Georgia Right to Life as a Loser?

Interesting offset to consider in the Palin endorsement. Georgia Right to Life claims that Handel is not pro-life and yet arguably the most pro-life of all Republicans has just endorsed Handel. In the endorsement, Palin mentions Handel is pro-life.

It seems the muddying of what a pro-life candidate is because of various agendas only hurts the pro-life cause. Groups like Georgie Right to Life should be careful in overreach. There is no doubt Karen Handel is pro-life. There is no doubt she’ll support GRTL’s primary mission. There is no doubt she won’t be getting a Planned Parenthood endorsement anytime soon.

But that wasn’t good enough.

GRTL, in light of Palin’s “blessing” of Karen Handel and her pro-life bona fides, looks a bit silly.


  1. In The Arena says:

    How is Palin supposed to know the truth? You think Handel told her the truth, that she favors abortions in certain instances?

    • John Konop says:

      I want to apologize to mayonnaise because he has a serious disease called DEAD BRAIN. Unless he gets a similar donor with limited intelligence willing to give up part of their brain MAYO will be posting stupid comments for life.

      If you have limited intelligence (matching MAYO) and are willing to give up part of your brain please e-mail limtedbrain& You could help limit his stupid comments.

  2. Red Phillips says:

    ITA, you stole my thought. Do we even know whether Palin understands that Handel is the designated moderate in this race? Did she actually study the race and decide to endorse Handel? If so, that doesn’t speak well for her judgment or her conservative bona fides. Or is she being advised (baldly)?

    • macho says:

      Apparently the only people who are trying to designate Handel a moderate are her opponents. I’m not a big fan of Palin’s, but I assure you, she’s not going take an endorsement for Governor lightly.

      • Red Phillips says:

        “Apparently the only people who are trying to designate Handel a moderate are her opponents.”

        And her own e-mails. Oh that’s right … she didn’t really write those herself.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      Palin understands that Handel is a female. It’s all about creating her army of “mama grizzlies.”

      Seriously… if you’re a Republican with a vagina, Sarah Palin wants to endorse you.

    • Jeff says:


      Your brand of “conservatism” thinks it is 1850 when slavery was LORD, Cotton was King, and sleeping with young teenagers was perfectly acceptable.

      I’ll take Erick’s brand of conservatism over yours ANY day of the week and twice on Sunday – and everyone knows the problems I have with even Erick’s brand.

      • Red Phillips says:

        Jeff, my brand of conservatism actually wants to conserve something. And nice way to drag the allegations against Ray into the conversation along with a nice reference to slavery to try and discredit ideas, like that absurd idea that we ought to follow the Constitution as intended. You been taking lessons from Doug?

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Do you mean Doug Deal or myself?

          Reb, what is it you are trying to conserve with the League of the South? I’ve been to the website, more than once, and I don’t agree with the message. “The League of the South believes that the answer to these problems is a free and independent Southern republic. “

          • Red Phillips says:

            I meant Doug Deal. But people of good faith can disagree about whether the South and the nation are ready for Southern independence at this time. Or whether it’s ready for Vermont or Alaskan independence for that matter. (Both states have active secessionist movements. And Palin [back before she was an overly handled shill], the subject of this post, addressed the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party, much to the chagrin of the liberals and the “conservative” hand-wringers.) I don’t think the LoS is advocating immediate secession anyway. Southern independence is a long term, and I believe laudable goal. It is not, as some of the hysterics would suggest, an inherently nefarious goal. But I don’t think conservatives can argue that the South wouldn’t be more conservatively (and hence better) governed. Nor can conservatives disagree with the fact that nullification and secession were allowed under the Constitution as originally intended. Not all the Founders like the ideas, but they were pretty much taken for granted. Mounds of historical evidence favor this view.

            But to answer your question, the League of the South is seeking to conserve what the Confederate States were seeking to conserve, the constitutional republican polity left to us by the Founders. It was Lincoln, and now his modern day nationalist apologists (some masquerading as conservatives), who seek to remake the Union into something it was not meant to be.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              As for me, I will step on the League of the South’s neck and hope it fades into misery and history. Instead of than barging in on the closest meeting place, not in my district but more than an hour away, I will use this forum to decry the the LoS has not out lived it’s usefulness, but it has never had any.

