Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Nathan Deal, one of the two remaining candidates for the GOP’s gubernatorial nomination, believes that abortion ought to be banned even in cases involving rape or incest, and would permit the procedure only when the mother’s life is in danger.
Karen Handel, his opponent, describes herself as pro-life but would allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest, a position that makes her the flaming liberal in the race.
Because of that difference, Georgia Right to Life has thrown its weight behind Deal and opposes Handel with a bitterness that is a bit surprising. Apparently its leadership fears that if Handel is allowed to win a high-profile statewide GOP primary, some of her fellow Republicans might begin to believe that they too can ignore GRTL’s orders without consequence
And as if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s Sarah Palin. Her endorsement of Handel has further embarrassed GRTL among the GOP conservatives that represent its source of political power. And as GRTL Executive Director Melanie Crozier explained to Politico, they don’t like it one little bit.
“[Palin] has a son with Down’s Syndrome, and under Karen Handel’s laws, Handel would have felt like it was ok to go in and abort that child,” said Crozier. “But when you look at Sarah Palin’s pattern—going out finding mainly women candidates that were in the lead and endorsing them, that’s not really a surprise. She saw Handel had a decent lead, so I think she sort of jumped on the bandwagon.”
The lack of decency and sense of proportion in those comments is pretty appalling. GRTL had no right to drag Trig Palin into this debate in that kind of context, particularly to use against Palin, and the smear regarding Handel is downright startling. But it’s also nothing new.
Earlier in the campaign, Handel had also angered GRTL with her support for infertility clinics. She and her husband have tried but failed to have children, and Handel opposes laws that in effect would ban in vitro fertilization as a technique for treating infertility. (The process creates fertilized eggs that in some cases are never implanted, a fact that horrifies the life-begins-at-conception camp.)
“Someone’s desperate right to parenthood – because they’re infertile, they’re barren, whatever term you want to use – is an emotionally fraught subject that has our highest sympathy,” responded Dan Becker, GRTL’s president. “But it should never be attempted to be addressed where a life is taken in the process.”
It’s ironic to see people who claim to defend humanity in fact demonstrate so little humanity themselves.
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
md
July 23rd, 2010
5:06 pm
Matti,
What you say has merit, but also know that there is “right” “wrong” and the law. Right and wrong fall within the beliefs category.
And I find it interesting that the “ownership of their own bodies” never applies to the unborn child. When one empathizes with the child, that just doesn’t seem “right”. “Pro-choice” only considers the “choice” of one in an equation that features two. (3 if one counts “dad”)
One must remember that scientifically, there are two life forms involved and the definition that allows for one is man made.
md
July 23rd, 2010
5:11 pm
“Grandstanding on “moral” issues is not a substitute for the practical application of good sense where it’s most needed. Thanks for listening.”
And who gets to decide what “good sense” is?? Another of our human conundrums……….
Many will argue that a lack of character (moral??) will make a bad candidate.
It is all about definitions, of which we make.
Matti
July 23rd, 2010
5:21 pm
md,
I’m a mom and I love children. But the “solutions” and mandates touted by the GRTL are not practical. Government that is not practical does not work. Problems that are ignored in lieu of a continuing obsession with a “moral” issue upon which citizens will never agree do not get solved. I expect my government officials to address relvant issues in a practical way. “What can we do to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and address the issues that result from those actions?” That question is the basis of a meaningful discussion based on common goals and practical results. “OMG, the Death Merchants are Killing Babies!” is not.
md
July 23rd, 2010
5:33 pm
Practical – interesting term.
So, the “practical” solution to an unwanted problem is to eliminate the problem?
I understand where you are coming from, but am curious as to why that solution is only applied to babies?? If this really is a “practical” solution, should it not also be applied to unwanted kids, or teens, or old people? To me, that practicality test would be one where the solution would be capable of being evenly applied across the board. Since we as the definition writers say it is not practical for all, I guess I just don’t understand how we as definition writers make this exception.
Matti
July 23rd, 2010
5:43 pm
am curious as to why that solution is only applied to babies
It isn’t. Many feel it’s more practical to execute a convicted killer than to feed him in prison for 40 years. Kaiser Permanente “review” panels often decide it’s more practical to deny a cancer victim’s claims than to keep paying for treatments. Many intolerant people feel it’s more practical to chide, “Shoulda kept your knees together!” than pay for prenatal care for a woman without means. Death comes in many ways, my friend. Every single day to someone, and to everyone someday. Reality is often harsh and ugly.
