Sound Politics Public Blog: National Right to Life PAC endorses Dino Rossi for Senate

August 30, 2010

National Right to Life PAC endorses Dino Rossi for Senate

Dear Mr. Rossi:

The National Right to Life Political Action Committee is pleased to endorse you for election to the United States Senate from the state of Washington.

This endorsement reflects your commitment to renewing a culture of life, not only in
Washington, but throughout the nation and in the U.S. Congress.

Your opponent, Senator Patty Murray, voted to enact President Obama's pro-abortion health care law, which will provide government funding for health plans that pay for abortion on demand, and will promote the rationing of lifesaving treatments.

Senator Murray even voted against the pro-life Nelson-Hatch Amendment, which would have prohibited federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion (with exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother).

Your support is needed to reverse the pro-abortion and rationing effects of that health care legislation.

You are a strong advocate for life: you support pro-life legislation and you oppose the use of federal funding for elective abortion.

We look forward to working with you to restore legal protection for innocent life - unborn children and medically disabled or dependent persons whose lives are threatened by abortion or euthanasia.

The countless Americans who respect the sanctity of human life appreciate your willingness to serve.

This willingness to take up the fight for life makes us proud to endorse you in the
upcoming election.

Sincerely,

David N. O'Steen
Executive Director

Karen A. Cross
Political Director

Posted by 6p0133f3582ef6970b at August 30, 2010 05:56 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Statement released about water: Yes, it's STILL wet.

Posted by: demo kid on August 31, 2010 11:40 PM

2. And this is why I will be voting for Patty Murray.

Posted by: The Duke on September 1, 2010 04:09 PM

3. So Duke,

Is it that you think the Government should keep its laws off women's bodies, or that you just think we don't destroy enough fetuses?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 2, 2010 09:07 PM

4. Uh Jeez, I guess I will have to go with the former (what an ass).

Posted by: The Duke on September 3, 2010 02:10 PM

5. Great! So the Government should keep its laws off our bodies.

Do you support the freshly-passed Federal health care law?

How about laws against underage drinking?

Or the Seattle law against trans-fats?

Why does the Government get to put its laws on my body in those cases?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 3, 2010 04:37 PM

6. @5: There's a fundamental difference between commerce and control over what a woman does with her own body. As far as I can see, Seattle cops aren't exactly going to arrest you for eating trans-fats, but you're prepared to arrest a woman for making a medical decision that's none of your damned business.

But hey... why stop at transfats? Why does the government "put its laws on your body" by your definition and prevent you from eating pot brownies?

Posted by: demo kid on September 4, 2010 12:47 PM

7. SPFA wrote:

He's not even talking about having it all at once but serially... swapping out 64 GB Flash cards in and out of his Android tablet from a 1 cubic inch file box of Flash drives. . . just so he can make that claim. Straw Man.

I am? Please back that lie up, or you can rescind it.

Is consistency too much to ask for? Do you want to give a woman the right to do with her body what she wants, unless it's related to eating trans-fats, or choosing to use non-traditional medicine, or drink a beer when 19?

How about some consistency, SPFA? And how about dropping the lies and personal attacks?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 4, 2010 03:20 PM

8. @7: That had to be the weirdest quote ever. Seems like you switch between trolling on politics boards and trolling on tech boards, eh?

Anyway, I am nothing if not consistent with this. I do not believe that "every sperm is sacred", or that somehow, a fertilized egg the moment after conception is granted some sort of magical status. For me, up to a certain point -- around 12 weeks -- the decision is a personal medical decision made by women. After that, abortion should be tightly regulated and only performed in extreme cases.

But if you don't believe that fertilized eggs are granted personhood immediately after conception -- as I do -- what precisely is the public health risk of allowing abortion? Where is society's interest in forcing a woman through another 30+ weeks of pregnancy involuntarily when it does not threaten the rights of another?

On the other hand, all of what you mentioned before -- healthcare, transfats, underage drinking -- represent a genuine public health interest that is related to commerce, which is in the domain of local, state and federal governments. The government can ban the SALE of transfats in the same way that it can ban the sale of paint containing lead or lawn darts. Can you CONSUME transfats? Sure! No reason why you can't build a setup to make shortening or something. No police officer is going to arrest you for that.

I don't agree with federal underage drinking laws, except where they pertain to DWI. (Note, of course, that a Republican Administration was responsible for putting that in place.) Still, if you're talking about underage drinking in general, do you believe that the government should restrict people from freely consuming marijuana, morphine, methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, etc.?

And get over yourself and your claims about "personal attacks". Calling me "Slavery Party Failed Abortion" and then getting your panties in a bunch because I used the word "damned" in a comment is pretty laughable.

Posted by: demo kid on September 4, 2010 06:07 PM