              From the national LoS website:
              “Q: What is the LS position regarding blacks in the South?
              A: The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups. ”

              Parphrased, all blacks who don’t agree with the LoS are part of a government-sponsored victim group.

              Does anyone have a tin foil hat for this guy from the Georgia LoS website:
              “May God pity the pawns of the New World Order here in Georgia in this culminating cultural war!”

              • Red Phillips says:

                Doug, you are PC grandstanding just like the other Doug. The reason the LoS even issued a statement on race, which they were reluctant to do, is because a bunch of PC thought policers like the smear artists at the SPLC were claiming they were racist. Why? Well because they were Southern of course. And we all KNOW that Southerners are all closeted racist. Why would you want to contribute to that sort of atmosphere?

                “Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups. ””

                What part of that do you object to?

                The LoS is attempting to conserve (actually restore) the political order left to us by the Founders and established by the Constitution. This is a fact. Lincoln changed the nature of the Union away from what had been intended. This too, is a fact. What, for someone who considers himself a conservative, is wrong with attempting to restore the political order as intended?

                    • B Balz says:

                      Easy Doc!

                      Perhaps I ought to have followed my comment with a placebo like “LOL” or some such thing.

                      Let’s not kid ourselves, your anachronistic view proves Rock ‘n Roll is to blame here. Or maybe Flapper-girls, or the evils of drink, or….

                      While providing an interesting historical context, your view begs the question, “What can be done about it now?” If the divergence from what our Founding Fathers intended was not disputed successfully in Lincoln’s time, how is it going to succeed now?

                      Secession? Okey-dokey, get back to me on that, stat.

                      If one assumes morality is non-partisan, ask yourself, “Why isn’t RTL a non-Partisan cause?”

                      If talk of secession is not purely absurd, ask yourself why before the Primary, Roy is calling out the GOP on this issue?

                      These are ideas, man, it is not personal to me.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      “If the divergence from what our Founding Fathers intended was not disputed successfully in Lincoln’s time, how is it going to succeed now?”

                      That B Balz is a separate question. It is one thing to believe things have irrevocably changed; it is another to defend those changes and deny they were changes pretending as if things were always that way. We have always been at war with Eastasia, right? The Union created the States as administrative subunits of itself, right?

                • Doug Grammer says:


                  I object to the use of the word “black” in one sentence and “government-sponsored victim group” in the next. The two were obviously meant to be related to each other.

                  Not all southerners are racists, just the ones who support the LoS after doing their research. I have no room for secessionists in my heart. They are the ones who make the South look silly. Baseball caps with slogans like “forget, hell” or “we aint lost nothing‘, this is just a long cease-fire” are the ones who make us look the worst.

                  The political order left to us by the Founders and established by the Constitution counted blacks as 3/5th in terms of a census, still counted them as property, and didn’t allow women to vote. Actually, the only people who could vote were land owners, but that was done at the state level. Is that what you are trying to conserve?

                  I am not going to give any advice to a group that has a stated purpose of: “The League of the South believes that the answer to these problems is a free and independent Southern republic. “

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    “The political order left to us by the Founders and established by the Constitution counted blacks as 3/5th in terms of a census, still counted them as property, and didn’t allow women to vote. Actually, the only people who could vote were land owners, but that was done at the state level. Is that what you are trying to conserve?”

                    That is a canard, and you know it. Do you know a single person who wants to reinstate the 3/5th clause and reinstitute slavery? Name them. That is a PC boogie man use by leftist Cultural Marxist to demonize anyone who defends the past. When Constitutionalists like me talk about restoring the Constitution as originally intended they are talking about the political order such as the proper relationship between the states and the feds, enumerate powers, etc. You know that good and well. Yet you chose to still echo Cultural Marxist talking points about reinstituting slavery. Are you warming up to begin posting at the DailyKos, because that is where I would expect such nonsense, not from pro-life Republicans.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Name one? Reb Phillips.

                      “The LoS is attempting to conserve (actually restore) the political order left to us by the Founders and established by the Constitution”

                      Are you saying that the consitution didn’t count blacks as 3/5ths persons, allowed for slavery, and didn’t allow for women to vote?

