, but with 150 people born every minute of the day, one'll slip through the cracks.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:37PM

Please don't attempt to speak for me or any other person on this board with idiotic statements.

You have NO idea what anyone on this board thinks or does about ANYTHING regarding abortion, poverty, oppression, etc.

"Life is just life"...Is that supposed to be deep? Because it isn't. It's moronic.

Human life IS precious.

The fact that we, as individuals, can't save everyone is irrelevant.

Positive change happens one step at a time.

Seems to me that you're the one metaphorically curled-up in the fetal position.

Strathead| 10.27.11 @ 10:27AM

As Doctor Right said, I don't know what he personally does for world poverty or other issues. The "you" below refers to collective anti-choice individuals. It is not meant to be directed at Doctor Right, this was just a good comment location to insert my screwed up opinion.

"Human Life is Precious" How precious is it to you. Would you give up your car or your home for say a dozen starving HIV positive babies in a 3rd world country to be fed and medicated for the next 5 years? I wouldn't. How about the Obamacare issue, because if all life is so precious then there should be no question that we have a moral responsibilty to take care of everyone regardless of whether they take care of themselves. Where do you come down on this? While I have come to the point in my life that I do not think someone should choose abortion, I also believe that having a crack addicted baby who will be sick and cared for by the State is not a better choice. Every one of you here, who sits on their high horse and says someone else should not have the right to coose should post an add in the paper offering to support one mother and baby each for their 18 year childhood. No questions asked. That would stop a lot of abortions. Put your personal comfort where your mouth is.

44 | 10.26.11 @ 7:45PM

Clearly, abortion will never be illegal in this country. What we can hope/shoot for (for now) is no more 3rd trimester abortions (everyone with half a brain realizes the fetus is viable at that point), and certainly no more partial birth murders.

Jacobite| 10.27.11 @ 3:00PM

This is a real Libertarian. If you have trouble envisioning a society comprised of people like this, it's because no human society can exist without morality/tradition/religion/behavioral norms. It's easy to say that a Libertarian congregation would be a Hobbesian war of all-against-all, but in fact humans do not organize their life that way, ever. In fact, the whole Social Contract thing is wrong. Society existed before humans had evolved. The first humans were born into an already functioning society. There are genetic errors in every breeding population: cleft palates, club-feet, every kind of side-show freaks, and social misfits. These last are the members of the Libertarian Party. Folks who can't get along in a normal society, probably a flaw in the genes influencing behavior. As a Libertarian society is a contradiction-in-terms, these folks have to exist in some relation to some society. Once upon a time they were expelled, lynched, or burnt at the stake. Nowadays, American society is so degenerate that they get along quite well. But when the society they are living off of finally collapses and is replaced by a healthy, functioning society, I doubt they'll be able to negotiate anything like the cushy deal they have going today.

joshua| 11.18.11 @ 11:43PM

morality and religion is best left to the individual and not imposed by government regulation. the idea that it can't be avoided is absurd. you can't call yourself a free country if the basis of any law is how someone else feels you should live your life. the only legitimate exceptions are when how you live your life harms others. there's a lot about libertarians one can disagree with as it applies to policy, but as a basis for the role of government, it's the only one that truly values the individual and freedom. ironically, conservatives believ in it too, except for the part where people make a choice they don't like, then they're as big government as any liberal.

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:30PM

Amen!

ManssasGrandma| 10.26.11 @ 7:05PM

I just got back from a prayer vigil at the local abortuary.

Tony| 10.26.11 @ 4:26PM

That is not true. Ronald Reagan regularly addressed the crowds at the March for Life. He also spoke about abortion before Catholic organizations.

Angry Jarhead| 10.26.11 @ 8:23PM

True, people forget how skilled Reagan was on getting around this issue. He would never get away with it nowadays.

1blumutt| 10.26.11 @ 9:40PM

which reminds us that the goal is to get this Marxist out of the WH. Get Obama out! Then, after the Republican is sworn in as president...then the pro-life folks can wave their flags and banners. Concentrate! Get Obama out!

John Jakubczyk | 10.27.11 @ 6:17PM

Reagan was openly pro-life and in 1980 we knocked off 10 pro-abortion senators. He raised the issue in 1976 and spoke clearly about the mistake he made in California in 1970. But the real issue is this: If the child is a human being, which the child is, then this human being is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments as properly understood. A rational constitutional approach would bee supported by the vast majority of people. those who want abortion legal in only rare circumstances are the vast majority. Explaining to them the reasoned view of protecting life is not difficult when done properly. However, allowing abortion is akin to allowing slavery. It is neither right nor proper. And since abortion brings about death, it has a certain finality that is most disturbing.
The right thing to do is first educate, then legislate while at the same time offering real options to women in crisis.

joshua| 11.18.11 @ 11:50PM

the main opposition to both the pro-life and pro-choice positions is how arrogant both are. each lays out a definition of life with such finality, when even if we as a country could come to a reasonable level of compromise on the issue, the definition itself would still be largely arbitrary, and neither side wants to acknowledge that underlying reality. just because you believe in something very deeply doesn't make it so, it simply makes it your opinion. both sides act as if the definition of life is as exact as 1+1, and maybe for you it is. but there's nothing concrete or definitive about your position, it's just that it seems right to you.

Jacobite| 10.27.11 @ 3:15PM

I don't agree that Reagan was anti-abortion. He could talk a good game, but the proof is in actions, not speeches. Reagan could take action when he really believed something was wrong (i.e., PATCO). Reagan is a good example of the fact of environmental influence over behavior. Spending all that time in the sh*t-hole that is Hollywood, his generally normal attitudes were worn down by constant exposure to a behavioral freak-show of perverts and misfits. Take this into account in your evaluation of any candidate. I automatically rule out anyone from the NE US or SoCal. They have been de-sensitized to behaviors that would gag any normal Italian squid fisherman. You have to support somebody who has the right goals and will do whatever's necessary to achieve them. Yes, ends do justify means. What people rightly object to are means employed that are not rationally related to the ends stated. If you want to end slavery, suttee, or abortion, it's hard to describe means that would be objectionable for any reason but that they would not achieve the goal. 600,000 people were killed to end slavery in the US. But killing 600,000 Mexicans would not have been justified to end slavery here.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:04AM

Who Signed The Abortion Pledge ?

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 12:18PM

Article 3, Section 2, Pargraph 2 of our Constitution states. " In All other cases before mentioned The Surpreme Court shall have Apellate Juridiction, both in Law and Fact, with such EXCEPTIONS and such REGULATIONS as the CONGRESS shall make. " Roe Vs Wade was a massive and Unconstitutional attack on the power of the people and states. Congress has always had the power to end this monsrosity by simple regualtion of the juridiction of the Court. The time is now and Ron Paul is the President who will do it. The Republican pary has been using pro-life votes for decades to stay in power. It is time to end Roe vs Wade or we can forget about ever getting rid of it from the Republicans. It is Ron Paul or ruin. All the rest are more of the same.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:05PM

Amazing.

We could be talking about the relative merits of Pink vs. Blue cotton-candy, and jack would say:

"It is Ron Paul or ruin."

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:34PM

Dr.Ron Paul Signed The Pro Life Abortion Pledge.

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:37PM

" The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Herman Cain, Gov. Jon Huntsman, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Mitt Romney."

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

1blumutt| 10.26.11 @ 9:48PM

Why is it alright that Ron Paul is quite willing to let Israel go it alone? He knows the guresome way most will die. By itself, Israel will be wiped out!
But whoopie do, Ron Paul signed the Pro Life Abortion Pledge.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:08PM

Congress can ONLY overturn the SCOTUS by amending the Constitution.

Period.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:36PM

Wrong.

That's What A Combination Of The President's Bully Pulpit, States Rights & Powers Advocates And Pro-Life Constituents Votes Would Come Into Co-alignment To Persuade & Influence Congress To Act Upon.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 4:19PM

That's called "Misinterpretation"...

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 4:29PM

Here's a lesson for you...Take it to heart.

"under such regulations as the Congress shall make" means:

1. Amending the Constitution, or...

2. Passing a new or revised law that "changes" or
"reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to alter a specific Court decision.

In other words, Judge Judy...

Congress CAN ONLY overturn a decision by SCOTUS with an amendment to the Constitution.

The 2nd example above is NOT "over-turning", it is specifically changing the Law to require a new review and a new ruling.

Now thank me very much.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:37PM

I'll thank you. Well done.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:03PM

The Religious Bigot Phoney Cafeteria Christians Tag Team Is In The Building.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:06PM

The Popey-Rosary-Lovin'-Huggy-Kissy-Ron-Paul-Man-Crush-Tag Team is...

...annoying everyone with their inane blather...

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:50PM

The Fixated Lapsed Catholic/ Anti-Catholic Joisey Crybaby , Dr.Reich Boo Boo's At Dr.Ron Paul's Tea Party Supporters.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 8:46PM

Yeah, I "Boo-Boo" at all 6 of you.

RON PAUL = NON-STARTER

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 10:07PM

Dr. Right:

"All 6 of him= "My name is Legion, for we are many."

Yikes.

RCV| 10.26.11 @ 5:40PM

You're right, Dr Right. Doctor Paul should stick to gynecology.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 5:49PM

Citation, Obama LawBoy Israel Firster RCV.

You're Up.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:07PM

Clint, you think a "citation" means a cut-n-paste job from a robo-fax that you received from the Ron Paul fan-Club HQ.

You're down...and out.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:46PM

Where's Your Citation Religious Bigot Phoney Cafeteria Christian,Dr,Reich ?

We're Waiting .

Where's Israel Firster Obama LawBoy RCV Citation ?

We're Waiting.

Put Up Or Shut Up, Joisey Punk.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:13PM

Citation for what, Pennsylvania-Pussy boy?

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 5:46PM

Constitution Party National Platform:

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2."

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:08PM

Moron Party National Platform:

We think that 'cuz we say it, other will care. We affirm that Jack in Wi. and Clint (who was kicked-out of the Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots) are a cute couple.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:07PM

You Still Failed To Show Up At Our Valley Forge Tea Party Meetings And Say It To Me & Our Organizer Dave Adamski's Face So We Can Get Up In Your Grill & Call You The Fixated Sociopathic Liar You Are.

Put Up Or Shut Up Coward, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:13PM

You weren't there.

I know, 'cuz I was.

Sean| 10.26.11 @ 5:24PM

Congress can overturn Roe v Wade by passing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....People_Act

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:01PM

" When Chief Justice John Roberts was Special Assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, he wrote a 27-page document defending the constitutional power of Congress to limit federal court jurisdiction. Proving that Supreme Court justices recognize this power over the courts, he pointed out that former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (no relation) had proposed an "amendment of the Constitution to remove Congress' exceptions power."

The Owen Roberts amendment was passed by the Senate in 1953 but then tabled by the House. John Roberts concluded that Congress's constitutional authority to make exceptions to federal court jurisdiction is so clear that only a new constitutional amendment could deny it.

Last fall, Congress proved again that it has the power to define court jurisdiction by giving immunity to gun manufacturers and owners from lawsuits that try to impose liability on them for the criminal misuse of their weapons by others. This Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was promptly signed by President Bush.

This act sensibly prevents gun manufacturers from having to pay the penalty for crimes for which they were blameless. While this law was based on Congress's commerce power, the effect is the same as if the legislation had cited the Article III "exceptions" clause.

Congress also used its Article III power to order completion of a fence on our southern border near San Diego which had been held up for ten years by environmental lawsuits. By the REAL ID Act of 2005, which took effect May 11, 2005, Congress legislated that the fence should go forward with "expeditious construction" and that "no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim" to stop it. "

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:10PM

Clint-wit:

"Limiting" the courts jurisdiction is not retroactive, and has NO bearing on past rulings.

Grow-up, and stop robo-posting your inane cut-n-paste jobs.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:55PM

Tell You RINO-CINO Crap To Chief Justice Roberts.

A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:15PM

Seriously...what do you have between your ears..?? Cinder-blocks??

NO joke! But that would NOT retroactively eliminate Roe v. Wade.

It would bar SCOTUS from FUTURE action. The whole process would still need to litigated.

Dum-da-dum-DUMB!!!

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 8:11AM

Herman Cain is incoherent on abortion like he is on taxes, economic policy, and foreign policy. The only candidate who would get rid of Roe vs. Wade is Ron Paul, the best and most consistent pro-life advocate, I have ever seen in 30+ years of pro-life political activism. Roe could be overturned by an simple act of Congress restricting the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in the matter of abortion. Then the matter would go back to the states where it always used to reside. Roe vs, Wade is a monstrous and unconstitutional attack on the powers of the states and people to regulate this and other vices. Ron Paul has just produced the finest pro-life commercial I have ever seen by an American politician. As a prolife OBGYN he knows the issue backwards and forwards. The other candidates are just more of the same. Go read Ron Paul's statements on abortion. If he is elected Roe could be history in 2 years.

Bydand76| 10.26.11 @ 9:44AM

Do you wear a Ron Paul cheerleader outfit when you write these diatribes? Just asking is all...

It just seems that whatever a person says something pertaining to another candidate regardless if it is in line with what Rep. Paul thinks, says or does. If it does not openly comport to the Paul-bot rhetoric we seem to get a cheerleading esque note explaining why Dr. Paul is so great and how the other candidate is wong and totally cluesless in your humble opinion.

Not that there is anything wrong with that but it would seem to me that Rep. Pauls position would be more in line with what an actual Libertarian would beleive.......i.e Mr. Cains position.. The Government does not have a role to play in our lives regarding abortion........ Isn't that what Dr, Paul says?

It would seem to me that there is nothing simple about restricting Federal Jurisdiction via an Act of Congress as you would imply... This would be a major piece of legislation that would be extremely difficult to pass and or even get considered.

It is easier to say how we should fix certain things more so than accomplishing the actual fix....Perhaps Mr. Paul and his acolytes would do well to remember this......Just saying...

Go Packers!!

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:38PM

Jack, in a cheerleader outfit...

Thanks for that image.

I may have to gouge out my eyeballs...

victor| 10.26.11 @ 11:02PM

Doctor Right:
"Jack, in a cheerleader outfit..."

Actually, there would be guys dressed as mice cheerleading them on while Clint and Jack wrestle in a giant vat of CheeseWhiz whilst sing the Horst Wessel song.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:51AM

More half-baked ideas from the 5%-crowd...

