Why Doesn't the GOP Primary Candidates Take Notice on Abortion?

[GHook93]

Definition of a moderate on abortion (for this thread): making an exception when the mother's life in danger and for rape and incest victims (and many would say if birth defects are detected). McCain won in '08 Romney won in '12and Trump is winning in this primary season. All of these candidates were the most moderate on this issue. Yet whenever the primary candidate is asked he seems to support the extremist view. For example, Rubio previously stated he supports an exception for rape and incest victims, but when questioned in the primary he stated the opposite. Yes their is a loud base of a Republican voters that support this stance, but the majority of even Republican voters supports the exception. Heck Trump is winning across the board and he is as close to being a pro-choice candidate.

The Republicans need to take note, the extremist view loses you independents!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not intending to derail your thread but every extremist hard right view is losing the GOP Independents whether it be abortion, immigration, gay marriage, whatever.

Political parties are entitled to take positions on issues but they need the center in order to obtain the power to implement their policies.

Like it or not this nation is equally divided on abortion and neither side gets to prevail and impose it's position on the other.

Making it a deal breaker in the primary simply eliminates viable and electable candidates from becoming the nominee IMO.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And that is why, even since 2010 the GOP mainstream has been working hard to limit the influence of the crazy far right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And that is why, even since 2010 the GOP mainstream has been working hard to limit the influence of the crazy far right.

Unfortunately you need more than just an attempt to limit it. You effectively need to eliminate it if the GOP wants to be a viable alternative in the future.

The demographic changes are moving away from the GOP and the boat anchor that is the extremist rightwing is alienating that segment of the population.

The adage about people becoming more conservative as they get older doesn't apply anymore because no one wants to be associated with crazies.

 

[Zander]

Abortion is a distraction issue used by democrats to change the subject from their failed economic policies.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Abortion is a distraction issue used by democrats to change the subject from their failed economic policies.

Which dem candidate(s) raised the issue of abortion first?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Abortion is a distraction issue used by democrats to change the subject from their failed economic policies.

I respectfully disagree with you. Righties talk about it alot more than Lefties.

That being said, I am essentially a pro-life Democrat.

 

[DarkFury]

Abortion is a distraction issue used by democrats to change the subject from their failed economic policies.

They are pushing the abortion issue because people otherwise would be looking at PP selling human parts and whole babies.

 

[ogibillm]

Abortion is a distraction issue used by democrats to change the subject from their failed economic policies.

right. you see all those democrats trying to pass abortion laws in state legislatures and talking about it on the presidential primary campaign trail, don't you?

we do agree though, it is a distraction issue meant to take the voter's eye off of failings.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Abortion is a distraction issue used by democrats to change the subject from their failed economic policies.

Zander

What Dems are talking about it?

Fact is, Republicans rant on issues that affect very few because they don't want to talk issues and RWs need to blame and hate.

Immigration - 11 million out of a country of more than 300 million.
Abortion - 2% of US women.
Marriage equality - less than 5% are gay and even fewer want to marry.
Most food stamps go to children and the elderly.
There's no such thing as an "ObamaPhone" and the other lies about President Obama.

Trump is lying about building a fence. Its not needed and wouldn't work.
All Repubs are lying about repealing ObamaCare. It won't happen.

Education, infrastructure, climate change, their plans for more wars, income inequality - those are some of the issues that affect us all.

Repubs continue their race to the bottom and they want to drag the US down with them.

 

[jwoodie]

Eliminating federal funding for PP is a good issue, but getting bogged down on specifics is not. Instead, GOP candidates should advocate for individual states to decide. That way, they can also express their personal views without shoving them down the throats of others.

 

[Toronado3800]

Eliminating federal funding for PP is a good issue, but getting bogged down on specifics is not. Instead, GOP candidates should advocate for individual states to decide. That way, they can also express their personal views without shoving them down the throats of others.

Nah, thats silly. If it is illegal in Nevada but not California a bunch of folks with money will just travel to Nevada while poor folks can't.

 

[jwoodie]

Eliminating federal funding for PP is a good issue, but getting bogged down on specifics is not. Instead, GOP candidates should advocate for individual states to decide. That way, they can also express their personal views without shoving them down the throats of others.

Nah, thats silly. If it is illegal in Nevada but not California a bunch of folks with money will just travel to Nevada while poor folks can't.

Are you opposed to individual States making their own laws (e.g., welfare benefits), or do you reserve your concern for the poor only for abortions? If the former, what law would you impose on the entire nation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The abortion laws made by states must be within the guidelines set by SCOTUS.

 

[jwoodie]

The abortion laws made by states must be within the guidelines set by SCOTUS.

That needs to be changed. Roe v. Wade was a stupid opinion by most people's standards, juxtaposing two unrelated concepts (safety of the abortion procedure and fetal viability) which were bound to conflict with each other (on a "collision course" in the words of Justice O'Connor). All federal judges should be required to swear to uphold the 10th Amendment.

 

[Toronado3800]

Eliminating federal funding for PP is a good issue, but getting bogged down on specifics is not. Instead, GOP candidates should advocate for individual states to decide. That way, they can also express their personal views without shoving them down the throats of others.

Nah, thats silly. If it is illegal in Nevada but not California a bunch of folks with money will just travel to Nevada while poor folks can't.

Are you opposed to individual States making their own laws (e.g., welfare benefits), or do you reserve your concern for the poor only for abortions? If the former, what law would you impose on the entire nation?

The most compelling reason for individual states to have laws are environmental regulations. As California went into the dumps that Republidan govenored state led the way with auto emissions and lead restriction laws.

Murder or not seems more a national thing.

I'll tell u what though. If you give me a couple things I will happily sign off on abortion being illegal in all 50 states except when crimes or the mother's health is involved.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Eliminating federal funding for PP is a good issue, but getting bogged down on specifics is not. Instead, GOP candidates should advocate for individual states to decide. That way, they can also express their personal views without shoving them down the throats of others.

Nah, thats silly. If it is illegal in Nevada but not California a bunch of folks with money will just travel to Nevada while poor folks can't.

Are you opposed to individual States making their own laws (e.g., welfare benefits), or do you reserve your concern for the poor only for abortions? If the former, what law would you impose on the entire nation?

The most compelling reason for individual states to have laws are environmental regulations. As California went into the dumps that Republidan govenored state led the way with auto emissions and lead restriction laws.

Murder or not seems more a national thing.

I'll tell u what though. If you give me a couple things I will happily sign off on abortion being illegal in all 50 states except when crimes or the mother's health is involved.

If SCOTUS set the as the standard with the health of the mother or birth defects added and twelve week limit on crimes, I am all with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, jwoodie, they should not, and you need to real Amerian legal and SCOTUS history.

 

[jwoodie]

I disagree on all three counts:

1. Environmental issues transcend State boundaries. In addition, individual State regulations (e.g., gasoline requirements) do nothing but create local shortages and drive up prices. That is why gas prices in CA are up to $1.00 per gallon more than in other states.

2. Murder is not a federal offense. Moreover, States have widely differing criminal codes regarding capital offenses, including whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide.

3. So you would like to replace SCOTUS' edicts on abortion with your own? What crimes and what threats to the mother's health would you consider acceptable, and for what point in the pregnancy? Why not let the States decide for themselves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Environmental issues are affected by more than boundaries, which include supply and demand.

2. Murder can certainly be a federal offense.

3. Because the states have shown to be unwilling to recognize the real needs of women. I would advise SCOTUS to tighten to 12 weeks for crimes and to full term for health life of the mother and birth defects.