                      Don’t blame me if you can’t get YOUR message straight.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I live in a country where we have grown from what the founding fathers left us. They didn’t face a one world economy, the internet, cloning, DNA evidence, nuclear bombs and power, IVF, and 12 to 20 million illegals, so it’s disingenuous to say you know as to how they would treat those topics and others.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      “Are you saying that the Constitution didn’t count blacks as 3/5ths persons, allowed for slavery”

                      Doug give me a break you pathetic PC grandstander. Of course the Constitution did those things. But neither I nor anyone else wants to reinstitute slavery AND YOU KNOW IT. Again Constitutionalists are referring to the proper relationship between the states and the feds, enumerated powers, etc. AND YOU KNOW IT. Do we also want to start re-slaughtering the Indians? Why are you adopting the leftist Cultural Marxist position of demonizing all defenders of the past as wannabe slave holders? Since YOU KNOW it not to be true, it is a dishonest rhetorical device for demonizing and silencing (won’t work with me) your opponent. That’s on you.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Don’t tell me what I know. You long to go back to the way things were, by your owns paraphrased words. I accept your revised statement that you are against the items you mentioned. For all we know, you want the right to marry your 13 year old cousin.

                      “Consequently, we must be about the business of rallying our friends and neighbors to the message of Southern Independence.”

                      “That the U.S. government is an organized criminal enterprise cannot be doubted by anyone who has kept abreast of the on-going, broad-open-daylight effort to loot the country’s Wealth.”

                      “As Jefferson Davis said, all we wish is to be left alone.”

                      ‘Q: What is the goal of the LS?
                      A: To advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means. ‘

                      All of the quote are from the national (regional) LoS website. The LoS is secessionist. Period. You can tell us why or we can assume what we like about you. It’s not our job to get YOUR story delivered to us straight. I think your group is lower than pond scum, but that’s my opinion.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      No one ever said the LoS wasn’t secessionist. They clearly are. As is the Vermont secession movement. As is the Alaska Independence Party. As is the Hawaiian independence movement, etc. What I was saying is that people are not agreed on time frame or imminent practicality. But so what if they are secessionist? If you don’t agree fine, but there is nothing inherently nefarious about secession (your feigned outrage notwithstanding), and history abundantly supports the contention that it is a legal option available to the states. Also the League of the South has nothing to do with reinstituting slavery or the 3/5th clause and YOU DO KNOW THIS. I can tell you what you know because I know you know the earth ain’t flat. Find me one single person who is on record as wanting to reinstitute slavery. The most crankish white nationalist you could dig up somewhere doesn’t support that. It is not even a 1 in 1,000,000 position. So when you make sleazy innuendos implying such you are engaging in dishonest argument and employing a leftist Cultural Marxist tactic. Good going Marcuse. (If you don’t know who he is look him up.) That is what is “lower than pond scum.” Why are you empowering the enemy? Do you think Cultural Marxism is going to make it easier to save babies?

                    • B Balz says:

                      Yes indeedy, folks, a real ringer here.

                      Mr. Grammer, don’t vex Dr. Phillips as he is not adding one iota of credibility to anything close to what I envision to be conservative GOP values:

                      “…warming up to begin posting at the DailyKos, because that is where I would expect such nonsense, not from pro-life Republicans. …”

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      Oh good grief Doug! Is that really the best you can do? Modern day human trafficking, which is tragic, has nothing to do with reinstituting African slavery. Proving your sleazy innuendo was preposterous and dishonest to begin with. The LoS is an overtly Christian organization and certainly does not condone illicit sex.

                      “It’s not our job to get YOUR story delivered to us straight.”

                      My story is perfectly straight. I have never once mentioned slavery except to call out the people who sleazily insert it into the conversation. It is your job not to make ridiculous assertions, not because you really believe them to be true, but as a way to poison the debate.

                      “For all we know, you want the right to marry your 13 year old cousin.”

                      This is a perfect example of you making an absurd allegation in order to poison the argument and impugn the position I am taking not because you even remotely believe it to be true. As you can see in another part of this thread I argued in favor of supervised dating and returning to the old model of courting, which would include the consent of both sets of parents. I am a Christian, and if you hadn’t noticed I could accurately be described as a prude decrying modern decadence.