Ron Paul CANNOT "get rid" of Roe v. Wade either as a candidate, or as President.

Like it or not (and I don't), Roe v. Wade is LAW, codified by the 1973 SCOTUS decision.

NO President can over-turn it. Period.

The ONLY way to get rid of it is through the courts, including the SCOTUS. The President would need to appoint originalist Judges who would rule against a review of Roe v. Wade (or do it with another case that essentially nullifies Roe v. Wade).

Even with the appointment of originalist Judges, there's NO guarantees. The DEMS would likely filibuster his/her nomination, and even if appointed, we have NO idea how they would rule, nor should we; that's NOT how it works.

And even then, they often morph after being appointed to the court. JP Stevens was appointed by Ford for his record of sound legal jurisprudence, and he became one of the court's mot reliable liberals.

So stop spouting nonsense and misinformation, Jack in Nuremberg.

The only candidate who is "incoherent" on foreign policy is Ron "I HEART ear-marks" Paul, whose surrender-monkey, blame-America ideals have turned-off most Conservative voters, which is why Paul NEVER polls better than 3rd (and never will).

OB/GYN or not, Paul has no better chance than Cain, Perry, Romney, Bachman, or Santorum of over-turning Roe v. Wade.

Oh, I almost forgot...

RON PAUL = 5%

canuckistani| 10.26.11 @ 10:10AM

I am prolife from conception, but DR is correct about the legal minefield required to be traversed to get there.
I want abortion banned, but I also do not want distressed women and girls made into criminals.

I would like to see better education of young men and boys as the whole focus has put the onus on females for reproductive responsibilities for generations. There should also be a toughening of paternal requirements in the form of financial garnishee to lessen the welfare load as these children are born.
Perhaps a freeing of the laws around dedicated adoptions could also be considered.

Women often cite a lack of support and options when considering abortion. Instead of this quixotic quest for abortion docs and arcane legal maneuvers, perhaps offering a carrot is the next best strategy. Maternal leave and an assurance their job will be there if they choose to carry a child rather than kill it.
I have yet to see state legislators work in this vein rather than on the path of wrath we witness continually.

If one is prolife, then be pro-whole-life.

Jon | 10.26.11 @ 5:36PM

yes yes abortion is not the real problem, the real problem is unwanted pregnicies, both sides of the argument should pull there heads out of the sand or wherever they are and work to reduce unwanted pregnicies then the number of abortions preformed would be reduced to such a low number that it would be no big deal to go either way. with 15 million abortions preformed, had they not occured there might be 15 million unwanted kids on welfare.

work to reduce the need!!!!!!!!!!!

arhooley| 10.26.11 @ 6:27PM

canuckistani, as a pro-choicer myself, I do find your views to be intelligent and humane.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:17AM

Dr.Ron Paul Signed The Pro Life Abortion Pledge.

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:21AM

" The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Herman Cain, Gov. Jon Huntsman, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Mitt Romney."

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:30AM

Speaking Of Babies, Crybaby Dr.Reich Is Upset By Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Too.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations,
and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that
country to step down."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 12:04PM

Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2, of our Constitution states. " In all other cases, before mentioned, The Surpreme Court shall have Apellate Juristiction, both in Law and in Fact, with such EXCEPTIONS and such REGULATIONS, as the CONGRESS shall make. " It has always been in the power of Congress to take away the power of the Surpreme Court in this matter. The time is now and Ron Paul is the man to do it.

Drunken Sailor| 10.26.11 @ 2:22PM

And just how would Ron Paul the President get congress to take away the power of the Supreme Court?
Forget the fact that would make our goverment a 2 branch system and void the way the original authors designed it (odd stance for a Libertarian).
Just how would Paul convince Congres to do this? And if it is in Congress's power why did he not try this as a Congressman?

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:23PM

That's What A Combination Of The President's Bully Pulpit, States Rights & Powers Advocates And Pro-Life Constituents Votes Would Come Into Co-alignment To Persuade & Influence Congress To Act Upon.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 5:07PM

Ron Paul introduced laws taking away the jurisdiction of the Federal courts on the issue of abortion and returning it to the states on several occasions. So did the late great Jesse Helms. Who did it first.

Drunken Sailor| 10.26.11 @ 5:19PM

And the went where? You think as a Presidient with the bully pulpit that would change? I know you worship the ground the man squats on but can you not pull your noggin from his sphincter long enough to get fresh air to your brain and clear your head?

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:16PM

Interesting, Which Agendists Are Angrily Fighting Against Dr.Ron Paul's Efforts To Stop Roe Vs Wade.

Their Opposition To Dr.Ron Paul's Efforts Speaks Volumes About Their Agenda.

Sean| 10.26.11 @ 5:26PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....People_Act

RCV| 10.26.11 @ 5:46PM

This is nonsense. The protections of the Bill of Rights against legislative encroachment would be meaningless if Congress could remove from the Court's jurisdiction the power to declare legislative acts as violative of the Constitution. The only way to change Roe is by convincing the SCOTUS that it's original interpretation of the Right of Privacy in the Ninth Amendment, the underpinning of Roe, was wrong, or to amend the Constitution. Ron Paul is an idiot if he thinks otherwise.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:07PM

Oh Really, Obama Israel Firster Agenda LawBoy RCV.

Tell That Crap To Chief Justice Roberts.

" When Chief Justice John Roberts was Special Assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, he wrote a 27-page document defending the constitutional power of Congress to limit federal court jurisdiction. Proving that Supreme Court justices recognize this power over the courts, he pointed out that former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (no relation) had proposed an "amendment of the Constitution to remove Congress' exceptions power."

The Owen Roberts amendment was passed by the Senate in 1953 but then tabled by the House. John Roberts concluded that Congress's constitutional authority to make exceptions to federal court jurisdiction is so clear that only a new constitutional amendment could deny it.

Last fall, Congress proved again that it has the power to define court jurisdiction by giving immunity to gun manufacturers and owners from lawsuits that try to impose liability on them for the criminal misuse of their weapons by others. This Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was promptly signed by President Bush.

This act sensibly prevents gun manufacturers from having to pay the penalty for crimes for which they were blameless. While this law was based on Congress's commerce power, the effect is the same as if the legislation had cited the Article III "exceptions" clause.

Congress also used its Article III power to order completion of a fence on our southern border near San Diego which had been held up for ten years by environmental lawsuits. By the REAL ID Act of 2005, which took effect May 11, 2005, Congress legislated that the fence should go forward with "expeditious construction" and that "no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim" to stop it. "

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 10:56AM

Of course Congress has explicit power to define federal judicial jurisdiction. But it can NEVER take away the Court's power to declare legislative acts violative of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. That power is inherent in the judiciary's role. Read the Federalist. Otherwise the guarantees of the Bill of Rights against legislative encroachment would be utterly meaningless. Congress could simply purport to take away the Court's jurisdiction to enforce the Bill of Rights!

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 6:58PM

...and I guess the next Congress that enacts something controversial like Obamacare should simply include a provision denying federal courts jurisdiction over any Constitutional challenges to it.

Do you guys, and indeed DOCTOR Ron Paul, ever think through the implications of what you propose?

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:16PM

DS:

Don't interrupt Jack the Nazi and Clint's Ron-Paul-type wet dream...

It's all they have left.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:10PM

Summation of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy:

1. It's Israel's fault. If not, it's...

2. America's fault!

3. Cut the defense budget!

4. Hang the Jews out to dry!

5. Pull the blanket over our heads and hope that our enemies have our best interests at heart...and Iran is NOT a threat!

Ron Paul = 5%

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:28PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military is already dangerously extended, and this administration
wants to expand our involvement. When will our bombing in Libya end? Is
President Obama seriously considering military action against Syria? We
are facing $2 trillion dollar deficits, and the American taxpayer cannot
afford any of it.

“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 4:30PM

ROBO-POST ALERT! ROBO-POST ALERT!

This is the 3,417th time that Clint has posted the above information about Ron "Mr. 5%" Paul.

THANK YOU.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:10PM

Repetition Doesn't Negate Dr.Ron Paul's Truth, Neo-Con Phoney Cafeteria Christian Religious Bigot Dr.Reich.

The Tea Party Steps On Dr.Reich's Fixated Ugly Mug.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:40PM

Robo-Posting doesn't negate MY truth, erotically-repressed Clint...

You're not very bright.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:18PM

Let's See Ya Sell Your RINO-CINO Religious Bigot/Suppressed Pervert Agenda To Real Conservatives, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:18PM

Know any REAL Conservatives, Clint?

Other than the guys who kicked you out of Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots??

Peter McGrath| 10.26.11 @ 10:33AM

Thanks for the heads-up.

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 11:44AM

this has all the gravity of a pledge supporting sunshine. The GOP's fascination with these bumper sticker litmus tests is why the party stands a pretty fair chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We have an economy that POTUS is actively working to downgrade, and you're hung up on abortion.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 11:02AM

A meaningless pledge since, as I ALREADY pointed-out, he has NO power to over-turn Roe v. Wade either as a Congressman or as President.

...anything else?

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:11PM

Dr. Ron Paul Signed His Name On My Left Butt-Cheek...

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:41PM

And I Will Never Wash It...

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:20PM

Me, too.

Wait...I am me.

No, I'm RINO-CINO Religious Bigot/Suppressed Pervert Agenda To Real Conservatives, Dr.Reich.

No, I'm Jack the Jew-Hater.

No, I'm not.

Yes, I am.

Asshat.

Alan Brooks| 10.26.11 @ 8:20PM

I like to pretend poseur punk post and pretend that I'm Clint.

hee,hee.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 8:22PM

Me too.

David T| 10.26.11 @ 10:43AM

Dr. Right--Read your Constitution. The President and Congress are not hamstrung by decisions of the Supreme Court. It's called "checks and balances."

W| 10.26.11 @ 10:55AM

David,
Like it or not, the Supremes have the final say on the Constitution. Congress can pass a law that overrides a Supreme Court decision that does not deal with constitutionality of an issue. For example the Congress and Bush 1 passed the 1991 Civil Rights Act in response to court decisions dealing with the Civil Rights laws that did not involve the constitutionality of the issues.
Only two choices, a Supreme Court reversal or an amendment. A Supreme Court reversal would mean only that there is no constituional right or protection for abortion. Then the states would be free to pass any law consistent with the state's constitution. It would not mean the end of abortion because it would then be up to each state to regulate.
The only way to protect life is an amendment to the constitution. The president's views are important if he wants to push for the amendment.

David T| 10.26.11 @ 11:13AM

W--The Constitution does not belong to the Supreme Court. The President and/or Congress can also rule on constitutionality and act accordingly. See Andrew Jackson, for example. The idea that the Supreme Court is the "law of the land" has no basis in our founding.

W| 10.26.11 @ 11:28AM

David,
You are wrong.

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 12:55PM

Incorrect. The Founders by no means surrendered to the Supreme Court all responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and wrote it in simple language to make it accessible to all citizens

David T| 10.26.11 @ 1:37PM

Well, as Mitt Romney might say, "Nice try." I have the weight of the Constitution and the opinion of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay on my side.

David T| 10.26.11 @ 1:39PM

This comment is in response to W above.

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 5:27PM

I should hope so.

W| 10.26.11 @ 1:56PM

David,
This is tiresome. You are wrong. Period. It is established law that the Supreme Court has the final say on constitutionality.
During the Korean War, Truman seized the steel industry and installed his "czars" to run the mills. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional and that was the end of the seizure.
May I ask, in what state are you licensed as an attorney.

David T| 10.26.11 @ 2:45PM

W--I'm not tired at all. And I'm not wrong, either. Here's what one Thos. Jefferson, noted law graduate of Wm & Mary, scholar of the Constitution, and 3rd President of these United States, had to say: "The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815

Also: "My construction of the Constitution is... that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819

Note that both of these statements came after Marbury v. Madison, 1803.

Feel free to respond if you're not too tired.

W| 10.26.11 @ 5:25PM

Jefferson's opinion is his opinion.
Find a Supreme Court case that says the Supreme Court does not have the final decision on the Constitution. There have been presidents and others who disagree, but so what? The law is clear.
I am not tired, but if you want to believe in your fairy tale, go ahead,
You did not answer whether you are a licensed attorney.
This is basic first year law school.

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 5:31PM

"Find a Supreme Court case that says the Supreme Court does not have the final decision on the Constitution."

Excellent! Perfect example of a circular argument.

Next: Find me one time that Barry Obama admitted he's not the brightest person in the world.

David T| 10.27.11 @ 9:11AM

The Supreme Court may issue its interpretation (opinion), but neither the President nor the Congress is bound. This is 8th grade civics class.

David T| 10.27.11 @ 10:14AM

W--I know you're tired and probably sleeping in this morning, but I'd like to make one last comment. When people say things like "Where'd you get your law degree?" or, "How many years of med school do you have?", I always think they're desperate to prop up their weak arguments. In your case, I understand perfectly why you resorted to this tactic, but I just wanted to tell you that in future you should refrain from using this approach if you want people to take you seriously.

RCV| 10.27.11 @ 6:59PM

You are indeed wrong. read Hamilton's Federalist No. 78.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 11:03AM

Is this for real??

...Good grief!!

W| 10.26.11 @ 10:47AM

I don't see the Supreme Court reversing Roe. It is difficult to predict how judges will vote. The only way to protect human life from conception will be a constitutional amendment to protect life. This does not mean that there will be criminal prosecutions for abortionist or the woman, that is a separate issue and I don't see any state or federal government passing laws to prosecute women.

In Roe only two justices dissented, Justice Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, and Justice White, a Kennedy appointee.
BTW Justice White was an All-American football player, and played for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 11:05AM

IF abortion was illegal...

Then WHY NOT prosecute those who obtain them, and those who perform them??

What good are laws if we don't have to adhere to them??

Otherwise, over-turning Roe v. Wade is a meaningless exercise.

W| 10.26.11 @ 11:11AM

I would prosecute the abortionist, I am not sure about the woman. The abortion crowd uses the possibility of prosecuting women to scare most people.

