Up until this morning, I strongly believed that at this particular time in U.S. history, the Republican party offers the best chance to maintain or improve laws to protect the value of human life, and that Rudy Giuliani is likely to have the best chance of winning, for now, of any of the plethora of Republicans hoping to win in 08. I have not particularly liked all his views, and I could even be wrong about his chances of winning. However, until now, this is what I believed to be the case.
But that was up until this morning when I read records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood. And this makes me mad as hell.
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.Giuliani says he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But it sounds to me that actions speak a lot louder than words and his actions say that he does indeed support abortion, regardless of how he wants to package the message.Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.
The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.
Although I still believe Giuliani has the best chance of defeating the Defeaticrats in 08, voting for him may be a bit like a taking a poison pill to cure a cold. At least we know where the Democrats stand on the value of life: They don't at all. Rudy could be just as bad, or even worse (although some could appropriately argue that you can't get any worse position that that of the "open season on babies" Defeaticrats).
On the other hand, inasmuch as we have to be alive to keep fighting for life, and Giuliani is likely to be a better choice to combat terrorism, we may not have a "choice" but to go with him because of his strong stand on national security issues, in spite of his obvious support of the organization most responsible for the murder of unborn children in the U.S.
Fortunately, we still have plenty of time to make up our minds.
Related: They all admit it's a human life!
Cross posted from Hyscience
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
One more reason to vote for Rudy.
"Planned Parenthood" makes a lot more sense than "Forced Parenthood" or "Parenthood by Accident".
It's cruel and unusual punishment to force someone into raising unwanted children just because their birth control device failed (it happens), not to mention victims of rape. I'd rather see abortions performed by medical professionals. The alternative would be unsafe back-alley abortions. It's one or the other. No one should be forced into 18 years of hard labor raising kids they didn't want in the first place. It's bad for the parents, bad for the kids and bad for society.
Abortion should not even be an issue. If you don't like it, don't have one. Pretty simple.
Spoken like a true pro- "choice" advocate.
Not the child's, however: under your agenda, he or she doesn't get a vote - they are killed before they are ever given a chance to voice their preference.
However, I'm willing to bet the farm that you're very glad your mother didn't share your views.
"Pro life" folks have no respect for human life.
For some reason they believe it's better to ruin three lives than to prevent one from happening.
People who are unwilling or incapable of raising kids should have the freedom to choose not to do it. If you don't understand this, you have no idea what being a good parent means.
Your religion was established when there were few people around. Now we have more than 6 billion of them, it's about time to think first make babies later. Planning a family should be taken more seriously.
PP's founder, Margaret Sanger, says:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
Im with Stan. Donating money to Planned Parenthood shows that Mr. Guiliani is consistant on his view of providing women with as many opportunities and choices based on personal one-on-one counselling sessions with licensed OBGYNs. Planned Parenthood is one of the only places a woman can go where ALL of her reproductive questions can be answered fairly and objectively- with no bias except that of the law. I think it reflects very well on him.
Ok, so I don't get it. Why did Leslie Hanks post the same old 1939 letter twice? How is it related to Mr. Giuliani's donation to Planned Parenthood?
Are we digging for an old race card here?