                      I see we agree on life. I could be wrong but I assume that you arise at this position because you are a Christian likely of some conservative variety. Do you really think it helps Christianity or the cause of life to get in bed with the Cultural Marxist and use their debating tactics hence empowering them? Do you think Cultural Marxism is friendly to traditional Christianity? Those same Cultural Marxist forces think it’s a hate crime when a Christian pastor preaches against homosexuality, or a manifestation of misogynistic hatred of women to be pro-life, or hateful and exclusive to preach Christianity as the only way of salvation. Some day when the thought policers are handcuffing your pastor for the hate crime of preaching against homosexuality you might then have second thought about having gotten into bed with them. “Gee, perhaps Red was onto something.”

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I would never use the phrase “Cultural Marxist.” It sounds too tin foil. Is the anyone in the LoS who might be OK with a 16 year old?

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      Well Doug, perhaps you should worry a little less about things sounding “tin foil” and a little more about familiarizing yourself with the enemies of Western Civilization.

                      “This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.”

                      From that tin foil outlet The American Thinker.


                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      When you say the enemies of Western Civilization, does that also not mean the enemies of the United States? I count the LoS as an enemy of the United States. Georgia and other southern states are part of the United States. The LoS has a stated goal of ending that relationship. That’s why they are pond scum.

      • apacheangel says:

        I don’t think slavery was ever “LORD” in the US, Jeff. Nor was it OK to sleep with a teenager (if you weren’t married). Your knowledge of history (or rather lack therof) is kinda scary.

        • Red Phillips says:

          apacheangel, I noticed Jeff’s use of the word “LORD” in all caps as well, and I assumed this was an allusion to how a certain Hebrew word for God is translated in some versions of the Bible to distinguish it from Lord not in all caps. So what Jeff is suggesting is that at some point (1850) people actually considered slavery God. This is as offensive as it is ridiculous. I would like Jeff to produce me some evidence that suggests that even one person ever thought slavery was literally LORD.

      • Romegaguy says:

        “Your brand of “conservatism” thinks it is 1850 when slavery was LORD, Cotton was King, and sleeping with young teenagers was perfectly acceptable.”

        Are you talking about McBerry?

        • analogkid says:

          “Are you talking about McBerry?”

          Does the Pope wear a funny hat? (Or, more appropriately… Does the League of the South wear pointy, white hats?)

          Yes and yes. (And yes.)

    • Bingo. When Erick announced his support for Handel was when I realized he’s not a movement conservative. That’s not a ding/knock, it’s just a plain observation.

  3. Rick Day says:

    GRTL and their ilk on both sides of the issue look silly in any light.

    It’s all about using the babbys to keep us divided and controlled.


  4. TheSituation says:

    Everyone’s bitterness toward Palin cracks me up. If she had endorsed our candidates, we would be falling over ourselfs to say how great she is. She didn’t. She endorsed Karen. Tell her good job for getting that endorsement and move on.

    BTW, Karen is pro-life. She has the same standard as the NRTL. Get over yourselves.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        I know plenty of NRA members who don’t actually have guns. But they support the right of you and I to own one.

  5. geoffc says:

    Palin’s endorsement of Handel and claim that she is pro-life only hurts Palin’s credibility in my eyes. Handel is not pro-life. How a baby is conceived (i.e. rape and incest) does not change the value of the human life created. GRTL understands this, apparently Palin does not.

    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      “How a baby is conceived (i.e. rape and incest) does not change the value of the human life created. ”

      I’m not pro-life, but if I were, that would make a lot of sense to me. I never understood the position of being pro-life, but having exceptions to it.

      • geoffc says:

        Loyalty – I can appreciate a difference of opinion or belief far better than I can those who don’t see a fundamental flaw with saying you are pro-life and then making exceptions for when that life has or doesn’t have value.

    • apacheangel says:

      pro-life = anti-murder

      I wonder if all the pro-choicers would feel the same way if they watched a video of an abortion and saw with what little care BOTH mother and baby are treated.

      • I would liken those videos to the videos released by PETA. Just because a few abortion clinics exist like what you have in mind doesn’t mean they all have those low standards. When is the last time you’ve actually been inside an office that performs abortions? (Not that I have… I’m just speculating that they can’t all be as horrible as you would have people believe.)

    • ACCmoderate says:

      What if the mother’s life is put at risk?
      What if the woman was brutally raped?
      What if the child is the product of incest or an encounter with Ray McBerry?

      I don’t think its right to hold a gun to a woman’s head and force her to give birth to an unwanted child. Before you go line up outside of another abortion clinic, why don’t you try adopting the many children that need a good home? Start solving the problem instead of perpetuating ignorance.