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 11:47AM

you are going to prosecute the doctor for what? For performing a legal procedure? Just stop. And, if you are going down the road of prosecution, you cannot just go after one person. We don't arrest the dealer but leave the user alone. Docs don't force patients to do things at gunpoint.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 12:04PM

...Calm down, Alice...

It says "IF abortion was illegal..."

IF. In big, fat capital letters.

"IF".

W| 10.26.11 @ 1:52PM

We are discussing an illegal abortion.

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 12:52PM

In the "good old days" the woman was considered a victim, the abortionist a criminal as a practical matter of law.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 11:40AM

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to restrict the juridiction of the Federal courts. This can be done by a simple act of Congress and siganture of trhe president. Ron Paul has introduced such visionary legislation. His bill would simply state that the power to rule on the question of abortion is removed from the Federal courts and is a question for the states to decide. Such issues have always been state issues and not the province of the Federal courts.

When Jesse Helms put forth this idea 30+ years ago the power had not been used for over 100 years. The only good thing the Patriot Act and the so called War on Terror have done is use this power to restrict the juridiction of the Federal Courts. The power to do so is now being used all the time.

Over 3000 babies are slaughtered in this country in this country everyday. That is more people killed then on 9/11. It is the reason 60 million imigrants have come into this country to replace the 60 million American babies killed. It is why Social Security is insolvent By polling over 80% of the population want some restrictions on abortion. She only way to resolve this issue is to return it ot the states and people for a political solution.

W| 10.26.11 @ 2:04PM

Jack,
Even if that would work, the issue returns to the states. Now you have fifty (or is it 57) state legislatures passing laws on abortion. And each will be challenged as violating the state's constitution. Most state constitutions mirror the US constitution. Do you want to bet how many state supreme courts invalidage the state laws restritcting abortion? And what makes you think that all the states will restrict abortion, do you think California and New York will restrict abortion?

Congress can pass an act to limit jurisdiction. That act will be challenged that it is unconstitutional because it is in conflict with Roe v. Wade, which it is. Paul visionary proposal is well intended but frivolous because it will not pass, and will be struck down by the Sureme Court.

The only way to deal with abortion is by an amendment to the constitution.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 4:46PM

W. Wrong: An amendment to the Constitution is a pipe dream that we have been sold for 4 decades. It will never happen until the Unconstutional blot called Roe vs. Wade is removed from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. All the original restrictions and regulations, on abortion, were passed in the states, by the state legislatures.

Roe was pushed through the Federal courts as a way to make this monster, the law of the land, by judical fiat. Roe, could have been overturned on 2 occasions, at least, in the last 30 years. in the early eighties when their was a prolife majority in Congress, with Reagan in power, and in the early Bush years when there was again a possible prolife majority in Congress. It will not be knocked down by the Surpreme Court. The Constitution is clear on the authority of Congress to restrict the juridiction of the Federal Courts. They have accepted this frequently especially since the war on Terror has come along.

Ten of of millions of babies could have been saved if we had listened to the 2 greatest pro-life champions who ever went to Congress, Jesse Helms or Ron Paul.

W| 10.26.11 @ 5:28PM

What am I wrong about Jack? Your legal analysis is pure fantasy. Deal with reality.

Are you a licensed attorney also?

Frank Natoli| 10.26.11 @ 4:29PM

Article III, Section 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

I am not a Ron Paul [or Rue Paul as Mark Levin loves to say] sycophant.

But I can read the Constitution, and it does grant the Congress the right to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 4:52PM

Frank Natoli: Good for you. There is nothing stopping any other candidate for President from stealing Ron's and Jesse's ideas. I hope they all do. It could push Roe back to the states, where it belongs within 2 years. Congress has restricted the juridiction on several occasion recently, in so called War on Terror legislation. The Surpreme Court has meekly gone along.

W| 10.26.11 @ 5:29PM

It can't restrict jurisdiction on a constitutional right. Like it or not abortion is a constitutional right.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 6:57PM

The Congress has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the Courts in the matter of Abortion or any other matter. It is right in Articile 3. Clint Sean, Frank Natoli, and most of me have proved it. Get used to the fact Congress can do it and it should be done. Ron Paul has and will push to get it done.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:41PM

How is "limiting the jurisdiction" the same as over-turning a SCOTUS decision????

Apples and Oranges...

Frank Natoli| 10.26.11 @ 5:53PM

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that tomorrow Congress passes an "exception" or "regulation" stating that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in the matter of abortion rights. Perhaps that does not immediately overturn Roe v Wade, but it seems clear to me, admittedly a legal layman, that any state, e.g., Texas, could then enact a law limiting abortion, and when that law was appealed, the federal courts would of necessity decline to hear the appeal, since under the Constitution the Congress had acted to declare an "exception" or "regulation" in that regard.

All that assumes, hah-hah, that we have rule of law, and that the Constitution really is the supreme law of the land, see Article VI, admittedly a very big assumption.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

W| 10.26.11 @ 6:23PM

Frank, read my post above. You are wrong.
We have had legal abortion since 1973. If what you and the others propse could be done don't you think such a bill would have come up for vote?
The Supreme Court is the final decision maker on the constitutionality of any law. This is settled law.

Frank Natoli| 10.26.11 @ 6:32PM

W: if I understand you correctly, you regard Article III, Section 2, as meaningless text. If you don't, could you provide an example of how Article III, Section 2, "regulation" or "exception", could have a substantive effect?

As for "final decision maker", this sounds suspiciously to me as if there is no checks and balances applying to the judiciary. So the President can veto legislation, and the Congress can over-ride vetoes, and the President can ignore Congress, and the Congress can impeach and convict him, but under your understanding of the Constitution there are no such checks and balances applying to the judicary?

I regard Article III, Section 2, as exactly that: a check and balance, exercised by the Congress, against a lawless judiciary, which is what we now have.

Notice, in none of my posts, do I stoop to "you are wrong". I quote the law. Take a look at the Constitution and document where it says that the judiciary alone answers to no other branch.

W| 10.26.11 @ 6:59PM

Frank,
It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional. There are maybe thousands of cases that say that, so you may want to go to your nearby law school library and ask to read some. Or you can call your lawyer and ask him. Or you can save time and money by just accepting it.

As for checks and balances on the judiciary, a federal judge can be impeached for misconduct, like bribery, but not for making decisions you don't agree with.

I explained in a post above about limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Read it. Congress can't limit jurisdiction that would eliminate a constitutional right. For example, we have a right of free speech and freedom of religion in the First Amendment. Say Congress passes a law saying the courts can't hear a case involving free speech, or freedom of religion, or under the Second Amendmnt, right to bear arms. Under the scenario painted by the street lawyers here, Congress could then pass a law forbidding the right to bear arms, the right to practice your religion, and the right of free speech, BUT because the Courts can't hear these cases, then you can't file a complaint in Court to contest the elimination of you rights.

Congress can limit jurisdiction so long as it does not affect constitutional rights.
You are right in one sense, there isn't much of a check and balance on the Supreme Court. There's a well known saying, "The constitution is whatever the Court says it is." This is why there is such a big fight over nominations to the Supreme Court. It has a lot of power.
Your'e Italian from your name, so I know you are smart and understand this.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 7:17PM

W. I am Italian too and understand the constitution. I attended law school, but never finished and have studied this issue for decades. Congress can take the power away of the Federal Courts on this issue by just stating the Juridiction of the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion is now given in full to the states. Of course the Court could try to overrule the law of the land and the clear meaning of the Constitution but President Paul and many of the states would ignore it. The Congress has the absolute authority to regulate and limit the Juridiction of the Federal Courts. It was put in the Constitution for just such cases of Judicial overreach. It could in theory pass legislation saying that the court has no jurisdiction to hear any case involving the overturning of federal Legislation. In fact it would be a good idea to do so. The role of the courts should not be to make legislation but to enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:43PM

"I attended law school, but never finished and have studied this issue for decades."

Sorry, Jack...But failing out of Law School and watching endless re-runs of "Law and Order" on TBS does NOT make you an expert...

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 7:04PM

Frank Natoli Terrific. Even though you listen to Bark Levin you have a mind of your own. Roe vs Wade was a massive Constitutional overeach by the Surpreme Court of the powers of the states and the people to regulate this horrible practice. A chicken has more protections then a baby in the womb in the is country. I should care about Israel or the Holocaust which hapened over 60 years ago but ignore the million and one half babies who are murdered every year in this country.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:20PM

Jack in Bavaria,

Are you one of the Ron Paul cranks who calls Mark Levin on a continual basis, rambles like a crack-addict, and then get's yelled at by the Great One??

You don't like Levin, do you? He's another one a' them dirty Jews, right?

Too bad he could run intellectual circles around you (and Ron Paul) without breaking a sweat.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 7:33PM

I don't waste my time listening to Levin. His only agenda is pushing Israel all day eveyday. He could care less about the 60 million babies murdered in this country since Roe was Unconstitutionaly rammed through.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:46PM

Obviously, you don't listen to Levin.

First of all, he's a Jew, and you don't like Jews.

Secondly, I listen to him practically every day, and he hardly ever mentions Israel.

Mike D.| 10.26.11 @ 11:39PM

He's a Jew, thats all Jackboot needs to know to disregard anything he says.

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 11:11AM

Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it simply would throw the issue back to the states. In other words, the practice would continue. Roe v. Wade already has been superseded anyway by Webster v. Missouri Reproductive Services (1989).

JKS| 10.26.11 @ 3:06PM

It's asshats like you who will keep me from ever and I mean EVER voting for Ron Paul.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 5:42PM

Aaaand you're an asshat.

Alan Brooks | 10.26.11 @ 8:25PM

I did it again.

They think that was Clint's post.

hee,hee.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:30PM

You're A Buffoon, Brooks.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:21PM

Aaaand you're an asshat.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:22PM

No, You're An Asshat.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:22PM

No, you're an asshat.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:22PM

I'm an asshat.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:23PM

Punk Poseur Poster Dr. Reich Is An Asshat.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:23PM

Let's See Ya Sell Your RINO-CINO Religious Bigot/Suppressed Pervert Agenda To Real Conservatives, Dr.Reich.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:24PM

Everyone On This Forum Is An Asshat Except Jack.

Alan Brooks| 10.26.11 @ 9:24PM

LOL.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:25PM

gET BENT aSSHAT

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 9:52PM

Me Spell Funny

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:43PM

Me Smell Funny

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:43PM

Why Does My Hat Smell Like Ass?

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 11:09PM

Why Does My Ass Smell Like My Hat?

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 12:36PM

In the case of rape, what kind of justice is it to force an innocent woman to carry the spawn of the rapist to term? Yes, the potential child is innocent but so is the woman, and the principle of self-defense comes into play.

In the case of incest, this occurs either between consulting adults or - all too often 0ften - between an adult and a minor. The latter case is stautory rape at a minimum, and the general principle with regard to rape should apply, but requiring outside counsel for the girl.

In all cases, however, these are matters to be decided by individual states, just as are other criminal matters that relate to common law. Roe vs Wade must be overturned as bad law and dangerous precedent, unconstitutional by any rational measure.

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:18PM

You must not watch the news much. A pro-lifer shot Dr. Tiller to death while Tiller was attending church.r

Cb35| 10.26.11 @ 4:33PM

No one should advocate forcing a woman to have her rapist's baby. Period.

Jay Richards| 10.26.11 @ 7:20PM

Alas, this is another instance of Mr. Cain, whom I admire, revealing that he just hasn't thought consistently through an issue of importance to millions of Americans. It makes no moral or legal sense to say that one thinks abortion is murder (as he implied in his opposition to abortion), but then say that it ought to up to individual mothers whether or not they engage in murder of their unborn children. That's anarchy, not libertarianism. If he said straight out that an unborn child wasn't a child, then his additional claim that it should be up to individual mothers would at least be coherent (though based, I think, on a demonstrably absurd premise). As it is, he's voicing a set of opinions that might nicely map the polling spread of the American public, and match the incoherent thinking of many Americans on this issue, but is still, quite simply, either contradictory or absurd. It's equivalent to saying that murder ought sometimes to be legal. This is a straightforward logical implication, based on his words and their implications, and has nothing to do with the facts.

Kung| 10.27.11 @ 12:43AM

Why torture the rape victim and her family? "Ve have vays of making you birth!"

LindaF | 10.26.11 @ 6:53AM

I acknowledge that the "limited abortion" group is numerically larger. I do see that Cain's position is a pragmatic one, and not a "pro-abortion" stance.

His position, and legislation that supports it, may be the best that can be gotten at this time.

That doesn't mean that I've got to like it.

chuck| 10.26.11 @ 7:36AM

I appreciate your position, and I too am anti-abortion.
The question needs to be: Do you want to empower the Federal Government to the point that they can FORCE a woman to continue with a pregnancy that she does not want?
I believe Cain's position is a sensible one. He privately does everything he can to minimize the number of abortions, while realizing that to empower the Federal government to the point of outlaw abortion entirely is entrusting too much power to them.
This should be a state matter. If Roe were overturned, each state could decide this matter on its own.

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 8:45AM

Obviously, from a theoretical point of view, abortion is a great evil. So was slavery. However, Lincoln could not go over to the Abolitionist side of immediate emancipation of slaves without committing political suicide. He had to adopt a politically viable position -- containment. So pro-lifers need to be like Lincoln -- and many are -- in regarding abortion in all cases as evil from a moral point of view, but adopting exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, for political purposes. Temporary compromises to reach a greater good -- which is how I read Cain's view -- are not a bad thing. I think that's what Ross is trying to say.

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 5:31PM

I agree with you.

The more I hear Cain speak the more I like him. I think I am going to send him $9 (my wife will have to approve it). He seams to be alot like me. (I have not done anywhere near as well as him - but I still have time)

For him to win he needs to keep doing what he is doing. Pissing off the Far Left can only help (smoking in an add that is too funny - The left does not get it, that just makes it funnier)

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 8:48AM

Given the 14th Amendment, I don't think abortion can be a State issue.

chuck| 10.26.11 @ 2:14PM

The tenth amendment grants to the states all powers not specified to the federal government. The 14th provides for equal protection under the law, on a federal level. Different states can pass different laws, and are not constrained by the laws of the other states.

