(COLUMBIA, SC) When faced with a question of protecting human life, on the issue of the personhood of the child in the womb, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was the only candidate to back down. This question, as part of a presidential discussion held on Monday in South Carolina, saw the first contrast between Republicans vying for the nation’s highest office on the issue of abortion and the federal government’s role in protecting innocent human life.
A question from Princeton professor Robert George noted that Congress retains the authority to recognize the personhood rights of the preborn. George queried former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on this assertion.
“Many people today say that we need to wait for Roe vs. Wade to be reversed before Congress can do anything about protecting life in the womb. However, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment expressly authorizes the Congress, by appropriate legislation, to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment’s first section,” said George. “Would you, as President, propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?”
Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain responded in the affirmative. Romney, on the other hand, suggested that a federal personhood measure “would create…a constitutional crisis.” He added, “That’s not something I would precipitate.”
Instead, Romney lobbied for a continuation of the strategy of altering the makeup of the Supreme Court. “I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility for determining laws related to abortion,” he said.
The week’s second presidential candidate forum is scheduled for Wednesday at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California where candidates will have a chance to further clarify their positions. Will Romney adapt to this question to reflect President Reagan’s position, and that of the Republican Party?
Reagan issued his Personhood Proclamation on January 14th, 1988 in which he said:
“The unalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
Reagan continued, “This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land.”
The Republican Party Platform—which Reagan’s pro-personhood ideology has helped to shape—also reads, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
“Far from a ‘crisis,’ personhood restores the protections for the preborn that were intended by our founding fathers and the drafters of the 14th Amendment,” said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “Roe v. Wade has no basis in constitutional law. It was a tribunal of nine men in 1973 that unleashed the current ‘constitutional crisis’ upon our nation.”
Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.
The Republican Liberty Caucus national board is proud to endorse Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for the Republican presidential nomination. In a field of candidates who show little genuine commitment to individual liberty or reducing the size of government, Rep. Paul stands out as a consistent champion of the values of the Republican Liberty Caucus; limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise.
Eric Spicer (for State Representative) Should Not Go Unchallenged
By Sid Denton
Eric Spicer has been boasting that he is the only one running for State Representative that has met both private and public payrolls. This must not go unchallenged.
I knew Eric’s father for many years and the business that Eric is talking about is the carwash on Fairfield Rd. in Beavercreek. His father built the carwash and was the owner of it. Eric was put in charge of it so he would have a job. Like all good fathers, he worried about Eric’s ability to support himself and right to the end, he was putting money by the hands full in it just to keep it afloat. Under Eric’s leadership, that business either went out of business or came very close to it before they dumped it. That’s not meeting a payroll that’s just the redistribution of his fathers’ money. As for his ability to run the Company, just ask those that had to sue him for not paying them. Court records show it to be in the tens of thousands and in some cases well over one hundred thousand dollars.
As for his assertion that he meets a public payroll, it is just one of the many ways that he shows his total disregard for taxpayers’ money. Because he by definition does not meet a payroll, he is just redistributing our money not his and when his union buddies want more money he comes to us to get more. I say his union buddies because he made it clear in an article that he wrote for the union where he stood. Now he is entitled to his position on unions. What he is not entitled to is thinking that the voters are foolish enough to believe that he can represent us the Republican voters and then come back to his union buddies. One of us will come out on the losing side of that deal and I’m sure we all know which one that will be. The Republican votes not his union buds.
But Eric like so many other liberals can’t just wait for something to come up where he can help the rank and file and Democrat Party. He has said on more then one occasion that he intends to keep his job with the Sheriffs Department. If elected to be our State Representative, he has said that his boss Sheriff Gene Fisher is willing to make allowances for him going to Columbus several times a week. Now either Sheriff Fisher is way over staffed or the contribution that Eric Spicer makes to his day-to-day operation is so minimal that it will go unnoticed. Whatever the case, we the Taxpayer–as is so often the case–will be the big losers. Not to mention what we would lose if he were to become our State Representative; then we lose on two fronts and paying for both of them. Let us not forget the fact that both the Sheriff Gene Fisher and Capt. Eric Spicer are probably in violation of the Federal Hatch Act, which doesn’t allow them to run or be engaged in a partisan campaign.
Why is it that Eric Spicer is so fast to attach guilt to others with out all the facts being presented? Could it be his attempt to avoid attention being pointed at himself about the fact that he was charged with Domestic Violence by his ex wife? Let us also not forget to ask him about his being charged with being a deadbeat Dad, after all these things go to caricature. By State law when a police officer is charged with such a crime, his gun is supposed to be taken away from him. In the Greene County Sheriffs Department, you are just moved up to Captain and then get the case expunged. There just doesn’t seem enough ways to count how often we the Taxpayer can be taken advantage of. But give a liberal like Eric and his Union Buds enough idle time and they will come up with new ways.
Leave a comment
Posted in Greene County, Ohio, politics
Tagged commentary, District 73, Election 2012, Eric Spicer, Ohio House of Representatives