      • Red Phillips says:

        “What if the mother’s life is put at risk?”

        I know very few people who do not include an exception for life of the mother including GRTL.

        “What if the woman was brutally raped?”

        As opposed to not brutally raped?

        “What if the child is the product of incest…”

        Hard cases make bad laws. I don’t support exceptions except life of the mother, but the exceptions argument is a canard. In the vast, vast majority of abortions what is at issue is whether or not it should be legal for a mother to kill her child because having it would be inconvenient.

        • ACCmoderate says:

          Your argument proves that you have ZERO grasp of the issue at hand. Nor does GRTL. Have you actually been in the position of having an unexpected pregnancy when you aren’t financially capable of supporting a child? Or when your family/social situation won’t allow for an unplanned pregnancy?

          The vast majority of the women that get abortions do so because they think: “I just don’t want to be pregnant right now.” They do so because they think: “I can’t be pregnant right now for such and such reason.”

          It’s not just rape, incest, and maternal health that affect the decisions that mothers make when they find out they are pregnant.

          If you really want to prevent abortion. Don’t rely on invective and hateful rhetoric

          End abstinence-only education (for proof it doesn’t work, take a look at Bristol Palin) and teach kids that are going to have sex anyway how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

          Adopt. There are unwanted children in this country that need a home. Screaming at scared young women outside of Planned Parenthood doesn’t do anything.

          Again, until you understand where these women are coming from when they choose to pursue an abortion, don’t pontificate. Forcing a woman to give birth IS anti-choice.

          I’m way off topic. But I just can’t stand ignorance.

          • Red Phillips says:

            ACCM, just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m ignorant. I am a doctor and work primarily in a public hospital primarily with indigent patients. So I don’t need your condescending lectures about how I don’t “get it,” “don’t know what its like,” blah, blah, blah. Much indigence (not all) is the result of what we used to call sin.

            “They do so because they think: “I can’t be pregnant right now for such and such reason.””

            Finances are NEVER a justification for a mother killing her kid. We have an abortion problem because we have a generation of people who think consequence free recreational sex is their right and they can get rid of the “consequences” if there is a slip up. The only people who should be having sex are married couples prepared for and ready to welcome the “consequences.” This is the God ordained model. If this is not the “real world” then we have a Godlessness problem and should turn from our wicked ways and repent, not shower kids with birth control as if they were a bunch of rabbits.

            • ACCmoderate says:

              Ah, you finally said it Red: “[we should not] shower kids with birth control as if they were a bunch of rabbits.”

              Teenagers are going to have sex. It’s a fact of life, not godlessness. You see, God gave teenagers these things called hormones.

              Abstinence-only sexual education programs do a poor job of teaching kids who are already going to have sex what they need to be doing to prevent pregnancy.

              This isn’t a godlessness problem. It’s a socio-economic problem. If you alleviate the factors that make women more likely to pursue an abortion (empowering women, promoting adoptions, helping to alleviate poverty).

              You’re operating under the assumption that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is one that is made lightly. I maintain that you’re ignorant of the pressures that women face when it comes to that decision.

              I’ve had sex out of marriage. I’ve lived with someone who isn’t my spouse. I hardly think I’m godless. This isn’t Iran… don’t try and legislate your religion upon me.

              • Icarus says:

                “Teenagers are going to have sex. It’s a fact of life”

                It was a lot less likely during that time period when Ray McBerry’s teaching certificate was revoked.

              • Red Phillips says:

                “Ah, you finally said it Red”

                I finally said what? You say that as if I said something scandalous.

                What I did say is this: “The only people who should be having sex are married couples prepared for and ready to welcome the “consequences.” This is the God ordained model.” This is the truth, and I stand by it. If you can present me with some evidence this is not the “God ordained” model then I await chapter and verse.

                And Bristol Palin is not an example of a failure of abstinence only sex education. Bristol Palin is an example that even Christian parents who trust their children should not allow unsupervised dating, because of said hormones. We should follow the old model of courting.

                And before someone smarts off, that includes Ray McBerry and anyone else.

                • ACCmoderate says:

                  I don’t need to provide chapter and verse, because we’re not basing our laws on the Bible, we’re basing them on the Constitution.

