Jill Long Thompson and Hillary Are Closely Related
JLT and HRC are both being supported by Emily’s List, a national pro-abortion political organization devoted to electing female candidates that support their anti-life policy positions. WTHR ran (video here) an interesting story on this interrelatedness between Hillary’s campaign and Jill’s campaign. According to campaign finance records, Emily’s List has donated $150,000 to Jill Long Thompson’s gubernatorial campaign.
Among the values that many Hoosiers hold dear is the belief that life, all life, is precious and worthy of government protection. A society that refuses to recognize the rights of the most vulnerable is a society that is not able to recognize the true nature of its rights.
During his first term in office (yes, I’m counting on him and Lt. Gov. Skillman getting a second term) Governor Daniels signed common sense legislation that requires abortion centers to be held to the same health standards as traditional health care providers. Another bill that the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, requires abortion providers to offer women seeking an abortion the opportunity to hear the heartbeat of their child and see that child’s outline on an ultrasound machine. These steps to protect the lives of the very youngest of Hoosiers are steps in the right direction.
Jill Long Thompson may be “in” with liberal groups like Emily’s List, but she’s “out” with many Hoosiers who believe that life is something that should be respected and protected.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:40 am
“A society that refuses to recognize the rights of the most vulnerable is a society that is not able to recognize the true nature of its rights.”
I’m glad to see you’ve decided to support gay rights, Brian. After all, wouldn’t protecting those of us who are actually alive already be worthy of protection as much as a fetus? I mean, *gasp*, what if that child you saved turned out gay? Should we protect his/her rights while she’s a mass of unformed cells and then taunt him/her as kids, not allow him/her to marry or recognize any of their relationships, fire them from jobs, take away their own children or kick them out of their homes?
Those darn rights, eh? Once you start saying folks should have them it’s a slippery slope for conservatives…
February 20th, 2008 at 8:43 am
The right to life does not necessarily presuppose a right to be gay. Bil, I’m not sure about others, but I’ve never advocated for unequal treatment for GLBTs. Yes, I’ve advocated for a marriage amendment, and will continue to do so. But that amendment applies to me just as much as it applies to anyone in the GLBT lifestyle.
Your premise that some people are born gay is wrong. There is no “gay” gene and the “scientist” that originally hinted at that has since been forced to conlude that the “gay” gene does not exist. One chooses to be gay. The choice may be easier for some than others, but nevertheless the choice is made and is not driven by basic biological makeup. I refer you to: http://www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000186.cfm
Finally, I’m not saying the unborn should have rights, that is something that has already been settled by natural law. Sure, once man and the government start granting rights it’s hard to tell when and where to stop. However, when one believes, as our founders did, in a absolute order of things that consists of an already-established ideal that spells out general rights that belong to man then one has an authoritative source to go from in determining whether or not something is a “right” or a privilage or a choice that one makes and is not entitled to be accepted on the basis of that decision.