Newt Gingrich and Governor Rick Perry, along with Mitt Romney, have made it clear that they think killing an unborn baby is an acceptable act, if you can show that the father was a rapist, worthy of the death penalty according to the Laws of Moses. Not a single rational or principled reason can be given for allowing such “exceptions” in ones opposition to abortion. Gingrich, the smartest guy in the room, can’t give a morally acceptable justification for his support not only of killing these children, but wanting the government to fund it:

The New York times quoted him back in 1995:

Asked in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” whether he agreed with Republicans who oppose Federal abortion payments in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of a mother, Mr. Gingrich said: “No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step.”

Mr. Gingrich succeeded in preventing issues like abortion or religion from sidetracking his legislative drive through the first 100 days of the Congressional term

CNN ran a story today that leaders of some social conservative groups met behind close doors to consider which candidate might be the best alternative to Mitt Romney.  The group appeared to include Chuck Hurley of the Family Leader and Jenifer Bowen of the Iowa Right to Life.  Some pastors attended as well.

Perhaps Perry or Gingrich are persuadable on this issue.  But can you trust that any late change in position is not purely in the interest of gaining an endorsement in a key state?   Better to support Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum, who have both proven to be solid pro-life.

One way that these two candidates could show “earnest money” to prove a real change would be if they renounced prior support of pro-abortion Republicans.  Gingrich has lent his endorsement to pro-child killing candidates Meg Whitman of California and  Dede Scozzafava of the 23rd Congressional District of New York.  In 2007, Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani, probably the most pro-abortion Republican presidential candidate in history.

If these organizations endorse either Perry or Gingrich, they will prove they are willing to put party or pragamatism over principle.  It would be time for pro-lifers to start putting their money and efforts elsewhere, rather than waste it on groups whose efforts run counter to a pro-life agenda.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
    1. So why do you denigrate the one to support the other?  Are you pro-life without exceptions?

  1. It does seem that Bachmann and Santorum are the only real pro-life choices at this point.  But Bachmann can scarcely win the nomination, much less beat Obama.  All I can say is:  I hope Santorum finds his groove and busts a move!  🙂

  2. Speaking of exceptions in the case of rape, I just remembered something.  One time I was reading about a woman who had been the victim of rape.  She eventually ended up having an abortion.  It’s very telling that she later came out and said that the rape didn’t send her to counseling, but the abortion certainly did.  How different from what Planned Parenthood would have us believe.  We have this illusion that abortion somehow “helps fix” the rape–no, it merely adds worse trauma to it.

  3. I have decided to back Newt.  He is the one who can most clearly articulate the conservative position.  While his position on abortion bothers me, it is not the deciding factor for two reasons: 

    First, if we could eliminate all abortions except those pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, we have eliminated the vast majority.  Is this the perfect position?  Certainly not.  But it is a gigantic step in the right direction.  Perhaps we can take the final smaller step when culture and politics make it more likely.  This is one thing the left has mastered: taking the small steps that, when added together, get them where they want to go.  They have been doing it for most of two centuries.  That is why our country is in the miserable shape it is in–because they have succeeded one step at a time.  The right wants the whole shebang at once and won’t settle for less.  In the process we sabotage our own goals.  Look at the bigger picture, people.

    Second, the abortion debate is not waged in either the legislative or executive branches.  It is waged in the courts.  Newt and Perry (don’t know about Romney) will appoint strict constructionist judges.  Especially Newt.  It will be judges like this that will turn the tide where the battle is actually waged regardless of the view of the president who appointed them. 

    Until we begin to think more strategically about these issues and are willing to settle for smaller steps in the right direction, we are going to be divided and will  never achieve what we are after.

    1. Why does Gingrich’s position bother you?  He is supposedly the one who will do what you think is the best thing, while Bachmann and Santorum are saboteurs, according to your philosophy.  

      There is a world of difference between a fireman trying to save the life of every person in a burning building (but perhaps failing) and deciding beforehand that it isn’t worth the risk to try to save those trapped on the third floor. Those who say they are “for exceptions” aren’t pro-life.  Saying some babies should be allowed to die means they don’t understand. It is politics to them, not principle. Which of your own children would you be willing to give up to save the others?
      I also think you vastly misunderstand “the left”. Most of them are principled.  There isn’t one baby in the womb, for example, that Obama would protect. In fact, he even goes after the ones that escape the abortionist’s knife.  You have believed the lie that the other side is more compromising, more reasonable, more patient. At times they have had to settle for less than everything they want, but they gained some ground, because those of us on the right compromised. 

      Changing the Surpreme Court makeup will not save us, as long as we think some babies are expendable.  For most of the last thirty-five years, we have tried it your way.  What has compromise gotten us?  A few token bills that everybody knows won’t stop a single abortion?

      Gingrich’s position should bother you.  Enough to look elsewhere.

  4. Seems like Newt should be eliminated by values voters simply on the basis of moral character. Lets hope that Iowans don’t fall into the ideology pit and vote for Newt.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Bohlken: Greenfield Falsely Accuses Iowa’s Healthcare Workers of Systemic Racism

Donald Boehlken: Theresa Greenfield said Blacks and Black women in Iowa have a six times higher mortality rate than anyone else, this is false.

The Kasich Scenario

Adam Graham: John Kasich is no more selfish than any other person who decides to run for the presidency. He sees an opportunity to salvage his campaign.

Axne, Finkenauer Targeted in Ads Opposing Pelosi’s Prescription Drug Plan

American Action Network targets Iowa U.S. Reps. Abby Finkenuaer and Cindy Axne in $2.5 million campaign opposing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s prescription drug plan.

Rod Blum Releases Second TV AD in Iowa 1st Congressional District Race

Rod Blum, Republican nominee for United States Congress in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, released his campaign’s second general election TV spot.