                  If we were still rolling with your “God-ordained” version of America, I’d yell out the window for my slave to fetch my oldest daughter so I could sell her off to a man for a couple shekels and a plow-share. Then I’d head down to the Georgia Dome to stone the Falcons players for touching the skin of a pig.

                  Courting? Next are you going to tell me that men can’t look at a woman’s ankle?

                  Bristol Palin is an example of abstinence-only education failing to prepare kids to have safe sex. A lot of the Bush era programs simply said “Don’t have sex.” Meanwhile, the programs didn’t mention methods for preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections nor did they adequately and realistically detail the consequences of having unsafe sex.

                  You can’t hold children’s hands forever (insert Ray McBerry joke). Part of letting them grow up means letting them explore who they are… that includes developing healthy relationships with the other gender that may or may not involve sex.

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    “we’re basing them on the Constitution”

                    I wish! Mention basing laws on the Constitution around here and you get called a whacko extremist. If we were following the Constitution there would be no Roe v. Wade and Georgia would prohibit or greatly regulate abortion.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            “Forcing a woman to give birth IS anti-choice.”

            It’s a child, not a choice. And what exactly is killing a baby? I’ll understand a decision that would have the health of the mother at risk. There are some cases where the health of the mother and the baby are at risk, and sometimes the odds are better for the mother than the baby. It’s horrible but it happens.

            All other exceptions need to take into account not just the feelings of the mothers who don’t think that they can handle being mothers just yet, but also of the children that have a right to life.

          • Lady Thinker says:

            I have to agree with you on this issue ACC. Also, I wonder how many pro-lifer support the death penalty? A true pro-lifer can have it both ways.

      • apacheangel says:

        If it is for saving the life of the mother it’s called life saving care, it has always been legal and lawful, and it is not considered an abortion.

        What if she was brutally raped? Your question is irrelevant. Because the child’s father is a scumbag you kill the baby? The same people who argue for that argue against the death penalty. The child should not be punished for its parents’ sins in any situation. There is no excuse for killing a baby, period.

        • B Balz says:

          How about this:

          The GOP needs to simply get off everyone’s back on how to live or they will perish as a political Party.

          I am impressed that while our State faces a $1Bn budget hole in 2010-11, there are those folks whose moral compass still seeks the path of righteousness on this issue.

          Dr. Phillips, you are correct in many ways, ultimately, abortion is virtually never justifiable. As well, is this the most important issue to most people? Nope. Sad, but true.

          And until SCOTUS makes any changes, we are wasting our collective time and talent at the State level, wishing abortion were not so. Sure we can join other States in an attempt to limit abortion, make it tougher to get one, and maybe enjoin a new Federal case down the line, but this issue won’t be resolved this year or next.

          Until then, we are broke., but we have plenty of Red Herring to go around so we won’t be hungry.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            B Balz.

            There are members of the GOP who will NEVER sit down and be quiet while babies are murdered. There maybe other issues that are more important to you, but what if you were in a womb and you were about to be aborted? What would be the biggest issue to you then? You couldn’t speak up for yourself and you would want someone or some group to point out that you were about to be killed.

            Would you rather be rich and dead or broke and alive?

            I know we disagree on this issue, but this is for readers who don’t know my thoughts on it. Legally speaking, I think we should start by focusing on things that we should all be able to agree on: such as no third-trimester abortions as a matter of gender selection, or parental notification in cases where the mother is below the age to give medical consent.

            • B Balz says:

              Nobody should sit down and be quiet while babies are murdered. I agree there is common ground on the issue. Actually, after we spoke, I recall we agreed on quite a bit.

              My point is simply one of political exasperation:

              IMHO, my GOP digs itself into a deep dark hole with so MANY embarrassing moral decisions by elected leaders to portray the Party of morality. And yet we march on, seemingly oblivious to that fact.

              Doug, just to indulge your childish example, if I was in the womb and was able to see the fine mess humanity has served up in the last 65 years, I am pretty sure I would take a pass on the next 65 years.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                The problem comes when our leaders don’t walk the walk. There is nothing wrong with being a good example.

                As I said, my comment was not so much for you but for the new and average reader. I know we have common ground, but occasionally we have to explore our differences.

        • B Balz says:

          Quite irreverently, I know of a good number of people who would qualify for a retro-active abortion.

