Civil Discourse Now

Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

If you support "original intent" then you have to be pro-choice (like me)

Several cards postcards, with different return addresses but identical in font and text have arrived in the mail, since I am a candidate in the GOP primary for United States House of Representatives in Indiana’s Fifth Congressional District.
In relevant part they state: “All elected officials have a solemn responsibility to defend the Sanctity of Life and protect the unborn. That’s why I urge you to pledge 100% support for the Sanctity of Life on the Candidate Survey you recently received...”
Ironically (or not) the same people who rail about the intent of the Framers of the Constitution have a sketchy knowledge of how abortion was treated at the time the Constitution was written. As Justice Blackmun noted, restrictions on abortion are relatively recent.
“It is perhaps not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws ... are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes ... in the latter half of the 19th Century.” Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. at 129-30.
I AM PRO CHOICE - my view is shaped by moral standards set forth in a SCOTUS opinion written by a GOP-nominated Justice. Roe v. Wade was a product of the Nixon Court. Also, since I cannot get pregnant, I shall not tell a woman how she makes decision with her life.
I AM PRO-CHOICE because it is right to be pro-choice and it is moral to be pro-choice.
I AM PRO-CHOICE because I am PRO-LIFE. If people really are pro-life, they will want contraceptives more widely available at no cost, support health care for all, and support sex education in schools.
I am Mark Small, a GOP candidate for U.S. House in Indiana’s 5th Congressional District. I am proud to be a progressive - PRO-CHOICE, pro-environment and anti-militarism - and carry on that tradition of the Grand Old Party. I approve of this blog. Hell, I wrote it.

Views: 64


You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Comment by Mark Small on March 9, 2020 at 1:15pm

Paul - a strong central government was the reason for the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The nature of rights of individuals knows no State lines. 

Comment by pogden297 on March 9, 2020 at 10:46am

This doesn't make any sense.  If you believe in  "original intent," this issue would be left to states as virtually all policy issues were left to states.  There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which suggests abortion would be a federal issue. 


  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Mark Small.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

My Great Web page