John Oxendine: Use Constitution To Put Planned Parenthood Out Of Business

In a morning email sent to supporters, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine announced his signing of “one of the strongest pro-life pledges in the country.”

“If elected, I will use the power of the Governor’s office to create an environment where abortion providers will not want to do business in Georgia any longer,” said Oxendine, now the proud dad of a new baby boy. “The Oxendine Administration will enforce existing laws and use the state Constitution to put Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers out of their grizzly business.”

The email goes on to unequivocally state Oxendine’s support for the proposed constitutional amendment that would grant personhood status to fetuses. The aptly named human life amendment has languished in committee for two consecutive legislative sessions despite having the support of Georgia Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that typically aligns with the GOP.

“As Governor, I will promote and reinforce policies that protect life,” said Oxendine. “Our support for all life should be supplemented by an amendment to the Georgia Constitution proclaiming a paramount right to life, and I intend to use my office to move this legislation forward.”

Ladies and gentlemen, it is official. John Oxendine is too extreme for Georgia.


  1. Brave New World says:

    How Pro-Life is Georgia? Current Governor, both US Senators, G-7 Congressional delegation, most of the State House and Senate have all CAMPAIGNED as PRO LIFE. I think that this was a smart move by Oxendine, especially for a Republican Primary.

    • Andre says:

      Georgia’s Republican leadership may be pro-life, but none of them are willing to go all in on the human life amendment.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Anything taken to an extreme will cost you votes. I am a very conservative person on fiscal policy, I even support social conservatism when applied to oneself, but I will never support someone pandering to zealots, like the Ox.

      If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. In the mean time, convince the other 60% of the world that either does not care about the issue or who are on the other side that you are right and the government should step in.

      Until then, you are just a zealot theocrat imposing your religion on infidels.

      If the GOP wants hurried, permanent and deserved irrelvance in Georgia once again, take the Ox’s route.

        • HankRearden says:

          When you are thee only person saying something, how is it pandering? Do you not believe tthat Ox actually feels what he says about the Pro-Life issue? I am just curious.

        • Doug Deal says:

          Great 99% of people agree that slavery should be illegal. Now, if it is all so clear cut, why can you at best get 23% of people to say that abortion should be illegal in all cases and only 44% to say it should be illegal in most cases.

          By the way, I am using the stats from the very same Gallop poll that is quoted saying that 51% consider themselves pro-life. Notice the number means that people who consider themselves “pro-life” are not neccessarily in support of making abortion illegal.

          When you want to take the extreme views of a minority (23%) and make them the law of the land because of their intense religous views, you are a zealot theocrat.

          Instead of trying to force your will down the throats of others at the point of a gun, how about trying to convince them first using logic and reason?

          As for your anology. Try again.

          • Bill Greene says:

            Doug, what percentage of the American people agreed that slavery should be illegal in 1787? Did that make slavery morally OK, or should it have been made illegal anyway?

            Are you really arguing for a tyranny of the majority in moral issues?

          • Doug Deal says:

            Whether it was moral or not means nothing when there is not a consensus to make it illegal. We live under a rule of law, good or bad, or we live under tyranny. People like you love tyranny when it is in your favor, but will be the first to scream bloody murder when it cuts against you.

            Since you are so clearly in the right, now convince those other 28% (more than currently hold his view) so you can even get to a whisker thin majority to adopt the Ox’s stance.

          • Bill Greene says:

            Whether it was moral or not means nothing when there is not a consensus to make it illegal.

            Way to avoid answering the question, Doug. Oh well.

          • Doug Deal says:


            It answers it perfectly well. Would you be okay for 10% of the population to cease control of the governemnt and leave everything else the same, but make abortion illegal?

        • Bill

          Your missing the point… that Dash and DD have been trying to make.

          “Immorality” is “bad” for those that see it as immoral. “Illegal” should be left for those things that are both immoral and negatively intrusive/infringing. Until the later is proven, government has no legitimacy in enforcing. If morality is the only criteria then the morality of the majority rules… and you might find yourself being directly affected and not like it if you give this practice legitimacy (it’s immoral for the sick not have health care, to allow industry to put CO2 in the air… to allow people to buy alcohol on the day the majority worships… to own a bar where people are allowed to smoke… and so on to the utopian statist state).

          • Bill Greene says:

            No, I’m not missing the point that Dash, Daniel, DD, or any other alliterative person have been trying to make.

