This last election, South Dakota Democratic Chairwoman Ann Tornberg ran as an allegedly pro-life candidate in the District 16 State Senate race, shortly before becoming the State Democratic Party Chairwoman.
If that’s the case, does she intend to ask the speaker at the SDDP State Dinner, National Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz at what point it’s inappropriate to conduct an abortion on a 7 pound baby?
Because she’s doing a lot of evasion of the question with CNN and Fox News.
Since Ann’s allegedly this pro-life warrior, maybe she can find out from her chairwoman?
Perhaps it’s all under the big tent of party politics like what happens in the GOP and SDGOP regarding LGBT issues. I’m sure like many other issues not everyone will agree with various factions.
So, an egg is fertilized and is on its way to becoming a human. My question is when does life begin? Many people have different answers. Whatever answer one gives, then if an abortion is performed after that point, a baby is being killed. If one is in favor of allowing an abortion due to a rape, if it is performed after the point life begins, then even that person has to admit a child is being killed. DWS has said in her response that being pro-choice even a seven pound baby that has not been born is able to be aborted. Very few monsters believe this. She apparently does.
She’s horrible and her appearance in SD only highlights the far left zealotry the SDDP has in leadership at the moment. Stephanie Herseth and everyone else planning on attending the dinner should walk away very fast from this psychotic leaders appearance.
Yes she is pro life and she is pro teacher and worker unlike your party.
Didn’t Ms Tornberg claim that her plane came under fire in Kosovo, so they had to corkscrew into the airport?
And she was named after Queen Anne, except her parents were to broke (after their retirements as physicians) to afford an “e”,
Fortunately, she was able to save her pennies and dimes to afford a trip back to her place of birth: Kenya.
Pro-life. pro-choice–what difference, at this point, does it make?
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Whoa! That must be some strong weed!
Consumption of weed does not begin to explain Ms. Tornberg’s dishonesty.
Clearly two people from the same party can’t disagree on any issues. Because there isn’t a pro-choice Republican in this country. Please.
“:Because there isn’t a pro-choice Republican in this country”
Sorry, but maybe you should check out conservative author, commentator, and radio host Monica Crowley–a well-known “pro-choice” Republican in good standing.
PLEASE indeed–enough ignorance.
Mr. Powers, babies aren’t aborted. Fetuses are aborted. The argument that, “Left to nature and God and uninterrupted a fetus will become a child and thus it’s due human rights.” doesn’t pass the test of reciprosity or hold water (no pun intended) and is invalid. i.e. A 90 year old Republican left to nature and God and uninterrupted will surely become a corpse but it’s rights as a living human don’t end until the event of death has actually occured…. The SDDP although small in members hosts a VERY large tent with liberty, compassion and diversity for all, sir. Come visit. The experience may refresh your sensability and tolerance.
So, Mr. Porter, tell us all please. When do you believe a new life being formed? When do you believe that fetus has a soul? When do you believe that fetus is a human? And do you agree with DWS that if a woman decides she does not want to give birth the day before the birth will happen she should be able to abort?
Liberal claptrap = fetus vs. baby argument. I swear they do this beause deep down they know they’re killing an innocent human life. So they design ways to ignore the obvious and avoid the inherent guilt and shame that comes from acknowledging what is an undeniable scientific fact. You know, as if by calling it something other than a human life, or the term baby, which is essentially the same thing, that they can ease their conscience and continue their self-delusion about the real score. Poor, dishonest creatures these liberal pro-choicers are. Everything is a sham designed to obfuscate and confuse. Problem is, we are all onto this game and the only people they continue to fool are themselves.
Porter, I’m curious. Do you believe life and all the protections of the Bill of Rights only comes with the first breath? If not, at what point in time before then do you believe life begins? Remember, if you error, the taking of life and deprivation of Constitutional rights would be the worst ever known in the history of our country. So, yes, it is an important question. What is your answer?
Oh yeah, just so you don’t waste time looking there, the Supreme Court specifically ducked the question in Roe v Wade (you can find that from them in a footnote in the case)
The law is clear on the subject of when life ENDS, and it doesn’t involve breathing.
