Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Bachmann Slams Romney over Pro Life Pledge

Game on and so much for the Romney/Bachmann ticket theory

Whoever - whatever - helps get rid of that rhino Romney earns a big KUDOS from me..

Curious as to how that pledge about protecting life until "natural death" squares with a pro-death penalty stance.

One kills innocent people. The other kills criminal convicts.

Plinker;

I fully understand (and support) the first part on abortion.

I'm asking for clarification as to how that pledge which Bachmann states (incorrectly, per the wording of the actual pledge) squares with being pro-death penalty.

Euthanasia was surely the intent, not the death penalty for someone that has earned it, but the wording should be clarified.

I was thinking along these same lines.
And clarification is needed.

Most libs seem vehemently against the death penalty and pseudo-conservatives treat it as a play thing.

It should be strictly enforced and carried out immediately following the appeals process. No more of this years and years of debate/argument.
"git 'er done!"

Well, I don't like Romney, at all, and many here would consider me a pro-life Nazi (ironic term, that), BUT.... like all 'pledges'... it's never really quite as simple as a soundbite.
Here is one man's opinion. It has some merit.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.co...not-to-sign-sba-lists-ridiculous-pledge/

Cain and Romney were Right Not to Sign SBA List�s Ridiculous Pledge!

I don�t think it�s a coincidence that the two bona fide businessmen running for the GOP nomination for President of the United States have decided not to sign a so-called Pro-Life pledge that is more designed to force candidates to conform to SBA�s apparent �affirmative action agenda� than it is to confirm their Pro-Life status.

This issue came to a head yesterday when SBA List called out the two Republican candidates in the pages of Politico and has the interwebs a buzz with so-called conservatives accusing the two of wavering on their Pro-Life stance for not signing the pledge. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion, and if the goal of the pledge was to identify a candidates Pro-life status it would have simply asked that question and been done with it� it did not.

What this pledge does do is demand and then lock-in candidates to hire and appoint only those people who meet a certain criteria over those who are the most qualified for the job. I don�t know about you, but to my mind, this is a form of affirmative action and is not a conservative position, it�s unfair, and Un-American.

The pledge required the following:

* Only nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

* Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;

* Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions; and

* Advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

There is also a separation of powers issue that Cain sited today:

Cain has said he opposes abortion and that he supports cutting funds for Planned Parenthood.In a statement issued Saturday, Cain said his respect for the separation of powers prevented him from signing. �[T]he fourth requirement demands that I �advance� the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,� the statement said, adding that Cain remains �a consistent and unwavering champion of pro-life issues.�

Look, I understand SBA List�s motivation here but their execution was way off, in my opinion, and I think the candidates that rushed to sign this pledge, politicians all, have locked themselves into bad policy right from the get go� if they think this wont come back to haunt them, should they win the White House, they have another thing coming. Of course, they have the option of doing what most politicians do once they get elected and ignore the pledge but that�s not going to win them any points either.

Not signing this pledge does not make one less Pro-Life, it does however prove a couple of things�
1) You don�t support any form of affirmative action!!!
2) That your smart enough to know this will be used as club to beat you over the head with if you hire or appoint someone who is not pro-life or thinks the issue isn�t black or white.

I should add, all that aside, I think Romney didn't sign it just because he's a weasel.

There is absolutely no conflict.

When convicted of murderer the death penalty is appropriate and does not violate Biblical teachings.

Good for Bachmann.

Read what she said.

First of all, she misquoted the actual pledge.

Second of all, "natural" has nothing to do with Biblical teachings about capital punishment. "Natural" means "natural".

And, I'm still waiting for clarification from someone that can/will actually READ and THINK about the pledge she (mis)quoted.

She did misquote the pledge.
This is the actual pledge from their website: http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge
Stand up for Life! Will you take the 2012 Pro-Life Citizen's Pledge?

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

The first sentence of their pledge SHOULD read:
I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting innocent Life.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the strict Hebrew translation of the 10 commandments reads "I shall not MURDER" which semantically is different than KILLING. Murder is defined as killing without just cause.

Again, how does that pledge AS IT ACTUALLY READS stand in regard to a stance of pro-death penalty.

For the record, I am anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

VA,
AS WRITTEN, it is clearly non-specific on the death-penalty but it certainly could be read as anti-death penalty. But then if you go down that road you have to assume it is also anti-war. The pledge is clearly about abortion. Its scope is properly confined to that topic. I agree, it could have been worded better.

A poorly worded pledge, is one I'd not sign.

Think about it....

These social issue are going to keep Obama in office.

you got that one right

Screw the rhetoric, I just want him at the bottom of the list rather than the top. I don't trust him. He swaps sides to fit the climate, campaign to campaign. Weasel is a fitting description.