            You are making numerous truth claims, but you are not providing any set of absolutes upon which to base those truth claims. (Actually, you are providing a set, but it is only implicitly, and if it were to be pointed out to you, you would deny it explicitly, or in Bill S.’s case, expletively). You claim that “Illegal” should be left for those things that are both immoral and negatively intrusive/infringing; I simply ask that you prove to me that something is “immoral,” and that something which is “intrusive/infringing” is wrong, without using any set of absolute standards that are logically self-verifying and universal.

            It wasn’t “illegal” for Nazis to kill Jews in Third Reich Germany. But was it “bad” — that is, “immoral” — even if the Nazis didn’t see it as immoral? Or are there situations where it’s OK for Germans to engage in genocide against the Jews? It wasn’t “illegal” to own slaves in antebellum South. But was it “bad” — that is, “immoral” — even if the plantation owners and politicians didn’t see it as immoral? Or are there situations where it’s OK for white people to own black people?

            Even if you claim to drop the “immoral” part of that argument, you’re still stuck with the “negatively intrusive/infringing” part — but who are you to say that’s wrong? The Nazis didn’t see it as wrong. The slaveholders didn’t see it as wrong. If Nazis today want to kill Jews, or plantation owners want to own slaves, would the government have any legitimacy in enforcing against that? Why — because it’s “immoral” to do so? Because it’s “negatively intrusive/infringing” on the Jews and Blacks? So what? Maybe a majority could be voted in to say that it’s NOT “immoral” or “negatively intrusive/infringing” to do those things. Does that make it OK to go back to doing?

            Do you really believe in the tyranny of the majority — or are there absolute morals that are right and wrong, no matter what the majority says?

      • IW says:


        You are right. Opposing the murder of babies is pretty extreme. I don’t know how anyone could support that kind of extremism! It’s almost as bad as if he were opposing al Qaeda’s extreme views on blowing up buildings and and killing thousands of innocent people, which obviously we can’t support because then we’d be imposing our theocratic religious beliefs on everyone. Sigh, I don’t know how our founding fathers worked through these “TOUGH” issues like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s almost like they had a moral code/standard that they were using as a guide?!?

        • Kellie says:

          You need to work on changing the minds of people who may be considering abortion instead of forcing your beliefs on them. Lay out another plan for them, give them options but at the end of the day, leave it up to them.
          If you are against it then help the people who are trying to figure out what to do.

          • IW says:

            Absolutely! However, in the mean time lets not allow them to murder their own babies, just because they are theirs. Sound like a plan?

            I 100% agree that we need to be changing hearts and minds… however if killing a toddler wasn’t illegal, would you say that we just need to change the hearts and minds of the parents and not make it illegal?

            The problem is that you can’t have a society that does not have moral standards. The lack of moral standards results in chaos and the lack of liberty.

          • Kellie says:

            Don’t give me the “murder their baby or toddler” crap. A fetus can not live outside of the body. If it could you could just remove them from the women and grow them yourself but then we’d still have the pesky problem of who would raise them.
            Not all abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies, but if you make them illegal for one they will be illegal for all.

          • Bill Greene says:

            You need to work on changing the minds of people who may be considering owning a slave instead of forcing your beliefs on them. Lay out another plan for them, give them options but at the end of the day, leave it up to them.
            If you are against it then help the people who are trying to figure out what to do.


          • Bill Greene says:

            Don’t give me the “murder their baby or toddler” crap. A newborn can not live outside of the body unless given sustenance and cared for, as the mother did when it was inside the body. If it could you could just remove them from the mother and raise them yourself but then we’d still have the pesky problem of who among the many thousands of waiting adoptive couples would raise them.
            Not all cases of infanticide are due to unwanted newborns, but if you make them illegal for one they will be illegal for all.


          • IW says:

            “A fetus can not live outside of the body. ”

            Kellie, So I take it that you believe forced euthanasia is acceptable as well (i.e. Terri Schiavo)? I mean if a person can’t live on their own, lets pull the tube on them!

          • Kellie says:

            I did not say “live on their own”, a baby can not live on his own but he can be cared for by someone else. A fetus can not.
            Terri Schiavo was brain dead. It was up to her husband to carry out her wishes. I would not want to be left as she was. You may be ok with that and if you are you better let others know.

          • ByteMe says:

            I’m still waiting to hear what “illegal” means in this context: is the mom who needed the abortion going to be thrown in jail or the doctor? Inquiring minds want to know.