Why do some groups weep only for the not-yet-fully-formed human fetus? (That’s rhetorical, Hon. I don’t wanna fight on a Friday night.) My point is, given the choice, I’d rather have a meaningful discussion than a pointless one. Define that however you wish.
Brett
July 23rd, 2010
5:49 pm
Would that be goobernatorial??
RF
July 23rd, 2010
6:06 pm
Matti: Practical results are not nearly sensational enough for politics. You make an excellent point though that the discussion would be so much more productive than the current moral tug-of-war we’re having right now.
md
July 23rd, 2010
6:34 pm
Merely trying to understand the thought process and logic.
Life IS about choices, and consequences to choices, and excuses for choices.
And you may define that however you wish – as we all will anyway.
barking frog
July 23rd, 2010
7:33 pm
why do we have abortions? doesn’t medicaid pay for caesareans? OH I know
we want to kill the baby. Why don’t Right to Lifers agree to accept any baby
and see that it is raised appropriately? Oh I know it costs more to raise a baby
than to kill it. Good thing Mary didn’t get an abortion. things would sure be
different if she had.
RF
July 23rd, 2010
8:22 pm
frog: if Joseph hadn’t whisked her off to Bethlehem, she would have been stoned to death, thus killing her AND the unborn baby. Wonder what the GRTL says about that? I guess since it was okay in Jesus’ time, it would be okay now as long as the mother dies too…
barking frog
July 23rd, 2010
9:19 pm
RF;I guess getting stoned is just not what it used to be.
Saul Good
July 24th, 2010
6:44 am
“Good thing Mary didn’t get an abortion. things would sure be
different if she had.”
I heard that the pimple faced kid down the street who knocked her up refused to pay for it…. so she kept saying to her dad…I SWEAR I never had sex…over and over and over… and the old fool believed it. Somehow after a looooong game of stone aged telephone… the story became “god” knocked her up… well at least that’s the “version” that some humans wrote down one day….
Tired of BS
July 24th, 2010
10:24 am
For all pro life men. YOU will never get pregnant. YOU will never give birth. YOU will never understand what a woman goes thru making the decision to keep or abort a baby.
YOU can take your happy ass back to the TV, sit down and STHU! YOU don’t have a dog in this fight!
Saul Good
July 24th, 2010
1:00 pm
Tired… remember…it’s ALL about “control” and keeping women “submissive”… it’s what their cult’s text book calls for: Keeping women subservient to men. (oh well…except for Mizzzz Palin…they worship her…you know…that very one who was pregnant BEFORE she got married and “taught her daughter well” when it came to using birth control)… Real “role models” for the right winged youths… just say “no”…but “do it” anyway…
T Knight
July 25th, 2010
5:55 pm
Karen Handel has my vote. I don’t care who endorses her frankly, I do my own research. I am concerned with the economy in my state. Nathan Deal wants people to stay focused on the abortion issue so that no one really looks at his record. He doesn’t want you to know that he is labeled on of the most corrupt congressmen in Washington. Karen Handel wants to eliminate the state income tax. Nathan wants to argue over who is more pro life. Karen Handel wants to lower taxes to encourage the growth of small business. Nathan Deal will be beholden to the lobbyists who have financially supported his campaign.
Karen Handel is clearly the best choice for governor of Georgia.
Sitting in front of the T.V.
July 26th, 2010
8:31 am
Tired of B.S., sitting here in front of the T.V. I realized that you can not comment any longer on most sports like Football and Baseball… because you don’t have a dog in this fight.
Also, (while sitting in front of the t.v.) it dawned on me that a lot of men do have a dog in the fight. (And this by the way, makes you wrong) because we have daughters who are not raised only by their mom’s but also their dad’s and in some cases their dad’s alone. Now maybe in your turn LEFT world, you think all young women or women in general don’t consult the male population for advice or guidance. Does that still mean we as the male species don’t have a dog in the fight?
Your sexist comment is short sighted and shows your feminist bias. Continue to vote and cheer on those who will pay your mortgage, buy you a car and send you your check every month so you can do your “art classes”.
I am headed back to the t.v. to watch some baseball, drink a beer and rub my belly now.
Thanks.
HillBilly
July 28th, 2010
12:00 pm
I used to support conservative candidates.
I stopped because I don’t want Government to focus on social policy UNTIL it masters the challenges of shaping PUBLIC policy. So conservatives, get to work on the BUSINESS of government now, and we’ll discuss moral issues when times are better.
Candidates that debate social issues are only distracting voters.