The Houston Chronicle reports that Texas Governor Rick Perry has clarified his stance on abortion and states rights. This statement from his spokesperson is a step in the right direction.
“Gov. Perry is proudly pro-life and successfully championed strong pro-life legislation in Texas including parental consent, this year’s sonogram bill and a budget that significantly defunds abortions in Texas. The governor has long supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and would support amending the U.S. Constitution, with the backing of Congress and the states, to protect innocent life.”
Hear Hear! Lord bless Rick, and help him to stand for the unborn, who are being mutilated in the womb for money. Forgive us Lord for allowing such a sin in our nation. Amen.
How can you possibly think this statement can be reconciled with the ones you previously posted?
This one is designed to appeal to pro-life groups while the other (contradictory) statements appeal to audiences who favor states’ rights as supreme. He will never reconcile the contradictions between the two, just issue new statements that appeal to parts of the group he is courting.
He is trusting that none of you have the staying power to chase him down for a straight story.
Please explain the contradiction. The fact that a person believes that abortion should be oulawed while also believing that the federal government does not currently have the constitutional authority to do so is not a contradiction. This is not a dictatorship and a president cannot decree that his personal opinion is the law of the land.
Okay, I’ll explain.. Your statement about beliefs is correct: what you describe is not a contradiction. Nor do we have a dictator — a complete red herring — because if we did there would not be gridlock in DC. (Not sure how that idea got into this.)
Perry caught flak because he essentially said that it was okay for the state of New York to make its own decision related to abortion rights. Pro-life people got upset because that means NY could possibly make a pro-abortion decision. So, they complained. Perry answered by talking about his past pro-life record. How does that remotely answer the concern of the pro-life people about his NY statement? Answer: it doesn’t. It’s just a palliative. That is no reason to call off the dogs about his NY statement.
People considering Perry should ask him what he wants more: (1) NY to have the right to make any abortion rights decision they like, or (2) to stand for pro-life no matter what (i.e. even in NY). Is states rights his highest good or is pro-life his highest good. To me, that is not a hard question. Pro-life wins every time over states’ rights.
But you need to ask yourself: does Perry do this bait and switch thing as a routine matter?