          • Kellie says:

            The protester who blocks the clinic entrance will be thrown in jail along with the nut who shoots the doctor.

          • Bill Greene says:

            Kellie: One’s right to control one’s own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother’s body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.


          • IW says:


            I’ll just address the first part of your comment for now.

            “I did not say “live on their own”, a baby can not live on his own but he can be cared for by someone else. A fetus can not.”

            What’s the difference between a baby and a fetus? Back in the 60’s and 70’s the argument that there was a difference may have convinced some people… but today with the technology that we have, that theory has been totally debunked. We can clearly see that it’s a baby and not just a blob of tissue – even from the earliest of stages.

            Check out this story about a baby that was born at just 21 weeks and 5 days gestation! And is still alive and thriving today!

          • Kellie says:

            We will have to agree to disagree. I’m not going to change my mind and you are not going to change yours.

            I am curious – are you a man or a woman?

          • IW says:

            Kellie, you are correct. I’m not changing my mind – no matter how much I dislike the truth, it’s still the truth 😉

            I’m of the male persuasion :). Of course now you’ll probably try to use that as a reason why I can’t comment on the subject because I’m not a woman and therefore “it’s none of my business”. Sorry, that won’t fly :)

          • Kellie says:

            No, I’m ok with you being male. They often get it wrong. 😉 lol
            But at least there are a few on here that get it right – Doug, Icarus, Bill Simon and others.
            I just wanted to know your gender because men and women do think differently, that’s all.
            Having said that, I will say that I have been pregnant and it can be stressful under the best circumstances. Each person has their own reason for having an abortion and I am not willing to refuse one woman the right who has a baby who will never live b/c all it’s organs have developed outside the body just to prevent a crackhead or someone who had a one night stand from having one.
            BTW – I do believe there should be limits on when one can be done, especially if it was unwanted. Women who are doing it because they don’t want children know that from day one and they should not be waiting until 15 weeks to have it.
            I am like most – right down the middle. 😉

          • Bill Greene says:

            “I do believe there should be limits on when one can be done, especially if it was unwanted. Women who are doing it because they don’t want children know that from day one and they should not be waiting until 15 weeks to have it.”

            So Kellie, would you support a ban on abortion after the first trimester? That’s around 12% of abortions, according to the latest statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. If you agree with that ban, you’ll agree with the vast majority of the American people (68% say it should be banned in the second trimester, 84% say it should be banned in the third trimester). So, majority rules, let’s get that law passed! Right? :)

            But wait a minute… what’s wrong with getting an abortion after the first trimester? Who cares? If the unborn baby fetus is 91 days old, why should she have a greater right to life than when she was 81 days old? Come to think of it, who says she should have more rights when she’s 240 days old? or 270? or one day before birth? or one minute?

            Just who’s making these rules, anyway?

          • Kellie says:

            Actually Bill, I would not want a time period put on there for women who have health issues or for a fetus that has major issues.
            Like I said, women who are doing it b/c it’s an unwanted pregnancy know that from day one so they should do it right away.

        • Doug Deal says:

          I took what you said as parody, since it so hilariously captured the essence of why the extreme anti-abortion stance will never win the day.

          It was especially funny how you channeled the more crazy elements by throwing out names like baby killer and such to someone who is not even “pro-choice”. I agree with your obvious point that the extreme anti-abortion dingbats are their own worst enemy.

    • jenny says:

      Campaigned as pro-life, but most of them are liars. All they have to do is fill out a card to get GRTL’s stamp of approval. We have the oldest gestational age for on demand abortion, and with a certificate of need you can abort up to the day you deliver. The Woman’s Right to Know bill is a total crock and sham, and the Sonogram bill is equally so. It’s all about fundraising, power, manipulating the pro-life voter block, and looking like good God salesmen when stumping for the election.

      • B Balz says:

        You ‘go’ girl! Right as rain, you watch the Ox take this self-righteous BS position all the way to the Governors manse.

        Last weekend I saw anti-abortion protesters in Chamblee. I did not know hat a clinic existed in Chamblee, so I will naturally have to investigate further. I might even, peacefully and in a civil manner, try to engage some of these protesters.

        My question is basic: Abortion was illegal in America, so how was it better that women were dying due to botched procedures?

        I had an amazingly civil discussion with Bucky on this topic, and the essence of it is that nobody who feels strongl on this issue is going to change their mind. That connundrum gives a pol an easy vote if carefully mainipulated.