You stop breathing when you are placed under general anesthesia, but you are not dead, you are mechanically ventilated. People have been successfully resuscitated after full respiratory arrest and their souls haven’t gone anywhere. Nope, breathing has nothing to do with it. The law says it’s about electricity, in the brain.
When the electricity goes out in the brain, you’re dead. All 50 states now have brain death laws. No getting around it anymore. Your heart might still be beating, a ventilator is moving air in and out of your lungs, but if the electricity is no longer on in your brain, you are dead.
Ergo, it’s pretty easy to say if the electricity is on, you are alive.
Interesting standard Ms. Beal.
Life = Electricity in the Brain
In other words, it’s a force similar to light.
An affect of the electromagnetic spectrum.
(or do you mean ‘effect’?)
In other words, are you saying that ‘life’ is a verb?
Or a noun? (Is it something that light DOES? or something that light IS?)
Your quibbling with Ms. Beal is simply an vain attempt to muddle the issue of life, so that (like gay marriage),the definition of “life’ becomes what the arrogant Bill Fleming says it is.
Move on.
“In other words, it’s [electricity] a force similar to light.”
Huh? How is “electricity” similar to “light”?
It ain’t!
” An affect of the electromagnetic spectrum.”
Light is on the electromagnetic spectrum?
Aren’t you just inventing crap (electricity is like light) to sound like you have a clue?
Here’s the nonsensical “argument”:
1. Life is like daylight (since daylight is “like” electricity).
2. So until a child sees daylight, it’s not “alive”
So, is “alive” a verb or a noun?
welcome to the jungle, Alice???
Light is wave and quanta.
It is not “electricity”.
If this source doesn’t work for you, there are others. As always, you’re welcome to your opinions but not your own facts.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html
In physics, there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity. Ms. Beal appears to have identified the presence of life as being an effect of the electromagnetic force. I’m just asking her to clarify her point, not to argue with it. It sounded to me like she was saying that life is defined as the presence or the absence of electricity. If I’m misreading her, I trust she will clarify.
” Ms. Beal appears to have identified the presence of life as being an effect of the electromagnetic force. ”
That’s NOT what she wrote.
She suggested that we use the same standard of beginning of life as the end: the presence of electricity in the brain.
Then, in your ignorance & arrogance, you took that (electricity) to mean light (as part of the electromagnetic spectrum).
Unlike me, she apparently understands the futility of “arguing” with you as you just make crap up.
there is no spoon
“In physics, there are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity”
Yes, and there are four directions on the compass: NSEW.
The relevance to this discussion is little if none…other than to buoy my arrogance.
It says NOTHING about electricity being “light”.
QUOTE any part of your article that claims that electricity is “light”!
It’s not there, because it ain’t.
QUOTE IT OH WISE ONE!
Now, you’re probably confused because light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and “electromagnetic” sounds like “electricity” and therefore you think electricity is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. GAWD AWFUL.
My ELECTRIC toaster makes lovely brown toast, therefore brown toast is part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC spectrum!
Wanna go on?
Stop making crap up.
It says NOTHING about electricity being “light”.
QUOTE any part of your article that claims that electricity is “light”!
It’s not there, because it ain’t.
QUOTE IT OH WISE ONE!
Now, you’re probably confused because light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and “electromagnetic” sounds like “electricity” and therefore you think electricity is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. GAWD AWFUL.
Lovely brown toast comes from my ELECTRIC toaster, therefore brown toast is part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC spectrum!
Wanna go on?
Stop making crap up.
See discussion of forces in nature above. I’m not making anything up. If electricity isn’t an effect of the electromagnetic force, then what is it? It’s not nuclear fusion, it’s not radiation, and it’s not gravity, so it’s either electromagnetism at work or magic. I assume Ms. Beal wasn’t talking about magic.
If the lovely brown toast coming from my ELECTRIC toaster isn’t an electromagnetic force, what is it?
Lesson:
1. Light is on the electromagnetic spectrum.
2. ELECTRICITY is not.
“it’s either electromagnetism at work or magic.”
Oh yes, because in your mind, it HAS to be one or other! Would you just spend some time reading up on the topic?
“I assume Ms. Beal wasn’t talking about ”
And of course, the silly conclusion from your silly false dichotomy!.