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 4:20PM

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The privileges & immunities clause and the due process clause (which protects LIFE), were applied to the States by the 14th Amendment.

chuck| 10.26.11 @ 5:49PM

I must respectfully disagree with you. I do not believe abortion fits under this amendment any more than say, gay marriage, use of illegal drugs, or a myriad of other things that states make laws about. Under your argument, the states would not be able to pass laws concerning anyone's behavior.
This amendment was pass post civil war, and was attempting to prevent the Southern States from mistreating newly freed slaves.

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 10:49PM

Yes, in doing so, the 14th Amendment incorporated the Constitution's provisions regarding the protection of LIFE. It did not incorporate all the myriad of other things that modern judges falsely claim. It was a restricted incorporation.

numerian| 10.26.11 @ 6:57AM

The political question is - or should be - who gets to decide what the laws will be that govern abortion? Whether abortion is legal, illegal, or sometimes legal is ultimately a question that IMHO is best decided by the people and their elected representatives.

But the main thrust leftist efforts is to remove from the public the right to make public policy decisions, and to award that power to an unelected and unaccountable elite.

DTOM| 10.26.11 @ 9:58AM

As "Jackronpaul in Wisconsin" pointed out it should be legislated. PERIOD.

I think Jackronpaul may want to check in with the paulbot mothership because a true libertarian would normally hold that abortion is NOT the government's business.

As a conservative, I find abortion abhorrent because it is infanticide under cover of convenience...

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 2:36PM

Tell It To Ronald Reagan, Sport.

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

There are, at least 10 types of libertarians, and more shades of libertarians.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 4:32PM

Which shade are you, sport?

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:28PM

Guess, RINO-CINO Doctor "I'll Vote For Romney" Reich.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 7:00AM

OK, this is gonna get a little unpleasant, like Barb Mikulski in a Thong, so abort me.
Which I probably would have been if I'd been born in 1973 instead of 1963, at least thats what my dad used to say.
But if it wasn't for 6 Surpreme Court justices, including the Nixon-Appointed-Chief-Justice, and 2 others he appointed, there'd be ummm
about 40 million more black peoples in America.
The math gets a little tricky, but the best estimates are some 17 million black feti have been exterminated with extreme prejudice since January 22 1973, the same day LBJ died BTW(coincidence???)
and figuring that 1/2 of those unwanted tissue masses were female, and an average black fertility rate of 2.1, age of menarche 12.4, hommina, hommina...
OK, there'd be ALOT more Black Peoples around.
And with a Black Male incarceration rate of %4.8(Dept Justice, 2009) you'd need 1,200,000 more jail cells just to keep even.
OK, I realize black males don't start getting incarcerated until there 11 or 12, but still...
And when you allow for the States Black Peoples just won't live in, i.e Vermont, Idaho, etc, each States would have a million more Peoples of Color, give or take an Afro or 2.
THATS why Abortion will remain Safe, Legal, and disproportionately used by minorities.

Frank

Ivan Ivanovich| 10.26.11 @ 7:18AM

Frank; Just wondering, did you factor in the the number of babies that would not have been conceived if abortion was not so free and easy? I think it would be near 50%. BTW, I'm for more American babies, blank, brown, yellow, red, and pink like me.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 7:21AM

umm Ivan,
where are these "free" abortions of which you speak?
Not in the market right now, hopefully never will be, what with my daughters on the Norplant, but nothing's perfect.

Frank

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 11:12AM

Do you actually believe there were no abortions in this country prior to Roe v. Wade?

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 11:47AM

not enough, obviously,

Frank

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 12:39PM

I'd like to thank FD for making his ultra-racist sentiments abundantly clear.

JKS| 10.26.11 @ 3:10PM

Actually, it is bigotry, there is a difference.

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 5:38PM

Is it, in this case, a difference or merely a distinction? If I were a semanticist the answer might interest me.

Grouchy| 10.26.11 @ 7:02AM

I agree with Numerian. Abortions should be regulated by the states, just like any other homicide. As it is now, when a state passes any
restriction on abortionists, some federal judge
will immediately strike it down.

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 8:46AM

I think the 14th Amendment requires that the abortion issue be handled at the Federal level.

John Navratil| 10.26.11 @ 9:24AM

Vern Crisler,

I can't connect the dots. How does the 14th amendment apply except for Roe v. Wade?

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 4:22PM

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The privileges & immunities clause and the due process clause (which protects LIFE), were applied to the States by the 14th Amendment.

Ivan Ivanovich| 10.26.11 @ 7:04AM

Yes, foget about these silly polls and let BHO win. Let the Bennet's win and watch them keep funding Planned Parenthood. I think this was a good article.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.26.11 @ 7:07AM

Is Cain a Libertarian on abortion or is he just making it up as he goes along as Charles Krauthammer, Jenifer Rubin, consistently pro-life conservatives and others have observed? On the issue of homosexual marriage and gun control Cain has the same Romney-like muddled position as his pro-choice or is it pro-life stance (that could go for Alice Rivlin inspired 9-9-9 or 9-0-9).

While the supporters of Cain, like Ron Paul’s, are fervent and cheerfully trust he misspoke, because the questions were asked too fast if he's our candidate in 2012 the potential for a repeat of AK, CO, NV and DE 2010 fiascos on a national scale –an inexperienced and unready candidate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against a candidate seemingly destined to lose.

richard ryan| 10.26.11 @ 8:43AM

Maybe Cain is just "making it up" as he goes along. Or to phrase it differently, he is answering the questions as honestly and openly as he can, without consulting 12 advisors and 25 polls to reach the most "politically safe" position. You see, this is what I love about Herman Cain. He is a man who is willing to put himself out there, and say what is on his mind. When conservatives get elected to public office and then turn on us, we all wonder "What happens to these guys when they take office???" Well, they start listening to political hacks, that's what. They consult scores of advisors and idiots and come up with crap. IMO, lets get a real leader like Cain with guts in the white house who will be the same guy in 3 yrs.

John Navratil| 10.26.11 @ 9:30AM

richard ryan,

Furthermore, what's this fascination with a quick answer? Do we want a President who has all the answers memorized or one who is deliberative? In some sense ALL these questions are hypothetical. The best that can be said of them is that the candidate has thought enough of the question to have a canned response. This is not without value, I'll admit, but I'll take principle over a stock answer.

Drunken Sailor| 10.26.11 @ 3:40PM

John, it's all part of the "Instant Gratification" world we live in now. They expect immediate answers at the push of a button. Very few take the time to think about the answers and their implications anymore. Patience is a dead art.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:43PM

Michael Tomlinson: Disingenuous, disingenuous, disingenuous.
For shame.

arhooley| 10.26.11 @ 6:19PM

Wait, what? Did you say Charles Krauthammer is anti-choice? He's not. He's pro-choice. His objection to Cain was the way he murdered logic.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 7:29AM

Roe V Wade is Nixon's revenge, just like the EPA...
Seriously, you think a President as concerned with his-straw as Tricky Dick(what an awesume nickname!) wouldn't know how his Surpreme Court Nominees felt about the A-word???
I picture a cold rainy morning, February 1969...
no taping system yet, so we'll never know for sure.

Nixon: Good Morning Warren, just wanted to see how you felt about...
Warren Burger: Spiro Agnew?? A Fine Man, he'll make a great president in 76'.
Nixon: No, Warren, you know, (Unintelligible)
Warren Burger: You mean that trouble maker Jessie Jackson?
Nixon NO, that issue that rhymes with Smush-mortion.
Warren Burger: well,
18 MINUTE GAP

canuckistani| 10.26.11 @ 10:14AM

too funny

arhooley| 10.26.11 @ 6:19PM

hahaha

Harry the Horrible| 10.26.11 @ 7:30AM

Devolving the issue back to the Several States is probably the best thing that could happen. If that is "libertarianism" I'm all for it.

John Navratil| 10.26.11 @ 11:48AM

Harry the Horrible,

It would have the salutary effect of putting the issue back into the hands of the people instead of leaving legislation mooted by the court. No matter which way you lean on the issue, the fact that the people's voices have been silenced on an important issue is anti-Democratic. Those who favor the law as it stands have nothing to gain by discussion leaving those who don't with no recourse. Conveniently, those whose job it is to write the laws are given a pass.

martin j smith| 10.26.11 @ 7:36AM

I am sorry if I am skeptical but I am about this kind of issue in this campaign. I realize that social issues for many Conservatives are very important and I certainly agree that all candidates should vetted about where they stand on all major issues. So fine we have an idea that Cain has a take onb abortion that others may not approve. Fine.

Now what is the point really ?
We desperately need someone to lead this country out of the terrible morass we are thanks to directly BHO but an assist must given to GWB 'and like minded Establishment republicans some of whom voted for BHO BTW.
Now then the question becomes and this goes for every candidate without exception: What is the deal breaker ? Or, flipping the coin: What is the deal maker ?

My personal view: Cain's stand on the right to chose abortion under certain circumstances seems more than reasonable such as in the cases of rape,incest or other sexual criminal acts.

But far beyond that is the greater issue of finding a leader who has the ability to inspire. We are far away still from making that choice but I would say this Cain is far better than Romney,Huntsman or Paul. Period. All of the others have their flaws as well which must be examined just so. But don't forget, we need a leader who can come out of this vetting process alive ( politically ) and kicking to win. OK ?

chuck| 10.26.11 @ 7:44AM

Actually, I believe this process is good. However the nominee will be, they will be thoroughly vetted, and ready for anything the MSM and the Bamster can throw at him.
But, seriously now, can't Santorum get over his damned "Holier-Than-Thou" attitude? I get it, you're a good Catholic! But damn, you're not going to win, so shut up, sit down, and give the candidates that have a real shot at it a chance to speak!

John Navratil| 10.26.11 @ 9:33AM

martin j smith,

I'll add that any President's role is to sign or veto bills. Bills originate in the House. These sorts of questions are much more appropriate for a legislator than they are of an executive.

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 5:52PM

"Bills originate in the House."

Article I, Section 7: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 4:37PM

Cain certainly has the ability to inspire debate. Notice that none of us really care much about what the other candidates believe about these things? Do we really care what Romney's position on abortion is? About the only other candidate who is discussed is Ron Paul, but mainly by the Paul-bots.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 5:43PM

Ron Paul invented water. Look it up.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:32PM

Shut Up Brooks.

Stop Poseur Punk Posting Under My Name, Buffoon.

mensamensa| 10.27.11 @ 2:44AM

"Ron Paul invented water"

That's true, Ronaldus Minimus, as he was known in those days, not only discovered Hydrogen, but also Oxygen.
He holds Patent#XXIV, issued in the year 250 BC, that's Before Conservatism.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:47PM

Cain didn't say he believes in the "Right to choose."
He said that for children, in the case of rape or incest that the parents should make the decision, not the government.

He believes though, that abortion is wrong in ALL cases, and said so.

All of this trashing of Herman Cain by supposed conservatives just shows where they're really at themselves.

May God put it in the hearts of the people to elect Herman Cain for President.

Country Class Women for Herman Cain 2012!

Pecos Pete| 10.26.11 @ 7:44AM

1. The federal government should not be involved in abortion funding nor regulation.

2. Herman Cain is not a slick politician sugar coating his words to please a current audience.

3. DEFEAT King O. Republicans have to quit sniping at their own and start challenging democrat policies and, of course, King O.

4. King O and Biden (and Queen M) are target rich politicians. Republicans should be pointing out their stupidities with forceful commentaries.

John Navratil| 10.26.11 @ 9:37AM

Pecos Pete,

First the primary, then the general. Speaking for myself, I don't like Romney a bit, but will have absolutely no problem voting for him THEN. I have no doubt other conservatives will too. In the meantime, snipe on! The first votes are in about ten weeks and things will quickly quiet down.

Big Tony| 10.26.11 @ 8:00AM

Great article Ross!
I see Cain's problems as mulitfaucted. I like Cain but as a POTUS candidate BHO and the main stream media will chew him up and spit him out. Because of his inexperience and tendency to be truthful rather than make poll tested comments.
Another problem is his mistake of answering and continuing to answer hypotheical questions which is political suicide

In Mr. Cain's defense Pier Morgan's question was should Cain's daughter be forced to raise the child big difference in that and giving birth to the child.

I think he would make a great VP candidate, Treasury Sec. or HHS director but I will vote for him when the nomination process come to GA despite my misgivings about his preformance in
the general election.

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.26.11 @ 8:03AM

Look. The Argument is whether Abortion is a STATE matter, or a Constitutional Right. The answer to any Abortion question should be, as follows: "I, myself, believe in LIFE. I believe that Life begins at Conception, and that GOD has a purpose for all of us. I also challenge ANYONE to show me the RIGHT to an abortion, in the Constitution. I'm guessing it's right next to the Separation Of Church and State Clause, and the NO CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS on Public Lands."
I would also say: "Hey. If someone wants to have an Abortion? I'm not gonna stop'em. That's their decision. Me, myself, I wouldn't wanna make that choice. But it has to be a STATE deal. The Federal Government has no business sticking its nose in, on what is, basically, a Medical Procedure. And even lees business PAYING FOR THEM."
"As far as Rape is concerned? I believe that's an entirely different situation. There was no consent involved. There was no free will choice. But, if if you're using abortion as Birth Control? Then, you are most certainly going to Hell, in my book."
"Next question."

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 11:14AM

Show me where the word God is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, an omission, by the way, that was no oversight.

Mick Lee| 10.26.11 @ 12:09PM

Article Seven.

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
Twelfth.

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 3:46PM

Ah, yes, the radical Religious Right's eternal "GOTCHA!" line. Reality check: It was common practice back then to refer to a given year as "The Year of Our Lord." Indeed, it still is common. This is not a theological statement, merely a customary way of delineating for posterity the actual, unchallengeable date of a contract.

By your lights, if you sneezed and I said, "God bless you," that would constitute a sermon on my part.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:46PM

But that's what you asked for, genius.

Common practice or not, you're WRONG. Man-up, and admit it

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 7:16PM

Actually, I earlier had referred to the word "God," not "Lord," a distinction which, in this particular context, is highly relevant.

Once more -- "Year of Our Lord" appears in the Constitution (and other legal documents) as a purely customary term to affirm the exact date of a contract; i.e., so as not to be confused with, say, 1787 B.C. The Framers were thinking long term. In no way does the phrase officially establish a religious doctrine. The idea that the words "Year of Our Lord" in Article VII establishes America as a Biblical Republic would be laughed out of any court.