        Litmus test, yea or nay on abortion. Who cares if the guy took $120K in illegal campaign contributions from the very industry he supposedly regulate?

        • ByteMe says:

          BB: that clinic has been there a long long time, on C-D road just south of P-I, if I remember right.

          As to your question of “how was it better”? You know they don’t really care about the pregnant woman, right? It’s all about the clump of cells. If they really wanted to reduce abortions to those that were medically necessary, they would work on solving the issue of teenage pregnancy in a way that makes sense. Instead, they focus on attacking the clinics and the mothers who don’t want to go through with the pregnancy and can’t afford to do the procedure in a hospital. Oh, and they tell teenagers not to have sex, as though that’s ever worked.

          [Note: you ever notice that you don’t see the anti-abortion protesters outside of hospitals? Wonder why?]

          • Bill Greene says:

            I’ve protested abortionists outside of plenty of hospitals. You just didn’t see me. :)

            As for the question, “Abortion was illegal in America, so how was it better that women were dying due to botched procedures?” I don’t know anyone who has ever claimed that it was a good thing that women died when they tried to kill their babies in the womb, before OR after Roe.

            But let’s get our statistics right: In 1967, the federal government listed only 160 deaths from illegal abortion. In 1972, a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions. This is hardly an overwhelming rate. Today, “safe legal” abortion has killed over 400 mothers; even RU-486 has killed around a dozen mothers (plus, 857 women have experienced adverse events from RU-486, 64 were life-threatening, 168 experienced severe hemorrhages and seven required serious emergency surgery). (Visit “Blackmun’s Wall” or look here for a recent list of women killed by abortion.) A study conducted by the Elliot Institute and published in the Southern Medical Journal shows that women who have abortions are at a significantly higher risk of death than women who give birth.

            So let’s be honest here: pro-lifers are in favor of saving the millions of babies’ lives, AND the hundreds of mothers’ lives, that result from “safe legal” abortion.

          • ByteMe says:

            Please don’t tell me you’re comparing 63 deaths in 1972 with 400 deaths since 1973. That would be just too ridiculous to contemplate.

      • ReaganRepublican says:

        Ox has not fooled the pro life vote. You are right Jenny, actions speak louder than words. Ox supported pro abortion Rudy for President and therefore will not be getting our vote. Johnson supported Romney who was very pro abortion as governor of Massachusetts, so he is out . Austin Scott is not pro life, a lot of people don’t know that, so he is out. As nice as Karen is, she is not reliable on this topic. Our only choice is Deal. Pro lifers for Deal…..

    • ReaganRepublican says:

      If Oxendine was truly pro life he would not have endorsed Rudy Gulliani for President. Rudy could not even support a ban on partial birth abortion. The pro life community is more sophisticated than Oxendine thinks, he will not get our support. By this time next year Oxendine will not even be a contender. The Christian vote will hold him accountable. We believe in conversions on the way to Damascus, not Atlanta…

  2. Jeff says:

    This, combined withthe recent incidents with the McBerry campaign, are only proving my point that Ox is a solid Theocrat, trying to woo over those who would base government on their personal religious beliefs.

  3. Dash Riptide says:

    “The Oxendine Administration will enforce existing laws and use the state Constitution to put Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers out of their grizzly business.”

    What do bears have to do with abortion?

    • Dash Riptide says:

      Ox needs to take the Thumpers for granted the way Bill Clinton took gays for granted instead of alienating the middle. Ultimately, who else are they going to vote for? He’s just begging Dems to vote in the Republican primary in droves. And if Barnes continues to look solid a year from now then that’s exactly what will happen.

  4. macho says:

    Ox is not too extreme or too religious, nor is he too moderate. When you try to be all things to all people, you’re nothing. Every move he makes is a calculated decision to try and appeal to the hardcore GOP primary voter.

    If one of his pollsters told him that the hard right would vote for a cross-dressing candidate, the next “Journeys with John” would be his personal shopping trip to Victoria’s Secret.

    • jenny says:

      I will never be on Ox’s “team.” I told him as much personally on July 4th when he asked. I was flattered that he’d want me on his team. I’d get fired in no time if he hired me, because I do not look the other way, and I will not bend on my presuppositions. He’s totally corrupt, and he’s only worth lip service, but I’m glad for him to speak the right lip service.

      Our position is leading the way, and his position continues to follow. :-)

      The impact of Governor McBerry 2010 continues to shine forth as a beacon of hope for individual life and liberty.