“See discussion of forces in nature above. ”
QUOTE the passage that states that “electricity” is “light”
QUOTE IT!
(you can’t; admit it)
Easy peasy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
How about rather than quibbling you tell us just when you believe the developing critter is human, Bill? Do you believe a new human is formed at conception? Do you believe a new human is not formed until birth? DWS has indicated it is not the government’s business whether a woman chooses to abort an otherwise healthy 7 lbs. child. Do you agree?
AMEN duggersd.
But I doubt that was Bills purpose in making his initial comment–he believed that he could “trap” Anne in his brilliance & brilliant knowledge of the “electromagnetic” spectrum!
Instead, he was called out for his lack of factual knowledge.
No one has successfully rebutted my claim that light and electricity are products of the electromagnetic force (physically speaking). That’s because those facts are nowhere in dispute (except perhaps on this blog.) 🙂
Bill,
You are confused, still.
You originally claimed that electricity was “like light”, and so it is on the “electromagnetic spectrum”
FACT #1: Light is on the electromagnetic spectrum. ELECTRICITY IS NOT. GO LOOK IT UP.
Lately, you’ve morphed this “electromagnetic spectrum” into “electromagnetic force”, as if they’re interchangeable or largely synonymous or largely overlap in meanings and uses. They are not.
FACT #2: Electricity is an electromagnetic force. Light is generally not and electromagnetic (but light can BECOME an electromagnetic force (i.e., electricity) in certain substances are exposed to certain wavelengths of light (light from the electromagnetic spectrum!).
Using Bill’s “logic”, browned toast must be on the “electromagnetic spectrum” because its a product of electricity (inside my toaster). Nor is browned toast on the electromagnetic spectrum because I used a solar (a light) toaster!
One more try: : the product of electrical activity–like toast or brain waves–DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TOAST OR BRAIN WAVES ARE ON THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM!
Now Bill has yet to connect any of this to the question of whether and when life begins…because he cannot because he knows little of what he speaks.
Lesson over.
Move on old man.
Okay, just for you I did look it up. I already knew it, but if you need a source:
“Electromagnetism is the study of the electromagnetic force which is a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force usually manifests as electromagnetic fields, such as electric fields, magnetic fields and LIGHT. The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental interactions in nature. The other three are the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation.[1]”
(caps on “light” are mine)
Here’s the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
Note again, that the assertion that life=electricity is Ms. Beal’s not mine. This all started with my asking her to explain in more detail what she meant and my trying to take a wild guess. If she has said life begins when she first burns her toast, I would have been equally curious to hear that explained.
p.s. the “old man” cheap shot tells me more about you than perhaps you cared to reveal, kid.
“The electromagnetic force usually manifests as electromagnetic fields, such as electric fields, magnetic fields and LIGHT.”
But that’s neither what you initially claimed or that I have stated.
Your stated that “electricity” is “like light”. FALSE.
Your quoted passage states, accurately, that electromagnetic forces can MANIFESTS themselves as electricity and light.
And thus my analogy still rings true: Electromagnetic forces can also manifest themselves as browned toast (via an electric toaster or solar oven)–THAT DOES NOT MAKE MY TOAST a “light.”
Are you now claiming that electricity is “like light” is the same as “manifests as light”?
yes, of course. It was my whole point. Life comes from light. Plants by direct photosynthisis, animals by somewhat more circuitous means, but still an electomagnetic process driven by sunlight. No sunlight, no life. Period. The rest is just trying to understand the specific mechanics. My interest was in noticing that Ms. Beal appeared to be acknowledging that fact and I was wanting to follow up. Too bad I got you guys instead. I found her comments far more interesting.
p.s. if I were somehow trying to “trap” Anne, or anyone else, I would simply point out that fertilized eggs don’t have brains or for that matter any type of nervous system with electricity running through them. Hence by her own definition, there’s no life there. But that is not, in fact how I think it works. I was just curious that Ms. Beal seems to suggest that it does.
” I would simply point out that fertilized eggs don’t have brains or for that matter any type of nervous system with electricity running through them”
FINNALLY Bill, you get to your point.
And once again, under scientific scrutiny, you’re wrong.