Maybe someone else here needs to man up.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:24PM

Nice try, dingbat.

You asked him to find one reference to God in the Constitution. He did, instantly.

Then you tried to argue your way out of it by saying that was a "common expression".

EPIC FAIL.

Now you try to say - quite pathetically - that you asked for the word "God", not "Lord".

EPIC FAIL.

You've been exposed.

Put your dress back on, and disappear.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:25PM

And NO ONE said that this country was founded as a "Biblical Republic".

That fantasy exists in your addled brain.

Seek| 10.27.11 @ 12:48PM

A great many Christian fundamentalists refer to our nation as a Biblical Republic all the time. Pay some attention to them for a change. They're kind of scary -- like you.

No, Dr. Right, hurling redneck-level insults at people, while misrepresenting their views, doesn't constitute an idea. Not even on this website.

victor| 10.28.11 @ 6:23PM

seek:
"A great many Christian fundamentalists refer to our nation as a "Biblical Republic"."

Ok, you've made the charge. Any evidence to back up your allegation?
Surely you would have cited one, if there was one, eh?

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 4:43PM

Hah, Mick, you smoked Seek pretty good. They didn't use A.D., but spelled it out, plus they didn't meet on Sundays. Atheists just don't want to admit that the Founders were in the main Christians. Moreover, the Constitution presupposes the Declaration which does mention God pretty explicitly. No atheist can be a true Revolutionary or Constitutionalist in light of our founding documents, though this does not mean our government is a religious establishment, or prefers or prevents religious expression. Amazing that anyone would call this common knowledge as a "radical Religious Right" gotcha line.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:49PM

I am surprised that Seek didn't excoriate you for saying he's an atheist.

Right, Seek?

You said you weren't, eh?

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:47PM

If an atheist steals another atheist's car, is that a crime?

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 7:21PM

There is no hard evidence that the main Founders intended our Nation to be a Biblical Republic. Indeed, the best historians of how the Constitution came to be written -- e.g., Bernard Bailyn, Joyce Appleby, Robert Middlekauff, Richard Beeson and Gordon Wood -- each have found no evidence that matters of great religious piety even were discussed in Philadelphia in 1787, much less resolved. (Gee, I guess they must be "atheists").

Get the smoke out of your ears, Vern. And you as well, Dr. Right. You're out of your depth.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:26PM

"There is no hard evidence that the main Founders intended our Nation to be a Biblical Republic."

Gee...really?!?!

Wow!! That's news, isn't it?

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 10:59PM

You've gone from asking for the mention of God in the Constitution -- which was provided to you immediately -- to the idea that the founders didn't want this nation to be a biblical republic. Uh, no one is claiming such a thing. It is preposterous to argue that the founders weren't in the main Christians in their worldview. During the Constitutional Convention, even the old "deist" Franklin wanted to call on God's help. In addition, Washington warned the nation not to abandon religion and morality, which he regarded as the foundations of our republic.

And Bernard Bailyn has stated that biblical covenantalism was part of the philosophy of the Revolutionaries. So read your sources more carefully if you want to be taken seriously.

victor| 10.28.11 @ 6:34PM

Seek:
"There is no hard evidence that the main Founders intended our Nation to be a Biblical Republic."

They did not want a Christian nation, but a nation of Christians.
They were not in Philly to set up a Theocracy, but a
government that was run on Christian principles.

John Adams:
"I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
On the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

"The furnace of affliction produces refinement in states as well as individuals. And the new Governments we are assuming in every part will require a purification from our vices, and an augmentation of our virtues, or they will be no blessings."

This is only ONE Founding Father.
I can give you more if you so desire.

It will be my pleasure.

victor| 10.28.11 @ 6:35PM

I cannot imagine any atheist saying any such things, can you?

Kelly Staples| 10.26.11 @ 8:14AM

B.O. has gotta go! THAT is priority #1. Don't let 'em slow you down Herman.

JimH| 10.26.11 @ 8:21AM

Polling results will reflect how the question is asked. Americans are nearly unanimous in opposition to late term abortions. Those who believe that human life begins at the moment of conception logically oppose any abortion. I suspect most people fall into the camp of opposing abortion once the fetus has developed to a certain point sometimes termed quickening. Once you accept that a fetus is a human being the State has a duty to prevent or punish its killing. Whether this is a Federal matter is another question. Even if not banned the government should not be paying for them.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 8:22AM

If Abortion was legal in 1969 Mary Joe Kopeckney(who was Asphyxiated, NOT Drowned, there's a difference) would still be alive..
well she'd be 71, but most likely still alive.

Frank

W| 10.26.11 @ 9:34AM

Are you are saying that Teddy left Mary Joe in the pond to die because Mary Joe could not get an abortion in any of the fifty states (or is it 57 states) or overseas? This would make Teddy a premedidated killer , first degree murder, as opposed to criminally negligent homicide, or manslaughter.

Mike Hawk| 10.26.11 @ 9:36AM

How do you know that??

DTOM| 10.26.11 @ 10:19AM

And didn't know that her name was actually Mary Jo Kopechne?

And how, Frank, how do you know she was pregnant at the time? Did you work for an undertaker in Pennsylvania?

No autopsy for poor Mary Jo.

Good thing Teddy's already met with God on this topic, cause otherwise, Frank ol' buddy, you might be liable for libel.

Quit making crap up. Yes, Kennedy was lower than whale poop and a discredit to himself and his not-very-creditable family (except for their WWII military not diplomatic service...) But lying about him to make him look worse reflects badly on you, Frank, and by association, us.

Please, knock it off.

Thank you.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 10:37AM

@DTOM
YOU knock it off, oh wait,
ummm is this Russia? or Iran? you know, where thug-life-Ayatollahs and Aparatchiks rule with an Iron Fist.
OK, if you've ever caught a cab at Atlanta-Zimbabwe-Hartsfield Airport, you might think you were in Moscow or Terror-Ann, what with all the Chechnya/Iraq-Iran war veterans driving Cabs...
And last time I checked, Chappaquiddick's in Rhode Island, not Pennsylvania, my Geographically Challenged friend.

Frank

W| 10.26.11 @ 11:13AM

Frank,
Calm yourself.
Mary Joe is buried in Pa.
There was a court proceeding to exhume the body for an autopsy, but I believe the judge denied the request.

W| 10.26.11 @ 11:14AM

The court was proceeding was in Pa.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 12:31PM

My Bad,
and I should know Chappaquidicks in Mass, not Rhode Island...

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:50PM

15-25% of people on this planet would asphyxiate if immersed in water without air to breathe.

That's because their gag-reflex is so strong that inhaling water causes their trachea to seize-up so they can't get oxygen. They "drown", but their lungs don't have water in them.

That's what happened to Mary Joe K.

JimH| 10.26.11 @ 8:32AM

The Article is titled Cain’s Abortion Libertarianism. I find this interesting as the most libertarian of the candidates, Dr. Ron Paul is entirely against abortion. I don’t think that there is a libertarian position regarding abortion. I’ve seen both pro and anti positions argued in libertarian terms. It seems to come down to when you consider the fetus to be a person; Though the most extreme pro abortion arguments sometimes claim that the fetus is in effect living parasitically on the mother. I think this position taken to its logical conclusion can be used to justify infanticide as well.

DTOM| 10.26.11 @ 10:20AM

Infanticide is just "real-late-term" abortion. Up to about 215 months.

ForFreedom| 10.26.11 @ 5:41PM

Libertarians are mixed on abortion. It's a conflict between the right of the fetus/baby to be protected from those that would harm it, and the right of a mother to do with her body as she desires (not carrying a child to term). I'm a long time libertarian and my position is to leave it to the states. I support abortion if the mother's life or health are affected, or in cases of rape or incest. I see no reason to reward rapists by forcing their victims to carry their children to term. And I also support allowing women to have abortions in the first trimester, as I don't want more unwanted children, though I'd urge them to consider putting the baby up for adoption as there are many loving couples who are unable to conceive.

ndlaw| 10.26.11 @ 9:29AM

The issue isn't all that complicated. If you truly believe, as Cain says he does, that human life begins at conception, then you need to follow through and act on that belief by protecting that human life and making abortion illegal. Cain is trying to dance on the head of a pin, and he is justifiably getting poked as a result. Pro-life folks like me will not support a candidate that isn't 100% pro-life. Of course, if Cain gets the Republican nomination, and the choice is between Cain and Obama, Cain will get my vote. It will be the lesser of two evils.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.26.11 @ 9:37AM

richard ryan:
The problem with Herman Cain is he's obviously NOT "answering the questions as honestly and openly as he can," because the next day he scrambles to walk back his "foot 'n mouth" pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-gun control, opposition to the killing American jihadist Anwar Awalaki, willingness to release GITMO terrorists and 9-9-9 answers. Instead Cain excuses his liberal gobbledygook by saying he misspoke, denies he said it despite the evidence he did or that the question was asked to fast and he couldn’t formulate a proper response. Not very reassuring that he's "willing to put himself out there, and say what is on his mind" unless you mean he’s saying what’s on his mind at that moment and are not principled stands or beliefs. Then he’s making it up as he goes.

The difference between Romney and Cain is merely in their supporters. Romney’s supporters acknowledge he’s opportunistic, but experienced and electable. Cain supporters close their eyes to his embarrassing answers and embrace his inexperience as why he should be our Party’s nominee – “he’s genuine, affable, charismatic or the melanin in his skin tone is a plus” (sounds like Obama cohorts in 2008).

This embrace of the “wet behind the ears” candidate is reminiscent of Senate nominees Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell (now a Mitt Romney supporter) who took sure wins and turned them into easy victories for Democrats like detested Harry Reid.

dominusveritas| 10.26.11 @ 3:55PM

I think calling Cain “wet behind the ears” is very misleading. The only aspect of his candidacy to which that could apply is in reference to pure political fluency. Take a look at the AmSpec articles on the ruling class. We desperately need a candidate with a strong leadership background who is not a product of the political system.

To my eyes, the other supposed frontrunners (Romney, Cain) are shameless opportunists who don't deserve the honor and responsibility of leading this great nation. Gingrich has too much baggage, and the others stand no chance of getting the nomination.

Just my two cents. Plus, I'm inclined to support someone who puts his money where his mouth is. That's probably a good indication of where his heart sits on the issue.

PCC| 10.26.11 @ 9:46AM

Prior to the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, most states were either in or heading towards a policy that abortion in the first trimester would be legal, and after the first trimester, illegal, with some states more liberal and some more restrictive. For better or worse, that's about where most people are today and will be for a long time to come. The Roe vs. Wade decision was a travesty of constitutional law and thereby short-circuited the ability of the citizenry, in each state, to decide for themselves the public policy on the issue, which otherwise would have been sorted out consistent with a democratic republican form of government.

Scott| 10.26.11 @ 9:56AM

What the author fails to realize is that these candidates aren't playing to entirity of America...they aren't even playing to the 50%+1.

They are playing to the ~30% or so of the country that is Republican, and which at least half of those are social conservatives.

While I personally have a serious problem with any candidate who believes they have a role in dictating both their religious and medical beliefs on the country as a whole, I also know it plays well to that 20% segment of the population that is absolute in their stance that their view of the world (and God) is correct, and everyone else needs to swallow it.

bill glass| 10.26.11 @ 9:56AM

I understand Cain...he's trying to answer a question that really wasn't asked. The right question would be something like " Do you favor reversing Roe? (answer yes) Do you think you'll be appointing judges that would support Roe? (answer no) ; and, Under current law, what is the factual, elemental, personal basis for a person's decision? ...he favors life w/ no exceptions, but a person/family has to make that decision (and face the consequences, if it would be illegal (theoretically in the future)).

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 4:48PM

Makes sense. . . but journalists and other candidates are looking for ways to trip up Cain or front runners. Cain still needs to get a little more polished and experienced in his answers and I hope he gets there before he faces Obama, because the media is on Obama's side.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 9:58AM

It was the "Gipper" who signed the California "Therapeutic Abortion" bill in 1967...
And be honest, would the world be that much worse if "Ronald Reagan Jr" had ended up in a suction cannister instead of the media suction cannister of MSNBC??
And my Mom got a Therapeutic Smush-morsh-man thanks to RWR.
Thats right, if it wasn't for Ronaldus Maximus I, I'd have a 37 year old brother/sister to sponge off of/sponging off me.
And you can' t expect Historical Figures to get everythang right, even Einstein had erasers on his pencils..
OK, I don't KNOW thats what she went to the local "Womens Health Clinic" for, instead of to the Military Clinic where we got most of our Government Substandard Healthcare...
And I was happy when I found out, as a normal selfish 10 year old, I didn't need no annoying baby brother/sister to suck up our limited natural resources. I already had an annoying little sister I had to share a shitty 12 inch Black& White no cable TV with..
I'd wanta watch "Born Innocent" you remember, where that chick from the "Exorcist" gets raped in a shower.
BY A GIRL-LESBIAN-GANG!!!!!!!
On network TV, BTW.
She'd wanta watch "Wonderful World of Disney"
Seriously, we got 1 bag of Doritos a week, me and my Sister.
We'd even split em up one-by-one NFL draft style.
Got a little unpleasant when there'd be an odd number...

Frank

DTOM| 10.26.11 @ 10:24AM

Frank,

Where I'm from we have a term for what you just laid out; we call it "oversharing."

Thank you for sharing all that with us. We really didn't want or need to hear it. Why on earth did you feel it necessary for the world to hear about how awfully you think your parents treated you?

We also are not interested in your latest colonoscopy pictures.

Thank you.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 10:44AM

DTOM,
Where I'm from we have a term for tight-assed bossy bodies like you.
"Tight-ass Bossy Bodies"
And my parents did the best they could, unlike the Peas-Eater-in-Chief's Dad, who must have taken Alabama Governor George Cornhole Wallace(D) literally and skee-dadled back to Africa. And as poor as the POTUS was supposed to be, I couldn't help but notice in one of his childhood photos, HE HAD A COLOR TV...
A big one, probably 19 incher, and in 1974 they cost like $10,000 in 2011 dollars.
And how do you know about my Colonoscopy?
THATS creepy,

Frank

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:51PM

Frank:

Where I'm from we have a term for people like you:

Morons.