  5. My tax dollars help fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood helps fund abortions. Therefore, my money helps fund abortions. I am hardly a theocrat, but have a very real problem with that. You want to have an elective abortion, well fine, the Supreme Court and current law says you have that right, but you have no right to make me pay for it.

    It’s not like we all don’t know what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it.

    • Bill Simon says:

      My tax dollars pay to care for OTHER people’s kids (i.e., public education). They have no right to make me pay for their little tax write-offs either.

      It’s not like we don’t know what causes pregnancy and more freaking kids in the world. :-)

      • Kellie says:

        Government should not pay for either. Some have kids just to get the “earned income credit” or free food. They never consider the actual cost of having kids. They think the more they have the more money they get. Sad.

  6. jenny says:

    This is hilarious. It’s gone from Jeff Breedlove telling me that Ox’s position on abortion was an evolving strategy to Ox stating exactly what I challenged him on- enforcing current laws on the books in regard to ambulatory surgical clinics.

    I reject asking the state for “personhood” a term that is peculiar to American law, and based on the dehumanization of blacks through the 3/5ths person clause and the Dredd Scott case of 1857.

    Ox is once again demonstrating that McBerry leads the way on the issues and Ox follows.

  7. brander says:

    I love seeing the moderate middle of the roaders complain when a politician actually brings their strongly held religious beliefs into their leadership. It only offends them when those views are contrary to their own, which automatically makes that law maker a “theocrat” or “Christian Jihadist”. Grow up and have an intellectually honest conversation.

    It seems to be perfectly fine to take the pro-choice stand that says a baby is a fetus (when’s the last time an expectant friend of yours had a fetus shower?), or confiscates my tax dollars and uses them for abortion funding of underage girls with out their parents permission, how enlightened.

    I comment any candidate in today’s liberally intolerant political environment who takes a solid stand for absolute truth, sanctity of ALL human life, and stripping the tax dollars from an organization that sanctions statutory rape, and protects the offenders.

    In closing, I have a son with Down Syndrome, get ready because Obama-Care will mandate that your dollars limit the births and lives of people like him. No Way.

    • ByteMe says:

      Forcing your religious beliefs on someone else is not “leadership”. What if my religious beliefs are different?

      And when was the last time you had a friend hold a “baby shower” at 4 months?

    • jenny says:

      93% of Downs babies are aborted. Under Obama care, look out for forced abortions and forced prenatal testing. That’s how March of Dimes gets all those healthy babies. Pushing prenatal testing and killing off the babies that aren’t worth the earth’s resources.

      • ByteMe says:

        Jenny you’re treading into “full of $hit” territory with any comments you have on Obamacare and forced anything.

        You want to force the mother to have the baby, right? Who’s forcing what now?

        • jenny says:

          Nah. I’m not forcing anyone to have a baby. If you don’t want to reproduce, don’t have sex. But if you chose to have sex and as a result a baby is conceived, and then the two idiot parents conspire against the baby to kill it, when it didn’t ask to be there in the first place…I dunno…tort comes to mind….

          Obamacare is irrelevant in Georgia since we’ll have Governor McBerry. :-)

          I’m just sayin’…..

        • Red Phillips says:

          “You want to force the mother to have the baby, right? Who’s forcing what now?”

          Since when did a mother giving birth to her own baby become voluntary? Is feeding and clothing your kid voluntary? Child support comes to mind. The parent child bond IS NOT VOLUNTARY! IT IS AN OBLIGATION! IT IS A DUTY? And in a healthy society would be looked upon as a blessing and cause for celebration. It is a sick sick society that views children as burdens to be avoided and the parental obligation, the most fundamental organizing principle of society, as voluntary.

          In the unfortunate case of both parents passing, where do the kids go? To their grandparents. To their aunt or uncle. To an older sibling. Why? Because it is their familial obligation and duty. An uncle, for example, who barring some sort of incapacity refused to step up to the plate and take care of his orphaned nieces and nephews because of his career, or because the timing isn’t right, or finances, etc. would rightly be viewed with contempt. But it is supposed to be just fine and dandy for the mother to opt out of this little arrangement before the kid is born. This is just sick. It is moral anarchy. And people scratch their heads and wonder why our society is going to Hell.