The biological process of fertilzation:: once the sperm cell penetrates the egg membrane,, there is an ELECTRONIC signal from the egg cell to the sperm cell to spill its (sperm’s) contents into the egg.
Then there is a cortical reaction, other sperm are neutralized, and the zygote begins to multiply, and so on.
So, Bill, with the science behind Anne’s view, and with the total refutation of your uninformed claims about the electrical processes involved in fertilization, you have to agree with her, right?
I’m interested in the “electric” phenomenon, as I’ve already noted, but at the point of the electronic signal you mention, the two strands of DNA have yet to combine into one double helix. Hence, my assertion that human life (electricity? light?) was already there before the fertilization took place. In other words, life didn’t “begin” it continued.”
I’m stretching my knowledge of biology and chemistry here (artist that I am, not scientist), but it’s my understanding that all molecular structures are electric in nature… i.e. atoms bound together into molecules, organic or otherwise, by their electrical charge.
“I’m stretching my knowledge of biology and chemistry here”
You started on this thread with very little knowledge of biology, chemistry, morality, or physics.
That has yet to change.
I’m not quibbling, DuggerSD, I’m just trying to follow the conversation about what “life” is. If you want my take on it, I’m pretty sure life is already there before fertilization in the gametes. Pretty sure science would say the same thing. Life is a process, and a continuum moving through organic matter from generation to generation. When and how it began, nobody knows as yet.
In other words, life has to already be there in order for DNA to act on it. Thus, claims that DNA = the beginning of life ring false to me somehow. And no, I don’t think a new human is formed when an egg is fertilized. I think it starts forming long before that, when the human gametes are formed. And before that, when an organism capable of producing games are formed, and so forth.
p.s. As to this point:
“DWS has indicated it is not the government’s business whether a woman chooses to abort an otherwise healthy 7 lbs. child. Do you agree?”
No, DuggerSD, I don’t agree …twice.
First, I don’t agree that DWS said that, and second, I don’t agree that abortion is none of government’s business. Obviously it is. There are countless laws and court decisions addressing the abortion issue.
Like Mr. Schoenbeck I DO agree that such involvement or non-involvement by government is very serious, since it involves telling people what they may or may not do with their physical bodies. It’s worth noting that a government that has the power to force people to reproduce themselves against their will also has the power to force them not to.
Bill, she did say that. Rand Paul said to ask DWS if “You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet,” They did ask her. Her response: “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story,” she said. That is pretty plain. And you can keep quibbling over whether you believe an abortion kills a person or not. If that is what it takes to justify the action, I understand.
Not plain at all to me, DuggerSD.
DWS’s answer doesn’t express her opinion on the choice one way or the other, only who she feels should and should not have the prerogative to make it.
Here’s an example with the emotional content taken out of it:
I ask you:
“Are you okay with Pat Powers wearing plaid slacks with the fly unzipped with half buttoned striped shirts?”
You answer:
“I support letting Pat and his fashion consultants make that decision without my involvement.”
Subsequently, I go on Facebook and tell everybody that DuggerSD thinks it’s okay to wear unzipped plaid slacks with half-buttoned striped shirts.
I think that would be intellectually dishonest of me to make such a statement about you DuggerSD, even if it might be true. 🙂 since there is nothing in what you said to me in your answer that confirms my assertion.
The answer allows the IMMORAL act to continue, and such, is tacit approval of that immoral act by inaction.
Whether to wear pants has no moral implication to Pat or others, thus your proffered analogy fails.
Try again.
Mmmm…the complete version…
“Here’s an example with the emotional content taken out of it:”
And your “example” left out the MORAL component, which is INTEGRAL in making moral decisions, and gov’t getting involved in moral decisions.
If a 7 pound baby is human life, then the moral implications are CENTRAL to whether and when we or our gov’t gets involved.
A more appropriate analogy would be this:
I ask you:
“Are you okay with DWS getting rid of her elderly black slave?”
You answer:
“I support letting DWS and her ilk to make that decision without my or my gov’t involvement.”
By allowing an immoral act to continue, one has given tacit approval of that immoral choice by inaction.
Whether to wear pants has no moral implication to Pat or any one else, thus your analogy fails completely.
try again.