  6. CobbGOPer says:

    Sour grapes are sour grapes. If Palin had endorsed Oxendine, his supporters would be losing their minds with joy. Same with Deal, or EJ. They didn’t, so what’s the line? Sarah Palin’s stupid and needs to mind her own business and sweet frikin Christ, you people sound like Democrats bashing Bush.

    When did we turn to their playbook on campaigning?

  7. apacheangel says:

    “There is no doubt Karen Handel is pro-life.” *ahem* YOU LIE.

    Now that I have that out of my system….Karen Handel’s basic RTL argument is that it’s a baby and it’s murder unless abuse/a crime was involved, in which case it’s OK to slaughter your defenseless baby. That’s illogical. Also, her argument paves the way for excuses for abortions for any other reason.

    P.S. Let me just say that if you don’t care if a doctor slaughters a defenseless baby, maybe you should care about the woman. Abortions aren’t as sterile and easy as they are made out to be. More often then not, permanent damage is done to the woman during an abortion, often leaving her infertile.

  8. lynx says:

    Hey Red Phillips. Please post your true name so I can advise all my clients to avoid you as a doctor (if you really are one). The rest of you – stop making up “facts” about abortion procedures. If you are against it for moral reasons, say so and stop hiding behind ignorant statements like “More often th[a]n not, permanent damage is done to the woman…often leaving her infertile.” You are just demonstrating your own foolishness.

  9. Three Jack says:

    will the next governor of ga introduce legislation to make abortion illegal…no. so how about we discuss real issues that will be addressed by karen handel after she becomes the next governor.

    grtl is about as relevant as the graduation certificate oxendine’s son received from his hunter safety course.

    • Red Phillips says:

      “will the next governor of ga introduce legislation to make abortion illegal…no.”

      You are almost certainly correct and therein lies the problem. “Mainstream” Republicans are all talk.

        • ACCmoderate says:


          The next governor won’t introduce legistlation because he can’t. Abortion is a FEDERAL issue due to Roe v. Wade. States can’t ban abortion. They can limit it, which Georgia has attempted to do, but they can’t eliminate it.

          • Red Phillips says:

            ACCLiberal, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and the state of Georgia should nullify it. Haven’t you picked up on from my discussions above with Doug G. and others that I don’t buy this line of reasoning (The next governor won’t introduce legislation because he can’t. Abortion is a FEDERAL issue due to Roe v. Wade. States can’t ban abortion.) as historically accurate? That mainstream “conservatives” accept the revisionist narrative that Lincoln gave us is something I’m trying to change. Pro-lifers should be the foremost defenders of states rights because abortion bans and restrictions could pass in some states, but will never pass at the federal level for the foreseeable future.

            • B Balz says:

              Fair enough, y’all don’t buy into the ‘revisionist narrative” and are trying to change it. Keep us informed on your progress, in the meantime, the adults have work to do.

              • Red Phillips says:

                But voting to nullify Roe v. Wade is something the legislature could do if they had the will and the Balz. 🙂 That’s not on me. That’s on them.

            • c_murrayiii says:

              I think the “revisionist narrative” Lincoln gave us was called the “Civil War” and we lost that one pretty decidedly. I doubt we want to have that “argument” again. Nullification is not a practically solution. We need 60 votes in the Senate and then we can get 5 justices. Or a the tougher route, an amendment. But nullification will only lead to an embarrasment ala Jackson vs. South Carolina circa 1832-33. Lost that one too.

              • Red Phillips says:

                c_m, surely you are not suggesting that civilized people settle their disputes through war instead of a reasoned analysis of historical facts. And those facts are on the side of the legality of nullification. And there were many other nullifications prior to and after South Carolina vs. Jackson, so why pick that one only?

                • c_murrayiii says:

                  Well, I have mentioned the Kentucky And Virginia resolutions against the Alien and Sedetion acts, but both those pieces of legislation remained in effect until Jefferson’s party took control of the House and Senate and let them expire. Plus they had Jefferson and Madison, two titans of the Republic, supporting them, something we lack right now. What other times has nullification worked? I mean, seriously, I’m not saying lets give up, I’m saying, lets think strategically, with a bit of logic and forethought.

        • B Balz says:

          Mainstream Dems or GOP voters are largely pragmatic and recognize the sheer folly of wasting their vote for State Governor on a Federal issue such as abortion.

          The tail ends of the Bell Curve do not wag the dog.

Comments are closed.