Mimi| 10.26.11 @ 10:25AM

The principled among us ...IS NOT SITUATIONAL !!..It is true the Pro-Life issue has NO grey.... only Black and White
In the case of RAPE an afterwords visit to an emergency room is all that is needed...a D&C given to clean the genital tract although not the intention to kill a potential fetus but to protect the health of the victim. Pregnancy from rape is statistically RARE ! Yet the CHOOSE TO KILL crowd use this on every Pro-life politician it is the frequent question of the corrupt MEDIA.
It is right for Herman to clear his thoughts...any advisor could have prevented this DUST-UP.
He may have hurt his candidacy some but it is hoped by many fade.
Of course we have pro-life "ALL THE WAY" people we can choose to support!

arhooley| 10.26.11 @ 6:07PM

The rarity of pregnancy as a result of rape is completely irrelevant to the question of whether rape victims who DO get pregnant should be forced at gunpoint to carry the fetus to term.

And what's that about "cleaning the genital tract"? Fertilization takes place about two hours after intercourse. Some rape victims aren't even freed in that amount of time, much less able to get to the police for an exam and evidence collection. So your "cleaning" would murder an unimplanted fertilized egg. Get real.

Albert| 10.26.11 @ 10:29AM

I am a Cain fan. I am also sympathetic to the libertarian point of view. However I see no logic to this application of the libertarian view presented by Ross Kaminsky in seeking to explain Mr. Cain's comments. Would a true libertarian say that a man has the freedom to choose to kill his next door neighbor? If so, then his logic holds. If not [and I don't think that it does], then he does not see the killing of an unborn child the same as murder of his next door neighbor. I suppose this is where there is much misunderstanding. Some seem to call those who absolutely oppose abortion as wanting to impose their religious beliefs on others. I imagine there could be a few people who want to impose their religious beliefs, but I am quite sure that most of those who strongly oppose abortion do so because they, like me, view abortion in the same way as murdering their next door neighbor. To us it is actually horrifying that the government could condone such actions rather than protect an individuals right to live. Abortion is NOT a political or social issue politicians should measure by Gallop poles. It is, rather, an issue of life and death.

David T| 10.26.11 @ 10:50AM

"People should be free to choose whether or not to own slaves. It's a family decision--the government should stay out of it."

A. Lincoln

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 4:53PM

Of course, Lincoln was not an Abolitionist -- those who wanted immediate emancipation to the point where they called the Constitution a covenant with death. Thus, your comment doesn't apply. Lincoln did NOT want to free the slaves in the Southern states.

David T| 10.27.11 @ 9:42AM

So who forced his hand to sign the Emancipation Proclamation?

Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates sometime. Lincoln may not have been an abolitionist in your strict definition, but he understood that all men--free or slave--have the natural, God-given right to be free. If he were alive today, I believe he would say that that right also extends to the unborn.

Vern Crisler | 10.27.11 @ 7:27PM

I agree but he also understood that politics was sometimes the art of the possible, not necessarily of the best. He believed in taking smaller steps to reach the goal. BTW, Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation on the basis of military necessity, not on Constitutional grounds. Why? Because he did not want to alienate the slave states that had sided with the Union. He only freed the slaves in the Confederate states. Lincoln knew the value of wisdom in politics, that we cannot always have everything we want right now. Sometimes we have to be as wise as serpents.

PolishKnight| 10.26.11 @ 11:06AM

Gentlemen (and Ladies), I'm going to say something controversial here: WHO CARES?!?! WHY SHOULD IT MATTER?!?!

Even if Cain was a strong pro-lifer, it wouldn't matter. Getting Roe V Wade overturned wouldn't make abortion illegal but rather would move it to the states and then abortion rights would simply be a matter of a bus ride to blue states.

Right now, there are bigger fish to fry: Affirmative action, the welfare state, illegal immigration, government unions, and the anti-family family court system. Any one of those is a serious enough issue to sink this nation and Republicans spend more time pulling their beards over gay marriage or abortion than the above. Shame on you for being played like fools!

Something else to ponder: the left won't tell you this, it's a secret (shhh!) but most feminists don't care about abortion rights either. They fret over the opposite: aging career women NOT having children. Illegal immigration is a massive issue to the left because the blue staters elite left isn't breeding. As contraceptive choices evolve the issue will become moot.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 11:10AM

Fiends, Romulans, Cunst-men,
lend me your Beers...
Seriously, if the American & National Leagues can't agree on something as in-consequential as the Designated Hitter, how is a Nation of some 400 million gonna agree on when life begins?
I'm a numbers man myself, like how Bill Buckner played 2,324 major league games before his fatal error in the 86' World Series..
and these stats are from 1994, you know, when due to the baseball strike, I had alot of spare time to memorize useless numbers.

"Number of Black Abortions, 1993"
New York City 50,312
Idaho 4

I know, I didn't even know there were 4 Blacks in Idaho...

Frank

somnolence| 10.26.11 @ 11:42AM

Cain is currently leading the field in Ohio and in the liberal media darling CBS poll. I agree with one of the views stated above. We have bigger fish to fry. To me, it sounds like Herman is 100% pro-life, as I am. I don't see the libertarian angle at all. I'm only glad Karl Rove is so exasperated he is near tears wondering why Cain is where he is now, even with little money, and even after his TV ad is derided. It seems to be a phenomenon poor Karl, O'Reilly and many others can't grasp. What worked for them yesteryear won't work next year. Wait and see.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 11:57AM

Karl Rove makes me wish Einstein was wrong and I could travel faster than the speed of light back to 1960..
And after I bet on the Pirates over Yanks, JFK over Tricky Dick, stocked up on silver dimes and quarters, I'd hitchhike Route 66 out to Utah and Indian Burn/Donkey Punch/Indian Sodomize that tripple-chinned-4-eyed-Political-Skills-of-Richard Speck till he cried like the big fat baby he is.
I don't like him, if you get my drift.
Karl Rove, not Richard Speck.
I mean at least Monica Crowley's got some DSL's...

Frank

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:55PM

Somnolence,

You are correct. Herman Cain is 100% pro life. And he IS NOT a stinking Libertarian!

Peppermint Tea| 10.26.11 @ 1:34PM

Ross, love your articles and agree with this one.
But why do you give Cain praise for the same middle position that Romney has held for years? Against abortion and against government.

fwb| 10.26.11 @ 1:38PM

What people who call themselves Christians need to learn is to shut up. Yeshua would take the same stand as Cain because Yeshua is a libertarian. You were granted free will by the Creator. He also gives a list of things you must do to get into Heaven and things He wants you to do while on Earth. He does not say you MUST do these things, which is how it would be in government ran the show. He says IF you want to live with me forever then this is what I expect of you.

People often think one or another of the ten commandments is more important. YHWH, I believe, views them as equal. But YHWH understands I am human and a sinner. Why don't humans understand this too?

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:56PM

Understanding that you are a human and a sinner does NOT mean that you simply throw-up your hands and embrace it.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 6:57PM

"What people who call themselves Christians need to learn is to shut up."

Scripture, please.

Casey Abell| 10.26.11 @ 1:40PM

"I don't have the slightest doubt that Herman Cain is, in his own personal belief system, firmly, consistently anti-abortion."

Russ is just cutting the clueless Cain a lot of slack that he wouldn't for any other candidate, especially Romney. Cainiacs don't care about issues. They don't care what comes out of Cain's mouth. They don't care how confused and bumbling Cain looks. They like Cain because they like Cain.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 1:45PM

wouldn't expect someone named "Abell" to like Cain...
and can you believe noones used "Cain Mutiny" yet?

Frank

Casey Abell| 10.26.11 @ 2:36PM

"wouldn't expect someone named "Abell" to like Cain..."

Made a joke about that once at NRO. Didn't work.

But let's face it. Cain's candidacy is Herm-driven, not issues-driven. His supporters like him personally, no matter what he says. Russ' column is just the latest example. Aaron posted a note here saying that a switch from 9-9-9 to 9-0-9 didn't matter.

Exactly. It doesn't matter. Cain could come out tomorrow with 7-16-3-hut-hut-hut and Aaron would still support him. Cain could go pro-life on even-numbered days and pro-choice on odd-numbered days (which actually seems pretty close to his real position) and Russ would still like him.

They like Herm because they like Herm. Issues? We don't need no stinkin' issues.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 5:05PM

What a liar you are.
Almost as bad as Michael Tomlinson.
No wait, you're worse.. oh I don't know, it's a toss up.
What you are is a nasty two-bit liar. There, how's that?

Casey Abell| 10.27.11 @ 12:30PM

"What you are is a nasty two-bit liar. There, how's that?"

Gee, I'm hurt. Maybe I'll cry.

Next time try responding to the substance of a post. If you can.

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 6:16PM

What substance?
You lied, and continue to lie about Herman Cain.

George S| 10.26.11 @ 1:53PM

Do we really have the luxury to engage in arguments as to whether the next president is far enough on the sliding scale of pro-life for our tastes? Seriously, at a time of 20% unemployment, no economic growth, unsustainable debt levels, and government consuming over 25% GDP... why are we getting caught up in the distraction of abortion? Answer: because the media and Obama need something -- anything -- to distract the anger of Americans.

Mr. Cain, take a page from the Democrat playbook and answer every question about abortion, gay marriage, prayer in public schools, etc., by promising to repeal ObamaCare so that attention is focused on what really matters.

somnolence| 10.26.11 @ 2:18PM

I'm all for The Gipper to join the quintet on Mount Rushmore, but as Governor of California, he did sign legislation upholding abortion procedure, as Frank noted above. It is folly for any of us to get carried away to the point where Ronald Reagan was all pure. I'm pro-life but I'm going to go with what a true libertarian(and pro-choice, probably influenced by his second wife) Barry Goldwater said. If we concentrate on this sole issue(particularly now) we will "go down in flames."

Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.26.11 @ 2:21PM

This article - like everything else that Ross Kaminsky writes - is a piece of garbage. It's the kind of thing that one could expect from Kaminsky. And, as he has admitted, he's pro-choice, so it's not surprising that he wants the GOP to adopt a pro-choice position. But that will NEVER happen.

Kaminsky claims that Cain has adopted a libertarian position on abortion but it's not a pro-choice position. That is wrong. Cain has adopted a LIBERAL position, which libertarians share, and it's a PRO-CHOICE position. If you say "I personally oppose abortion, but I can't stomach the government banning abortion", that is a pro-choice position. It is shared by John Kerry, Joe Biden and other Catholic Democrats. They say THE SAME THING as Herman Cain: they personally oppose it, but don't want the government to ban it. You can't be pro-life and, at the same time, oppose government prohibitions on abortions.

Kaminsky also wrongly believes that Cain shares the libertarian ideology, or at least some tenets of it. That assumes that Cain is capable of that. It's not true. Cain is incapable of any coherent thought, let alone adopting any coherent ideology. He's a panderer. He will say anything to get elected. That's why he initially adopted a pro-choice position (thus pandering to libertarians and moderate Democrats), but then flip-flopped and began to claim that he's pro-life "without caveats", thus pandering to pro-life Republicans. Cain will say anything to get elected.

Kaminsky also claims that:

"As heretical as this will sound to the GOP faithful, Herman Cain's true position, as I read the man, is perhaps the best possible position for a candidate in an American presidential election."

That's garbage. Pro-choice views are professed mostly by liberals - people who will never vote for a Republican under any circumstances. Adopting such a policy would only discourage millions of traditional GOP voters from voting for the GOP. The GOP needs to mobilize its voters, not pander to liberals. Most Republican voters will never vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 2:59PM

If you say "I personally oppose abortion, but I can't stomach the government banning abortion", that is a pro-choice position.
----------------------------------
no, it's a position of anti-social engineering and a big reason why those wanting to be moralist-in-chief are not doing well among potential voters. Your position makes you, fundamentally, no different from the biggest govt liberal; the only difference is whose oxen you wish to gore.

Wayne| 10.26.11 @ 5:42PM

Its more of a pro-murder position.

Joe D.| 10.26.11 @ 2:42PM

No, you shouldn't say hallelula about the murder of an innocent child on these pages. Murder is regulated by the government as it should be and always was. Why should one murder be made legal while others not. And if this is Cain's view he is wrong also.

However, it is different for rape and incense and the life of the mother. But selective is never good and those who agree I worry that they will be bad on policy of economy and property. That tends to be the result. Those bad on one are bad on the other.

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:59PM

He is NOT for abortion in ANY case.
His comment was to the despicable Piers Morgan's question. He said that in the case of rape or incest, the parents SHOULD MAKE THE DECISION and NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
That the President of the United States should not be making that decision FOR them.

Frank Drackman| 10.26.11 @ 2:47PM

(HT Wikipedia) the average male ejaculate varies from 0.1 to 10 ml, with some 300,000,000 sperm/cc.
Which means your average adolescent male could repopulate the Earth inside of a week, given enough receptive females/Artificial Insemination Infrastructure.
Soo....using my Spock-like Vulcan logic to its logical conclusion.
Any man who's ever rubbed one out, and who hasn't, even Spock had to every 7 years...
and wasn't ready to find homes for 300,000,000 Sperms, has no place saying ANYTHANG bout' Bortion' Willis...
Now if you'll excuse me, gotta date.

Frank

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:59PM

That is one of the most idiotic things ever posted on this forum.

A sperm cell is NOT a baby; neither is an ovum (egg cell).

Equating masturbation with abortion is something that only a complete fool would do.

Your Spock-like Vulcan logic has failed you...

Jason| 10.26.11 @ 4:05PM

Very simple: I am personally pro-life but (especially as a male with libertarian leanings) am against the federal government forcing anyone else to be. I've always thought this was an issue that should be sorted out on a local level among the females. You know, the ones who actually get pregnant.

If evangelicals want to stay home because Herman Cain might feel this way, then they are literally helping re-elect a man who refused to vote for a law that would protect newborn babies who survive an abortion attempt. I doubt this will happen, but Cain's stand0ffishness on this issue could actually help him with independents. As desperate as the country is for a leader who understands even basic economics, this is virtually a non-issue for Herman Cain, who is the most electable reform candidate in the Republican field.

Frank Natoli| 10.26.11 @ 4:22PM

"government imposed morality".

Language is tricky. Exactly how would Kaminsky define "government imposed morality"?