          • ByteMe says:

            Red says, It is a sick sick society that views children as burdens

            Um, Red, based on current polling, our society views you as a burden. Just sayin’.

            jenny, please let us know how we’re going to solve the very real problem of “babies having babies.” We know that “abstinence only” doesn’t work at all. Want to get serious about abortion? Start with 16-year-olds having babies. Figure out how to break the cycle so that those “babies” get at least a high school education and a real job before they have their first kid. Then we’ll be left with health issues and rape as reasons for abortion and everyone but psycho Red will be happy.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “Um, Red, based on current polling, our society views you as a burden. Just sayin’.”

            ByteMe, perhaps you should formulate an argument instead of resorting to mindless name calling.

            A way to deal with 16 year olds getting pregnant is to respect and honor the religious tradition that counsels against pre-marital sex instead of denigrating it and forever fretting that someone is going to “force” it on you. You can’t on one hand run around screeching that Christian theocrats are on the march and must be stopped and then on the other act puzzled when 16 year olds aren’t practicing the morals inculcated by Christianity.

          • ByteMe says:

            A way to deal with 16 year olds getting pregnant is to respect and honor the religious tradition that counsels against pre-marital sex instead of denigrating it and forever fretting that

            Because this has worked so well so far, right?

            Why is it that teenage pregnancies are more common in places where religious indoctrination is strongest? You had heard that the rate of teenage pregnancies was right here in the Bible Belt, right? You think it’s an accident or an atheist plot to corrupt those good teenagers?

            Abstinence “education” doesn’t work. Teenagers have raging hormones and not enough brains to fight that off. Religion doesn’t work for them either. The ones who make religious-based “chastity promises” end up pregnant before those who don’t. Ignoring the problem or hoping that more religious ferver will make the problem go away is just not realistic.

            And that’s why I call you names.

          • ByteMe says:

            And I would love a comment edit button, even for 5 minutes….

            The question should read:

            You had heard that the rate of teenage pregnancies was highest right here in the Bible Belt, right?

          • Red Phillips says:

            “You had heard that the rate of teenage pregnancies was highest right here in the Bible Belt, right?”

            Teen pregnancy rates have to be corrected for demographics – race, income, etc. Teen pregnancy rates are significantly lower in people who attend church routinely than they are in those who do not. Compare the pregnancy rates among teens that attend conservative Christian schools vs. public schools. But to some degree you are correct. The Bible Belt has failed to live up to the Bible. They do a better job than other parts of the country at professing the right standards, but don’t always, unfortunately, walk the walk.

            This is not a micro problem that can be remedied by a short course in abstinence education taught in a state school that is dedicated to tearing down Christianity. It is a systemic problem. Our entire culture is awash in sex and Christianity is increasingly scoffed at and we are told this is progress. Were the culture not awash in sex, was pre-marital sex still frowned upon resulting in stigma instead of culturally sanctioned, was Christianity held up by the PTB instead of ridiculed and torn down, was modest dress enforced by parents instead of a having a bunch of teenage hoochie mamas trying to out tart their peers, was only chaperoned dating of suitors approved by the parents allowed by the modern family, etc. etc. then we would have less teen pregnancy. This is self explanatory.

            How do the teen pregnancy rates of today compare to the rates in 1950, for example, prior to the sexual revolution and liberalisms assault on Christianity and standards? (You would need to correct for “teen” pregnancies in married teens when younger marriage was much more common.) There is a one to one correspondence between the attack on and subsequent loss of standards and the rise in STDs, teen pregnancies, teen promiscuity, etc. You would have to be blind not to see this.

  8. Technocrat says:

    From Nathan Deals Website:
    ” He’s a passionate, consistent defender of innocent, unborn life.”

      • Bill Simon says:

        Aubie, Aubie, Aubie…sorry, but you apparently missed the part of the GOP-Nutjob Handbook: ONLY humans can have “life,” unborn or otherwise.

        After all, JC Watts feels that Mike Vick should not have been arrested for anything as long as abortions of human pregnancies still occur in this country.

        Caviar or living dogs…none of these items has anywhere NEAR the right to live (or, even be born) as a 3-day old blastocyst.

        In fact, I’m pretty sure that if it were up to JC Watts, all dogs should be treated as Michael Vick treated his.

        • B Balz says:

          Aubie you are too funny.

          Thank you all for making my AM coffee so enlightening and humorous.

          Tough subject, abortion, as that there are really no ‘pro-abortion’ groups out there. Anyone with a shred of moral decency knows that aborting a viable blastocyte is at some level wrong. That decision becomes horribly wrong as time marches forward as the blastocyte becomes a fetus.