I think it’s immoral to wear unzipped plaid paints with unbuttoned striped shirts. 🙂
So does DuggerSD, I bet, but that’s not the point.
The point is, it would be dishonest for me to say one way or the other if he didn’t in fact say so.
Same with DuggerSD’s claim about what DWS said. She didn’t state her opinion so it’s false to presume we know what it is.
Hear, hear …
Bill, she said what she said and she supports a woman having the ability to kill that 7 lbs. child and there is no denying that. BTW, I really have no opinion on whatever it was you were talking about and I would never see it because I do not use Facebook. You have and many liberals have a talent for saying something and then finding little ways of being able to deny saying what was said. If what she said is not obvious to you, then so be it. Some people can read English and understand it and some cannot. BTW, as for electromagnetic whatever, I really don’t care, but if you want people who do care, you might try a science blog.
Fine duggerSD, if you don’t really care to try to understand what life is, that’s pretty much the whole story as far as your position on the matter is concerned then, isn’t it?
‘I’ve made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts.’
“‘I’ve made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts.’”
Or do as Bill has done:
I’ve made up my own facts, don’t bother me with the morality!’
Lots of info about sunlight and life here. I didn’t make any of it up. 🙂
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sun1lite.htm
“It’s worth noting that a government that has the power to force people to reproduce themselves against their will also has the power to force them not to.”
I think this is the germ of the rape and underage-rape argument in favor of an abortion right in those cases. In the arena of forced-abortion cases, China of course comes to mind with their family size limits. I would think a society that is permissive with regard to abortion, is a society that is more rife for government softly swooping in and incrementally mandating abortion, than the society which opts to protect life first and ask questions later.
Hello, Mr. Schoenbeck.
Haven’t seen or heard from you since high school. Hoping you’re doing well. It’s interesting to follow your political career albeit on opposite side as mine.
God gave us human rights and humans gave us governmental rights. The rights you are referring to are in the latter group. God and Jesus implore us not to kill. This means not to kill human beings since we kill insects and plants with impunity for our very existence. Life begins when God begins life and a cell divides. Governmental rights (The rights of the Bill of Rights) begin with the first breath. LWIY (last word is yours)
Mr. or Ms. Duggar,
A fetus has no soul. A fetus is never a human. Your question as to terminating a fetus the day before birth lacks the pertinent information necessary to make that decision. If the mother’s life is in jeopardy the governmental rights of the human mother would make that tragic decision her’s to choose. A myriad of other situations could be present and a myriad of decisions hinge on facts you’ve not presented, sir or ma’am. LWIY (last word is yours)
“A fetus has no soul. ”
Is this what God told you? Howe often does God talk to you?
Sorry, but keep your religion out of this discussion.
Porter:
As a male, I doubt your sexist privileges have allowed you to conceive. As such, you have NO IDEA what a mother believes, feels, or thinks about her fetus(es). MILLIONS of women who have lost their “fetuses” loudly disagree with your views of a fetus as a soulless non-human.
Please, leave your male-centered sexist microaggressions at the door–women don’; need you or any other white, privileged male to defend their reproductive choices.
Lastly, I’m sick of “liberals” using their God-chats to tell us what is or is not a soul, or who has one or who is or is not human. Either shut up or get a uterus.
Porter, I’m a guy. According to Webster,” an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth “. The key here is it is a developing human. I see this a being human. Perhaps you do not. As I understand your argument, the child is not human until the child is born. I suspect many people would beg to differ. Now, please give me a possibility in which a woman who is on the verge of giving birth would be justified in having that “fetus” aborted at 7 lbs. If you really believe what you wrote, you sir are a monster.
Porter
Even the Supreme Court doesn’t believe that Constitutional rights are created by the act of the child travelling the last couple inches down the canal. But, your answer is a good way to avoid the very serious issue presented. Lee
if you like your life, you can keep your life.
Whoa! Lets hold the dang RINOs! If SD truly has a super-majority “conservative Republican” legislature, why did that super-majority join the Democratic abortion supporters in killing Isaac Latterll’s decapitation abortion ban?
HB-1230 starts at time stamp 01:16:30
http://sdpb.sd.gov/SDPBPodcast/2015/hou24.mp3
They gutted his bill like they gut babies and it was “Republicans” Burt Tolson and House Majority Leader Brian Gosch who led the effort to KILL this prolife bill!