Obviously a Kaminsky "for example" would be limiting abortion.

But would Kaminsky consider limiting National Socialist killing of "untermensch" to be "government imposed morality"?

If not, why not? Because "untermensch" are "clearly" life, whereas a baby in the womb is "clearly" not? Not so "clear" to me.

If there is one thing, and only one thing, that government has the absolute right to do, it is to protect human life in its most widely understood definition. We can argue about tax policy, about immigration policy, about foreign policy, about military actions, about energy policy, pretty much about anything else, but we can't argue about life. We have to protect life, and that does not mean "respecting" other opinions of "untermensch", be it the 1941 version or the 2011 version.

rose| 10.26.11 @ 4:27PM

I saw Cain in another interview and the only time he mentioned leaving decisions up to the family was when he was question re: life of the mother. He inferred that while he would try to outlaw abortion, even for rape, that people, on their own, as they did previously when abortion was illegal, might decide to have an abortion. I don't think then that he wanted to get into prosecuting the mother when there are so many other elements involved in the pressures that come to bear. IOW, the law would be the law and if someone then had an abortion, the responsible person/s would be breaking the law. Do pro-life activists fight for prosecution of the mother??

Wayne| 10.26.11 @ 5:41PM

Why not?

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 4:28PM

Can some of you who believe “life begins at conception” answer a question? How do you square your convictions with using, or at least tolerating others using, oral birth control? I don’t get why you guys don’t rail against the pill with the same tenacity.

From a technical standpoint fertile couples using the pill are regularly having the equivalent of a very early abortion. Remember the pill doesn’t stop conception. It stops fertilized eggs from developing. A fertilized egg is expelled and discarded.

Either the pill is amoral or something is wrong the notion the human life begins at conception. The pill would actually be worse abortion (by sheer numbers of dead zygotes). I have a hard time believing heaven is full of the souls of innocent zygotes which failed to implant.

It seems only the Catholics have a consistent and defensible position. If we non-Catholics can accept the pill then maybe we need to rethink early abortion. Cut Cain some slack.

Scott| 10.26.11 @ 4:34PM

There is no difference, that's why the Catholic church opposses birth control. There is no logic in religion. That's why its called religion.

Tony| 10.26.11 @ 4:53PM

On the contrary: the Catholic position is absolutely logical, and biological. The fertilized ovum is a new being. It is alive, and it is human. If it were dead, or if it were canine, we would have no moral problems, would we?

That said, the Catholic Church distinguishes between what an act is, materially speaking, and the guilt that a person incurs. Again, that is because the Catholic Church attends both to the plain fact of a matter, and to the human situation. Take the matter of dueling, which was considered a perfectly honorable thing -- Andrew Jackson fought in many of them -- and which was vehemently condemned by the Catholic Church. If you asked a classical Catholic theologian, "What was Mr. Jackson, victor in his duel, guilty of?", he would say, "Murder," because that in fact was what Mr. Jackson committed. That is a fact that pertains to the deed -- but not to the subjective guilt of Mr. Jackson. If you then asked, "What civil penalties should he now incur?", all at once we enter the realm of prudence, which has to take into account the legal status of the action, the man's subjective intent, and the consequences of various suggested ways to deal with the issue.

If anyone wants to tussle with the Catholic Church over logic, I suggest that he open up Thomas's Summa Theologica at random, and compare Thomas's discussion of the moral value of an action -- let's say, lying to protect the innocent -- and compare it with the blather and the illogic we endure now.

Frank Natoli| 10.26.11 @ 4:41PM

I can accept forms of birth control, which prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, yet oppose abortion, because I don't believe we have to get everything exactly right before we get anything right.

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 6:44PM

I tend to agree but, I'm increasingly uncomfortable with that position because it is an intellectual copout.

If we are going to inject ourselves into another person’s decisions we are obligated to get everything exactly right and study the issues from every direction.

I don’t think pro-lifers want to do this because they fear where the search will take them.

For example, the more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with infertility treatments. It rarely works the first time. Failed pregnancies are a regular and accepted risk. And, if you believe life starts at conception, we have a bunch of little souls in stuck in permanent deep freeze. We can't allow stem cell research but permanent deep freeze is okay?

We judge first trimester abortions entirely differently than the failed pregnacies of infertile couples who desperately want a child. However, when you do the cold calculus, the couple will probably lose at least one fetus in their quest.

Something isn't quite right in the pro-life movement and conservatives should not ignore the intellectual deficiencies forever. That's the realm of the left.

Frank Natoli| 10.26.11 @ 7:02PM

"If we are going to inject ourselves into another person’s decisions"

Abortion is not a matter of deciding which Cabernet Sauvignon you have with dinner; it's a matter of deciding whether or not a life will continue or not. Leave it alone, a child is born. That is a process that nature has been perfecting for millions of years. The "decision" to terminate that life, as with all life, is subject to the law. At the moment, courtesy of Roe v Wade, we are lawless, since the judiciary unlawfully created a constitutional right that does not appear in the Constitution.

"We can't allow stem cell research"

There is absolutely positively zero limitation on any stem cell research, adult or embryonic. The only issue is using taxpayer funds to perform embryonic stem cell research. And as a matter of fact, all over the world, without regard to morals of embryonic stem cell research, virtually 100% of stem cell successes are adult not embryonic. The hysteria over embryonic stem cell limitations is just as meaningful as over man-made global warming.

You are absolutely correct that a fertilized ovum is life which without human intervention will produce a normal human being. Allowing birth control that prevents implantation does not disqualify considerations to limit inserting suction devices into the uterus to disassemble a fetus, or inject a saline solution into the uterus to poison it.

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 7:35PM

All I’m saying is if you think life begins at conception go after everything: The pill, in vitro, stem cells, all of it. If implantation is your criteria for the beginnings of human life, then fine. However, we both know the pro-life side cannot take that position because it is deeply problematic. Once the at conception criteria it relinquished it is only a debate over timing, and the pro-life side will not go there. I think they should.

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 5:01PM

Abortion kills an ACTUAL human life. The pill prevents POTENTIONAL human life. Not having sex also prevents potential human. Big moral difference. We don't execute people for potentially murdering someone but for actually murdering someone. So there's a great moral gulf that has to be crossed before the pill could be placed in the same category as abortion.

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 5:54PM

I'd say the moral gulf is pretty shallow because human cell division does occur in the uterus of women on the pill. A living zygot with a complete set of human DNA is allowed to grow until the next menstral cycle. I still say the pill is simply the earliest possible abortion.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 6:06PM

"Human cell division" occurs in the roots of your fingernails, too. So what??

There's two types of cellular reproduction: mitosis, and meiosis.

Go back to your high school biology textbook to learn the difference.

Birth Control pills PREVENT pregnancy; they don't terminate pregnancy.

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 7:11PM

You don't understand the pill. Sperm units with egg and a unique zygote bounces around the uterus until menstration.

Cripes, perhaps we will do need sex ed...

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:28PM

WRONG.

No ovulation, no "sperm uniting with egg".

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:29PM

Birth control pills, or oral contraceptives, contain hormones that suppress ovulation.

During ovulation an egg is released from the ovaries.

Without ovulation there is no egg to be fertilized and pregnancy cannot occur.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:30PM

Now who needs sex-ed, dim-wit???

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 7:53PM

None of the pills always stop ovulation. Look at what you wrote above. "Supress" That doesn't mean stop! Stopping implantation is the real deal. Everybody knows this.

Believe whatever you want.

I'm done.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 6:03PM

Birth control is NOT abortion.

It's not a "very early abortion", either.

Coitus does NOT always result in pregnancy, either with or without birth control.

Birth control merely keeps sperm from uniting with egg.

That means NO fertilized egg. That means NO baby.

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 6:58PM

Well, Dr. Right ain't no real doctor.

Contraception and oral birth control are entirely different. I'm talking oral birth contol. The egg still gets fertilized bozo.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:32PM

Uh, NO, they're not...

Let me explain this to you, dummy...

Another name for "Birth Control PILLS" is "Oral Contraceptives".

Did you get that???

"Slacker" is the PERFECT pseudonym for you.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:35PM

What you're referring to is known as an "abortifacient". It's marketed as RU-486, the "morning after pill".

That's NOT "contraception". That's abortion.

Still wanna' play??

Slacker| 10.26.11 @ 7:56PM

Just go ask your wife or girlfriend. I don't have time to straighten you out...

Dan| 10.26.11 @ 4:31PM

Pretty simple really. Cain staked out a position in the middle of two relentlessly stubborn camps. It's a tough issue and if you are intellectually honest, you're bound to at least see both sides of the argument. Figuring out a solution is even tougher than trying to understand the issue.

I happen to agree. The federal government shouldn't be the final arbiter. It's not the best solution, but leave it to the states. You don't like your states law, change it or leave for one that you do agree with. But this bitter back and forth we have now between people with such concrete positions while we judge candidates by which extreme position they subscribe too while demonizing those that dare to reason past the dogma ain't working.

Paul from SA| 10.26.11 @ 4:37PM

The problem: GOP establishment insiders immediately labeled Cain's statements as a 'gaffe' and said his campaign is over.

Huh? Oops. His view matches mine and that of millions.

Meanwhile, CNN, MSNBC and even Fox News begin all the political segments with something negative about Rick Perry. Why is that?

Boris | 10.26.11 @ 4:40PM

It would appear, Mr. Kaminsky, that a number of pro-life organizations, not the least of which is the National Right To Life Committee, disagree with you!

"The National Right to Life Committee is today vouching for Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s bona fides, saying the businessman who is considered by many to be the current GOP frontrunner is pro-life."

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/1.....-pro-life/

somnolence| 10.26.11 @ 4:42PM

It is very absurd to compare abortion with birth control. Absurd, stupid in fact, and irresponsible. God gives us knowledge of the cycle. He abhors abortion because it is abominable. That is my last word, and I don't care how many Catholics or non-Catholics chastise me. Remember the Inquisition? Remember certain Popes keeping concubines? Just don't try and convince me that responsible birth control or abortion are the same thing. That is absurd.

Paul from SA| 10.26.11 @ 5:00PM

Abortion is birth control.

The use of contraceptives, condoms, etc. is pregnancy control.

Tony| 10.26.11 @ 4:42PM

There are all kinds of logical errors on display here.

First, it is true of all law, without exception, that it imposes a view of good and bad, or of right and wrong. It is simply impossible to live in any culture at all, much less in a civilized culture, without a commonly agreed-upon moral law. Sometimes this moral law must be embodied in positive law, either to curb the vices that destroy the common good, or, more rarely, to help foster the virtues that build up the common good.

Second, the actual matter at hand must be addressed. It is exactly as Abraham Lincoln said about slavery. If slavery is not wrong, then it would be wrong for the Republican party to try to contain it and to wait for its dissolution. If slavery is wrong, then it would be wrong for the Republican party to allow its spread to the new states and territories. Notice that the matter at hand is not how many people believed that slavery was wrong, but whether slavery was in fact wrong. And please let us have no nonsense about good and evil being mere matters of opinion. No man is a relativist in his own case. Oh, he can say all day long that good and evil are only dependent upon personal opinion -- till he catches his auto mechanic overcharging him for his transmission job, and then, why then the moral law shines like stars in the firmament.

Third, the American people are deeply confused about the status quo ante. Or maybe I should say deeply deceived. The business about the coat-hanger abortions and the back alley butchers was a pack of lies, as abortion PROPONENTS themselves have long admitted. If you tell people exactly what a change in the abortion law would likely entail, they would be quicker, not slower, to outlaw abortion in almost all circumstances.

Fourth, the business about "rape and incest" is a red herring. Incest is either engaged in with full consent, or it is not. If it is, we are talking about a voluntary piece of extraordinary wickedness, and no, I have no sympathy for the people who beget a child under such circumstances. The other condition is rape, violent or statutory. Now, women almost never conceive after a violent rape, for physiological reasons. Statutory rape presents a different set of moral problems, because usually the woman is at least partly culpable. But none of that really matters as far as the child is concerned. It makes no moral sense whatsoever to compel the child to pay for someone else's wickedness. That would be to "remedy" rape with killing the innocent.

Fifth, we cannot escape living with one another in some kind of moral milieu, no matter what laws we pass or don't pass. The only question is what kind of moral milieu that will be. It is a dodge to say, "We will simply not pass laws regarding that behavior." That is to condone. A society that condones pornography will be a very different one from a society that prohibits it. I had thought that one of the virtues of a democratic republic was that the people get to deliberate upon such matters, rather than having them snatched from their hands from the beginning.

Vern Crisler | 10.26.11 @ 5:09PM

These are all good points Tony, but they miss the point. We're not talking moral code or theological creed here. What we're talking about is a POLITICALLY viable view of abortion. Remember the old saying that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good, or even of the adequate-for-the-time-being.

wile e coyote | 10.26.11 @ 5:06PM

A "view" on abortion can comprise three different elements: moral view (what is right); a social view (what is best); and a policy view (what should the government do).

I'm a Cain fan, and he has confused me mightily on what view he is talking about when. I think the blog author also forgot to consider, under policy view, federalism.

Cain positions seem to be: (i) moral -- abortion is always wrong; (ii) social -- people should decide for themselves; and (iii) policy -- no federal support for abortion, with overturning of Roe/Casey so the states can decide what should be legal/illegal.

If these are in fact Cain's views, I think they can win both GOP support and that of a majority of Americans. It is also close to Lincoln's view on slavery -- always a moral/social evil, but the federal government has no right to interfere with it in the states.

Wayne| 10.26.11 @ 5:37PM

Really, tell me how can the fetus decide for itself to be aborted or not?

wile e coyote | 10.26.11 @ 6:13PM

What is your point?

If you are arguing that a fetus is a human being, or that it holds sufficient potential to become a human being that we should treat it as such, you have made a moral and social argument consistent with traditional Jewish Christian and Moslem beliefs. The next question is policy -- what should/may the government do and in what cases?

Brian| 10.26.11 @ 5:28PM

This line of arguementation is ridiculous. Any of the candidates which are running for nomination could win against Romney. No one is asking Cain to become president and overturn Roe v. Wade. What the pro-life crowd wants is a pledge that 1) they will only put original consituationalist on the bench 2) defund plan parenthood, and a couple other small efforts. This line of agrumentation is merely a strawman.