          The alternative is that fully grown women will die from botched abortions if they become illegal, AGAIN. Recently, I did a little research to find that most Countries that do allow abortions, maybe 22-25, at best, do NOT allow late term or elective abortions. How do these Countries prevent deaths due to botched procedures?

          Perhaps Mr. Oxendine should look for inclusionary policies and not exclusionary mandates.

  9. John Konop says:

    Bill and Jenny

    What does this tell you about the put your head in the sand approach?

    Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years, agency finds• Aids cases in adolescent boys have nearly doubled

    • Fall in gonorrhea infection rate reversed

    Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush’s evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US’s major public health body.

    In a report that will surprise few of Bush’s critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

    The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

    In addition, about 16,000 pregnancies were reported among 10- to 14-year-old girls in 2004 and a similar number of young people in the age group reported having a sexually transmitted disease.

    “It is disheartening that after years of improvement with respect to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, we now see signs that progress is stalling and many of these trends are going in the wrong direction,” said Janet Collins, a CDC director.

    • Bill Greene says:

      “What does this tell you about the put your head in the sand approach? “

      It tells me that the efforts of those who put their heads in the sand regarding the need for abstinence education have been successful.

        • Bill Greene says:

          It hasn’t been “successful,” any more than teaching the Bible in public schools has been “successful” the last few years. If you get my point.

  10. Game Fan says:

    There’s a lot of truth to the idea that “pro-lifers” are to a large extent one issue voters. And, as a life-long “pro-choice” Republican (Pat Buchannan even said there’s room for us also) I’d also like to offer the observation that there doesn’t seem to be any appreciation for the other folks out here who for years have been supporting “pro-life Republicans” over and over again with nothing much as far as appreciation (and try discussing basic economics with a one issue voter)

    • Bill Greene says:

      GF, you and I agree on most things, I’ve found. But the old canard about “one-issue voters” being bad just doesn’t cut it with me.

      If I agreed with a candidate on every issue but one, and that one issue was his support of bringing back slavery, I would not vote for that candidate. The enslavement of human beings is wrong.

      If I agreed with a candidate on every issue but one, and that one issue was his support of Jewish genocide, I would not vote for that candidate. The murder of human beings is wrong.

      If I agree with a candidate on every issue but one, and that one issue is his support of legalized infanticide of babies in the womb, I will not vote for that candidate. The killing of innocent children is wrong.

      Murder and slavery are non-negotiables in my book. Does that mean there aren’t political issues that I can overlook disagreements on when voting? Of course not, and I often do — but then again, I don’t view murder and slavery as political issues.

      Maybe that’s just me?

      • John Konop says:

        Bill Greene

        Why did you vote for Bush who promoted trade deals that used SLAVE LABOR and got us into a war of choice in Iraq which killed innocent people over what?

        It seems like you pick and choose your principals like your are at a Baskin Robbins ice cream store!

  11. IndyInjun says:

    The republic was lost in 2004 when the THEN worst POTUS in US history was barely returned to office on the back of gay marriage.

    If the backside stabbing of the GOP on that issue had been known then, Bush and company would have been laughed out of the race.

    Hey, appealing to abortion and gay marriage has worked for economic fascists posing under the GOP banner for more than a decade. Ox figures “Why stop now?”

  12. fundy1611 says:

    Can I ask a simple question? How in the world will the next Governor of Georgia have the power to stop abortions? Just curious. Isn’t it like coming out and saying you’re for an immediate pull-out of the middle east? How is it relevent to governoring Georgia? Is it not outside the power of a state until the U.S. Supreme Court decides otherwise?

      • fundy1611 says:

        Give me a logical road-map to how any elected official in this state will be able to change Roe vs. Wade? Just tell me what OX, McBerry, or anyone else is going to do to end abortions. And explain how it will hold-up in federal court.

        • Bill Greene says:

          Fundy, your question is based on the faulty presupposition that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and needs to be challenged and overturned. Any 8th grade civics student can tell you that courts do not make law. Only the legislative branch makes law. But even if courts could legally make law, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Marbury v. Madison, stated that an act repugnant to the constitution is void and is not law.

          We need to not lose sight of the fact that the states delegated only five criminal jurisdictions to the federal government: counterfeiting, piracy, felonies on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and treason. Abortion is prenatal murder, and murder is not on that list. Therefore, there is no federal jurisdiction over abortion. Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over murder and since Roe is not law, Roe does not need to be overturned. It needs to be ignored.

