|
| SUBSCRIBE ME! Join our e-mail list! |
April 9, 2007 |
|
THE ERA BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL THE ERA
In 1972, Congress voted to send the Equal Rights Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution to the states for ratification. Knowing that the ERA
would permanently enshrine the right to abortion in the Constitution,
require 18-year-old girls to register for Selective Service, force states to
allow homosexuals to marry, and change for the worse the family codes of
every state in the Union, Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum and
national chairman of the Republican National Coalition for Life, led a 10
year fight to defeat the ERA. She, and we, won and the Amendment failed.
Now that the liberal Democrats are back in power, they have
introduced it again.
An analysis by the National Right to Life Committee sent on
March 29, 2007, says this: "Leading pro-abortion groups-including NARAL,
the ACLU and Planned Parenthood-have strongly urged state courts to construe
state ERAs to require tax-funded abortion on demand, and state ERAs have
been so construed in New Mexico and Connecticut.
"The proposed federal amendment is very similar to the language
of the ERA which New Mexico added to its state constitution in 1973, which
says, 'Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the
sex of any person.' On November 25, 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court
ruled 5-0 that such language prohibits the state from restricting abortion
differently from 'medically necessary procedures' sought by men, and the
court ordered the state to pay for elective abortions under the state's
Medicaid program."
The bottom line is this if you support the ERA you support
abortion and oppose the ability of states to restrict or regulate it, to
stop taxpayer funding, or to make it illegal.
Most of the sponsors of the new ERA are Democrats. But there
are a few Republicans among them. They are all pro-abortion (Shays, Castle,
Biggert, Kirk, Latham, Ramstad, Frelinghuysen, LoBiondo and Pryce).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.40.IH
Bash referenced a 1989 interview in which Giuliani said, "There
must be public funding for abortions for poor women." In the same interview
he disagreed with a veto by former President George Bush of a measure that
would have paid for abortions with tax dollars. Asked if he would have the
same position as president, Giuliani said he "probably" would. "I mean, I
have to re-examine all of those issues and exactly what was at stake
then-that was a long time ago," he explained. "Ultimately, [abortion] is a
constitutional right, and therefore if it is a constitutional right
ultimately, even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make
sure that people are protected."
Asked again if he supported "taxpayer money or public funding
for abortions," Giuliani said yes. "If it would deprive someone of a
constitutional right, yes, if that's the status of the law, then I would,
yes," he said.
"I'm in the same position now that I was 12 years ago when I ran for
mayor-as mayor, which is, personally opposed to abortion, don't like it,
hate it, would advise that woman to have an adoption rather than abortion,
hope to find the money for it," he said. "But, it is your choice, an
individual right. You get to make that choice." (LIFENEWS.COM, 4/4/07)
|
|
If you would like to make a contribution to support our work, please
send your donation to: RNC/Life - P.O. Box 618 - Alton, IL 62002 Or you may charge your contribution on Master Card or Visa by calling 618/462-5415. (Contributions are not tax-deductible) Thank you very much for your support! |
|
Republican National Coalition for Life 618-462-5415 | |