Actions speak louder than words. When the GOP has “Republicans” leading the charge to kill abortion ban bills, they have no business going after the Democrats they assist in doing so.
HB1230 in its final state was converted into a hoghouse vehicle, not used. In its final active state, the bill had a half dozen problems which were guaranteed to trigger a court challenge, similar to those triggered in the past, which ultimately did not prevail in court. The biggest include: any attempt to legislate previously unspecified rights and protections for “preborn” children that would supercede the rights and perogatives of the birth mother already clarified in previous court cases regarding abortion; the establishment of class 1 felony punishment for those guilty of specific violations enumerated in the bill, an area where courts have not allowed legislatures to put specific limits on medical professionals.
I read Porter Lansing’s views above, especially his evident belief that full-term natural childbirth magically turns on a “living being” lightswitch or something that remains unswitched otherwise. I could not disagree more with such an actually evil view of this. I write only to explain why lawmakers were not interested in going down this same road yet again one more time, yet again, again, one more time.
Has our country gotten so far out of alignment that our elected officials must hide their actions, their votes, and employee idiotic named spokespersons to defend their indefensible secretive actions?
They hid their votes on the bill that they had 3 months to perfect via the legislative process. They made no attempt to perfect the bill, only to obfuscate their motivations and voting record on the bill as passed committee.
Republicans condemned Harry Reid and the Democrats for doing this very same type of dishonest games with legislative issues, hiding their actions from the public’s eyes. Honest men and women have nothing to hide! these people are not there as part of a private fraternity or club, they are supposed to be representing the people and the people of SD have a right to know how they vote and for what reason.
I am typing slowly so you don’t miss this. I do not work for any legislator or government. I have just seen this same legislative approach be tried over and over and over and it always crashes in court. I am against abortion but I’m also against the wasting of time and effort.
You need new strategies dude. Simplistically worded bills have come by so often they’re not a strategy any more, they’re a form of tantrum.
PMK you’re really a Democrat aren’t you. Confess.
El Kabongg,
I’m with you. I don’t need to prove my Pro-Life credentials, I don’t need my friends to be tested for their credentials every year, and I don’t need to make it easy for those on the other side to stay away.
This is a battle to change hearts and minds so that lives can be saved. For forty years we have fought it and nothing has gotten better. Time for a new plan.
That said, I do like Rand Paul’s flipping the conversation. Rather than us explaining ourselves ad nauseum, I like that DWS and others have to explain themselves.
We have abortion for any reason at anytime as the effective law of the land today which is a significant minority position. Changing that is a big first step I’m willing to do what it takes for it to be taken.
A new approach to being a Republican.. Vote with Democrats to raise taxes, increase government, and support abortion.. none of that counts because Troy Jones says it’s okay because he’s not grading his friends on how they really stand on the issues.
Well, as long as Troy Jones is okay with Republicans voting with Democrats on core Republican issues.
Anonymous 8:42 – butt out. Mr Jones was specifically agreeing with my contention that HB1230 was a waste of time because it’s no different than the other bills over the last decade that have been defeated in court. But please, keep obnoxiously clouding the issue because that seems to be your only goal. You’re really a democrat, and you’re just doing a method-acting Tea Party thing, right? You can’t be for real.
Anonymous, the point Troy is making is that it is more important for those of us in the trenches on the life debate, that we change a mind and heart – than make unproductive noise. It’s about being smart about how to make a difference. Noise does not equal productive action – and life IS NOT a Democrat vs Republican debate, except for those that want us to fail that keep casting it that way. Life is nonpartisan
Listen to the RINOs there is no way to free the slave, too much established law..
Up is down, right is left, everyone including the Democrats who support wholesale abortion are “pro-life.”
You uninformed voters just don’t understand the strategy of these brilliant strategists, they support the Democratic agenda to… Why again are “Republicans” voting with pro-abortion Democrats to kill prolife bills?
A simpler issue to see the true nature of the “Republicans” voting with Democrats? The massive tax and fee increases along with the increases in state government. More complicated strategy to “limit government” that only RINOs can envision?