          • I just want to buy alcohol only on Sundays… We should honor the days that God worked by not buying beer on those days…. oh, can I ignore the 16th too? One of my stocks did well this year… it was the company that makes printing presses for the treasury.

          • Bill Greene says:

            John, I didn’t say to ignore any laws, did I?

            “since Roe is not law, Roe does not need to be overturned. It needs to be ignored.”

            Please read what I write before you start twisting it. It makes it so much more intelligent-sounding. :)

  13. B Balz says:

    Over a hundred comments, and basically I am doubtful Mr. Oxendine will recant his viewpoints on making it tougher to get an abortion in GA. This trend has continued for some years now, as we all know.

    I guess the next logical step for Mr. Oxendine is to make a very LOUD noise with regard to making embryonic stem cell research illegal. I’m not speaking of unlimited Federal funding or State funding of ESC, but rather making any research like this illegal, even if privately funded.

    Georgia hosted Bio-con, and has pre-eminent scientists in Athens that can bring ESC advances to fruition. That sort of vision will NOT flourish in an atmosphere that reviles ESC based on morality.

    I say it is patently immoral to explain to someone who has a chronic, fatal, and incurable, neurological disease that ESC research in Georgia is ‘politically impossible.’

    There are many voices and voters that will not be silenced. These voices are well organized and have formed a bi-partisan grassroots coalition.

    See ya, Mr. Oxendine.

    • John Konop says:

      B Balz

      Should we ban IVF?

      Abortion of “Excess” Babies Common with IVF

      Excess” babies are routinely aborted as part of in vitro fertilization techniques, a report by the Virginian-Pilot acknowledged yesterday.

      The report examined the problems associated with multiple births, a common occurrence when attempting to conceive and successfully carry a child using artificial technology. The success of IVF techniques typically rely on the insertion of multiple embryos to enhance a couple’s chances that at least one embryo will successfully implant and result in a pregnancy.

      Frequently, the procedure will result in more than one embryo implanting in the womb at a time, resulting in abnormally high rates of twins, triplets and quadruplets. All multiple births pose far greater risks for both mother and children. The babies are usually born prematurely with dangerously low birth weight, at risk for serious disabilities.

      To avoid these risks and increase the chances of having a healthy baby, fertility clinics commonly recommend the “selective reduction” of one or more babies—which in fact simply means aborting the children tagged as less promising to make room for the baby (or babies) believed to be physically stronger.

      “In a world where debate storms on legislative floors over stem cell research and abortion, embryos are culled with quiet regularity from the wombs of women for whom fertility procedures were too effective,” wrote report author Elizabeth Simpson.

      Although some fertility clinics have attempted to cut down on multiple birth rates by voluntarily placing restrictions on the number of embryos placed in the womb, such measures only result in the deaths (or indefinite storage) of left over embryos denied access to their mother’s womb.

      This treatment of “surplus” embryos is a core argument against artificial procreation methods, raised by the Catholic Church and other religious and political organizations who charge that in vitro fertilization techniques are fundamentally immoral.

      • ByteMe says:

        Of course not, silly! We should force the mother to have those as well. Haven’t you been paying close attention to the arguments here?

  14. B Balz says:

    Mr. Konop:

    Our State and National debate on the sanctity of life seems to be based on extremes and absolutes instead of moderation and relative conditions. The fact that most people become apoplectic over this topic precludes rational discussion.

    Absolutely, the Catholic Church, and others who espouse the core arguments against the use of in vitro fertilization are correct. A society that believes in the sanctity of life OUGHT not condone in vitro fertiliation or capital punishment or abortion. Pols capitalize on extremist positions calling a blastocyte a baby or a child.

    Americans and Georgians continue to discuss their points on an essentially intractable debate. The smarmy likes of JO use this debate to suck in votes.

    There is no easy answer since humanity is already ethically unbalanced by allowing capital punishment, in vitro and abortion. In an absolute world, these are all immoral, as would be ESC.

    If you are a passionate believer, we are alread lost. If you are a pragmatist, the Federal government ought not contribute to Planned Parenthood. If you are a realist, life without the possililty of parole replaces capital punishment (it’s cheaper) ESC is promoted, in vitro is OK, and abortion is legal.

    Somewhere in the middle of that is what we have.

    “Stuck in the middle …”

Comments are closed.