Wayne| 10.26.11 @ 5:36PM

Do if the majority of voters are fine with murder, then according to the author, that's acceptable. The so-called Libertarian position denies that the fetus is a person, hence it is no different than the liberal position.

Henry Miller| 10.26.11 @ 5:46PM

One of the greatest dangers of government is when people attempt to make their personal beliefs into laws imposed even on those who do not hold those beliefs.

arhooley| 10.26.11 @ 5:52PM

Libertarians who can't decide whether to throw in with Democrats or Republicans should go Republican and fight this fight whole-heartedly. The socons have been using their hellish wrath to scare dissenters into silence. Well, the hell with that. They're the reason this Party loses elections that it should win.

Keith| 10.26.11 @ 6:02PM

The only way a President can really affect the life issue is through the appointment of judges. Does anyone really think that Cain would not appoint more Scalias, Thomases, Roberts and Alitos than Souters, Kennedys and O'Connors?

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 6:03PM

Cain is like most Americans. We have moral, social and economic situations that we encounter every day. We make some good choices and some bad ones (I purchaced a sports car way before I could afford it - my bad list is very long but you get the point). The problem we face is that a goverment, who's individuals make bad personal decisions all the time, wants to be in charge of our personal decisions. I have no problem with your opinion but when you make it law is where it becomes a problem. Of the people who understand, and believe, in this principal, Cain seems to have the best chance to become President this time around (Paul undrstands this but I can't see him getting over the 15% range in the GOP). That is why I am almost all in for Cain (give me a couple more weeks on top of the polls and I will be sold).

For now Go Cain Go

davinci| 10.26.11 @ 6:21PM

You absolutist anti abortion nut jobs cost the GOP seats over the United States every election. The view to never have an abortion is to quote your side, an abomination. I am ambivalent about abortion in general as my views are in between the NARAL group and the pro life crowd. Both sides are insane.

morris wise| 10.26.11 @ 6:27PM

Cain is a man with two feet on the ground, other politicians have one foot in the air. He is a straight talker and says it like it is, most others have a forked tongue. Cain might not be right all the time, but his attempt at honesty will get my vote.

chris haynes| 10.26.11 @ 6:49PM

Cain is incompetent

He's running for high office, unprepared to answer coherently an important and forseeable obvious question.

Let him run pizza joints, but a president must be able to do politics and this proves he cant.

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 7:06PM

Oh, I get it you want him to lie. We are tired of that type of person in office.

Clement_W| 10.26.11 @ 6:52PM

As a nation, we have never asked ourselves the question of how did we get to the position of making abortion an issue for the Supreme Court to intervene in.

The population of the United States prior to WW II was generally religious and had a strong sense of right and wrong. This meant that they took their rights seriously recognising that each right had at least an equivalent duty. As a result of the increased economic activity of WW II, the average family income rose with a two-earner family and the post-war dominance of the United States financially and politically. This resulted in the Baby Boom and at the same time, the gradual lessening of the sense of right and wrong and a focus on rights at the cost of awareness of the duties attached to them. This came to a head in the 1960's during which the sense of morality seemed to have vanished.

In this climate, it was inevitable that the abortion issue came to the fore. The expansive view of rights led to a Supreme Court with an expansive view of enumerated liberties which were no longer balanced with the unenumerated rights. The Roe v. Wade decision was the result. Since then the 'Right to Abortion' has become established. In my 40 year life-time, I have heard about abortion as a right and there has been no legislative or legal challenge to this 'Right'.

I am a devout Christian and believe that life begins at conception, but I cannot see how any one can can hold a candidate responsible for stating the sitauation as it exists. Belief in God and adherence to the principles of the religion is what is the answer to the moral situation. We have had Presidents in the past 50 years who were Pro-Life and Anti-Abortion. Where has this been effective?

There are a lot of committed believers in God but the 'Right' to abortion has to be challenged and won in the Legislature of the Hearts and Minds of the Population of the United States, not with meaningless litmus testing of candidates who, if elected, have to take an oath to defend the constitution AND enforce the Laws of the United States.

Clement_W| 10.26.11 @ 6:58PM

Correction:

I meant 'unenumerated duties'

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 7:10PM

Long answer but I agree.

Strathead| 10.27.11 @ 12:30PM

I strongly challenge some of your statements and conclusions regarding right wrong and morality. People have always had the ability to interpret these items to fit their own agenda. Many of the people you contend had morals prior to the 60's were the same people who had no problem with slavery, ignored spousal and child abuse, executed people for minor crimes or with insufficient evidence, treated women and minorities as inferior, etc. After the 60's some of these issues were treated differently and IMO more morally, while other issues have been less morally dealt with. My point is, that my morals are none of your business and Vice Versa. You and the government have no right to dictate your moral convictions on me or others. I feel you would counter that abortion is murder on the unborn child, but my rebuttal is this... As long as state sanctioned execution, killing for ANY REASON (war, allowing others to starve etc.) is accepted by the State, then again in my opinion, you and the Government have already accepted that killing is OK, so you don't get to use that argument. When ALL state sanctioned killing and actions that lead to death are ended then by all means... I truly wish no one would ever get an abortion, so I am definitely anti-abortion, but I am also pro-choice.

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 7:27PM

Great work Clint. You are a real treasure on this site. They don't care about how many babies are killed. All they care about is endless wars and endless bailouts.

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:36PM

What, are you his Dad??

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:40PM

We See That Dr.Reich Is A Cafeteria Christian, Attacking Dr.Ron Paul For Working To Stop Abortions Under Roe Vs.Wade.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:44PM

Jack,
Cain's Failure To Sign SBA's Pro-Life Pledge Is Gonna Be A Part Of Why Cain Will Start To Drop In Iowa & Other States.

" The following candidates refused to sign the pledge: Herman Cain, Gov. Jon Huntsman, Gov. Gary Johnson, Gov. Mitt Romney."

http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

You're A Real Trooper Jack.

Carry On.

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 10:38PM

It may not be a non issue but it is very close to a non issue.

Drunken Sailor| 10.26.11 @ 7:48PM

If I understand Jack, Clint and the other Ron Paul fanatics (not to be confused with normal supporters) they believe that Congress can pass a amendment limiting the Supreme courts jurisdiction over abortion, correct?

But the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the constitutionality of any laws and amendments passed by Congress, right?

So are they telling me that Congress can tied the Supreme Courts hands by passing a amendment, then the Supreme Court can say that is unconsitutional, and take that jurisdiction back?

Man, these tangled fantasies make my head hurt.

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:46PM

Tell You RINO-CINO Crap To Chief Justice Roberts.

A Sanctity Of Life Bill would do two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court.

Stoic Patriot| 10.26.11 @ 10:27PM

Kaminsky's wrong on a few points.

1.) Cain's position is not "Libertarian" if he's saying it should be illegal without exceptions, as he is now saying. Rather, his position was plain incoherent. At times it was ban without exception, at times it was allow in all circumstances, and at times it was ban with certain exceptions. Cain is going to face problems on this in the future.

2.) The American people who say to let abortion be legal in some circumstances is by-and-large, not libertarian. I regard myself as one of the most avid pro-life advocates out there, yet I am willing to make an exception for the life of the mother. Additionally, I think that personhood is only scientifically verifiable after 40 days into a pregnancy when brainwaves -- the physical symptom of an individual personality -- become present. Excluding those exceptions, I would ban abortion. In effect then, that would eliminate approximately 98% of all abortions. That's most certainly not a libertarian position, and one that I think hews far closer to the conscience of the American public than "it may be murder, but who am I to impose my values on someone else," when the situation involves the possible slaying of another, innocent human being.

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 10:43PM

Unless something changed the Libertarian position is for the government to stay out. I have been at Libertarian meetings I even got to drive Harry Brown to and from the airport and remember the party saying they should stay out of the issue.

POST American| 10.26.11 @ 10:50PM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

--------------------HER--MAN CAIN-------------------
----------------------------is the----------------------------
------------------Rockefeller/ ROT-child--------------
-----------------------------FED----------------------------

Nonabsolute| 10.26.11 @ 11:06PM

Really. I lost my tinfoil hat so I did not get the word.

POST American| 10.26.11 @ 11:45PM

"Understand, Globalism, Free Trade
(---ie TREASON) and EUGENICS are
ALWAYS ---ALWAYS ----ALWAYS
intertwined."
-ALAN WATT
(fearless coverage of the CON online)

Likewise

------Psychopathic Global USURY ---IS
-------------------ABOMINATION----------------------

-----------------------ALWAYS---------------------------

antidote| 10.27.11 @ 4:59PM

Wow, you people are going in circles trying the explain an incomprehensible position. The guy is an idiot, get over it and move on to the next candidate.

Margie| 10.27.11 @ 6:26PM

So, let's see who's really the idiot here, antidote to snake venom:
If you're child was raped, perhaps by her Father, or brother or anyone for that matter, would you want the President to tell you what you should do? Do you want a King?
If you answer no to that then you agree with Herman Cain.
My goodness, you people just don't get it, you can't think straight can you?
Herman Cain is against abortion in ANY case, including rape or incest. Piers Morgan asked him a stupid question, which he answered honestly.
The only people who don't get it are the ones who don't WANT to get it.
Immature hacks who wish to destroy his candidacy.. nothing more, nothing less.
And they already have their reward in more ways than one.
One of the ways may just be four more years of the Obamanation.
Sad, eh?

Clement_W| 10.27.11 @ 8:54PM

I agree with you entirely!

Earle Belle| 10.27.11 @ 6:50PM

Ron Paul’s Pro-Life, Anti-Big Government Medical Practice

NPR has in interesting profile piece today on how Ron Paul’s political views were reflected in his medical practice:

“He really did deliver 4,000 babies,” says Donna Paul, who worked as Ron Paul’s scrub nurse for 14 years in Lake Jackson, Texas, before marrying one of the doctor’s brothers and becoming his sister-in-law.

Indeed, says Donna Paul, when Ron Paul first set up shop in 1968, he was the only obstetrician in town… Eventually Paul got so busy he took on a partner. Jack Pruett, who was then fresh out of his obstetrics/gynecology residency, says when he first sat down in Paul’s office, he was told there were two stipulations he would have to agree to before joining the practice.

“He said, ‘No. 1 is we will not perform any abortions.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine; I can live with that. What’s No. 2?’” he remembers.

No. 2, says Pruett, was that the practice would not participate in any federal health programs, which meant, as Paul described it, “that we will see all Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, and they will be treated just like all of our other patients, but we’re not going to charge them and accept federal funds.”

Still in debt from his medical training, Pruett said that was a little harder for him to swallow. “But I liked Ron, so I decided I would agree to that, too. And in all those 20 years, we never accepted one penny of federal money. We saw all those patients for free, delivered their babies for free, did their surgeries free; whatever they needed we did, and we didn’t charge them.”

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/.....red-babies

Clement_W| 10.27.11 @ 8:58PM

A very principled person, Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Pruett is too.

Aiken_Bob| 10.27.11 @ 8:25PM

I have to admit it I can understand where Cain is coming from. From reading all the comments it is clear that the issue will be the only issue for some folks. BUT we must be focus on the goal and that making Obama unemployed. The left will make this the issue, since they can't run on Obama record, and they will enjoy watch Republicans eat each other.
- Keep your eye on the goal.

Evan Rogers| 10.27.11 @ 9:35PM

Well, this is what Cain believes in TODAY.

But remember: he takes pride in flip-flopping.

POST American| 10.28.11 @ 12:24AM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

--------------------------CAIN-----------------------------
--------------------------is the-----------------------------
----------------Rockefeller/ ROT-child----------------

---------------------------FED------------------------------

Eric Siverson| 11.10.11 @ 6:51PM

I think Cain who is a anti abortionist is saying we should not force a women whom would rather have her baby dead to be a mother . She really would likely not make a good mother anyway .

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Cain’s Abortion Libertarianism

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (355) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

ENOUGH ROPE| 10.26.11 @ 6:25AM

Cosmo| 10.26.11 @ 6:39AM

Ruben| 10.26.11 @ 6:58AM

Seek| 10.26.11 @ 11:09AM

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 11:40AM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 12:01PM

Alex| 10.26.11 @ 2:54PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:03PM

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:27PM

Sarah Mattress | 2.2.12 @ 9:49PM

Dai Alanye | 10.26.11 @ 12:58PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:03PM

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:28PM

ChocolateJeebus| 10.26.11 @ 4:45PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 5:37PM

Strathead| 10.27.11 @ 10:27AM

44 | 10.26.11 @ 7:45PM

Jacobite| 10.27.11 @ 3:00PM

joshua| 11.18.11 @ 11:43PM

Stefanie| 10.27.11 @ 6:30PM

ManssasGrandma| 10.26.11 @ 7:05PM

Tony| 10.26.11 @ 4:26PM

Angry Jarhead| 10.26.11 @ 8:23PM

1blumutt| 10.26.11 @ 9:40PM

John Jakubczyk | 10.27.11 @ 6:17PM

joshua| 11.18.11 @ 11:50PM

Jacobite| 10.27.11 @ 3:15PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:04AM

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 12:18PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:05PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:34PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:37PM

1blumutt| 10.26.11 @ 9:48PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 3:08PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:36PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 4:19PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 4:29PM

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 4:37PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:03PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:06PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:50PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 8:46PM

Margie| 10.26.11 @ 10:07PM

RCV| 10.26.11 @ 5:40PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 5:49PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:07PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:46PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:13PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 5:46PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:08PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 8:07PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:13PM

Sean| 10.26.11 @ 5:24PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:01PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:10PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 7:55PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:15PM

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 8:11AM

Bydand76| 10.26.11 @ 9:44AM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 7:38PM

victor| 10.26.11 @ 11:02PM

Doctor Right| 10.26.11 @ 9:51AM

canuckistani| 10.26.11 @ 10:10AM

Jon | 10.26.11 @ 5:36PM

arhooley| 10.26.11 @ 6:27PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:17AM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:21AM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 10:30AM

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 12:04PM

Drunken Sailor| 10.26.11 @ 2:22PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 3:23PM

Jack in Wi| 10.26.11 @ 5:07PM

Drunken Sailor| 10.26.11 @ 5:19PM

Clint| 10.26.11 @ 6:16PM

Sean| 10.26.11 @ 5:26PM