How Rick Santorum could win Georgia
Who will win Georgia’s GOP primary on March 6?
I don’t know, and if you’re looking to the polls for answers, you’re probably looking in the wrong place. At this point, they can reveal trends but they cannot predict outcomes.
So let me go ahead and offer two possibly foolish observations:
1.) The stars may be aligning to make Georgia a pivotal state in the nominating process, and to make Rick Santorum the prime beneficiary.
2.) Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, could see his political career end right here, in the state where it began.
First, why aren’t the polls much help in predicting the outcome? Because this race has been all about momentum, and Big Mo could shift decisively before Georgia voters go to the polls.
For proof, look at how swiftly the numbers have moved in just the past two weeks. In a Mason Dixon poll conducted Feb. 6-8 for the AJC and other Georgia newspapers, Gingrich drew 43 percent of likely Republican voters, Mitt Romney 29 percent and Santorum just 12 percent.
But according to a poll released Tuesday by Fox 5 Atlanta, the race has become a three-way tie, with Gingrich (26 percent), Romney (24 percent) and Santorum (23 percent) all within the margin of error. That apparent doubling of support for Santorum — largely at Gingrich’s expense — was not driven by ad buys but by momentum and infectious enthusiasm. It’s particularly notable given that just two months ago, Santorum was polling at 2 percent in this state.
Now let’s look ahead. Michigan and Arizona voters go to the polls Feb. 28, one week before Georgia. Santorum is leading in most Michigan polls, even though it’s Romney’s native state. He is also surprisingly close in Arizona, within the margin of error in at least one poll. Gingrich, on the other hand, is a distant third in Arizona and isn’t even competing in Michigan.
Should Santorum beat Romney in Michigan, or even finish strongly in both Michigan and Arizona, it would spell big trouble for Romney and be downright devastating to Gingrich. As Rupert Murdoch tweeted recently about Santorum, “Win Michigan and it’s over.” The publicity and enthusiasm generated for Santorum would probably be enough to sweep the former senator to victory here in Georgia a week later. It might also condemn Gingrich to a third-place finish in a state that he has to win to remain credible.
It’s important to note just how primed the state’s Republican electorate is for a Santorum candidacy. We saw flesh-and-blood evidence of that at a Santorum appearance Sunday night in Cumming, where a supportive crowd of more than 3,000 people turned out to hear him speak.
Santorum’s personal and political history, particularly his views on abortion and other social issues, have made him a favorite of evangelical voters nationwide. And in the AJC’s February poll, 72 percent of white Georgians who said they were likely to vote in the GOP primary described themselves as either evangelical or born-again.
Here’s another indication: In a December AJC poll, 49 percent of registered Georgia voters said that a fetus should have the legal standing of a person “at the instant the fetus is conceived.” Just 35 percent took a less absolutist stance.
No partisan breakdowns are available on that question, but if 49 percent of Georgia voters believe that life begins at the instant of conception, that percentage must be considerably higher among Republicans. And among that kind of electorate, Santorum has the potential to do very well.
Unlike Romney, Santorum can and does speak with honest conviction on such issues, and people respond to it. And while Gingrich speaks with equal conviction, people also understand that his greatest political attribute is his ability to believe sincerely in whatever just flew out of his mouth. In terms of honesty and clarity of message, Santorum wins hands down.
In a general election, however, history suggests that Santorum would not be a formidable candidate. If he were the GOP nominee, it is even conceivable that a red state such as Georgia might turn blue. The question is, how many Georgia Republicans are even thinking in those terms?
The answer comes March 6.
– Jay Bookman
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
635 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:51 am
“when a barely pregnant woman is killed the offender is charged with two murders but if that same woman has an abortion there has been no offense?
This is based on an assumption by the law that the pregnancy had value to the woman AND to her family. It is not, and never was, based on any sort of science about preganancy.
Joseph
February 22nd, 2012
10:51 am
Thats interesting that demoncrat lawmakers got such a spike in earmarks for voting on Obama’s bills….
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/21/report-finds-spike-in-earmarks-to-democratic-lawmakers-during-controversial/?test=latestnews
Butch Cassidy
February 22nd, 2012
10:51 am
For all those harping on the price of gas, here’s a little hint as to why it would be impossible to “drill here, drill now, pay less” as espoused by Gingrich and others.
2,296 Oil Well Drilling Companies in the U.S.
Which one do you think the government should seize first?
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
10:52 am
GS: I do think all women should have access to BC but also that the government should never force anyone to pay for BC if oppossed to it, just as the Gov. should never be able to tell someone they cannot pay for someone BC
I think this is two one dimensional. The government isn’t forcing the church to pay for it. If the argument is that yes they are because they have to provide the plan that then pays for it, then you should also have a problem with churches paying women at all for any reason, since they might elect to buy birth control with the money, which would mean the church paid for it by the same logic.
I think if someone is opposed to something they do not have to personally buy it. But if they run an employer or an insurance company or other institution that employes people, they are bound by the law to not deny other people things just because they have a moral objection.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
10:52 am
“Good question. Very good question.”
no, it isn’t. it’s a facile question.
basically, the law was created as a first step to treating a fetus as a full fledged person.
THAT is why it’s against the law – and why it WASN’T for more than 2 hundred years prior to that.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
10:53 am
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
10:46 am
I see no one but Adam, who had a go-away reply, has answered by question on how it is when a barely pregnant woman is killed the offender is charged with two murders but if that same woman has an abortion there has been no offense?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You stole that question off me lol.
Paul
February 22nd, 2012
10:53 am
As I’ve said in the past, if employers have the option of dropping items from health insurance they object to, just were do you draw the line?
Will employers then drop any high-cost items? Even if they have to cite a religious objection?
No end of life/hospice care: interfering with nature taking its course.
No cancer treatment: interfering with God’s will.
No vaccines: God put disease here for a purpose. If you can’t survive, that’s God’s plan.
I rather admire the Christian Scientists. josef asked the other day regarding health benefits available for employees at the Christian Science Monitor. They offer a full health care package (even though they themselves don’t believe in it, they respect that their employees aren’t all Christian Scientists) and they offer their own treatment option for those who want them.
There’s a lesson there for the Catholic hierarchy. Respect the views of your employees, don’t impose you will on them thru the health plan, and offer your own doctrinal option for those who wish to avail themselves of it.
John S
February 22nd, 2012
10:53 am
I think Gingrich is done, so it is going to come down to a choice of Romney or Santorum. As a Democrat I plan to vote for Santorum in the republican primary as he will be easier to beat in November. I am urging all my Democrat friends to do the same.
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
10:54 am
Doggone/GA – 10:35
That explaims who those here who think abortion is murder just try to ignore the fact of spontaneous abortions (natural miscarriages) in hopes they will just go away.
Paul
February 22nd, 2012
10:54 am
I suppose I should add “evangelical Christians’ to that, as they’ve suddenly adopted Catholic doctrine.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
10:55 am
USinUK: “Good question. Very good question.”
no, it isn’t. it’s a facile question.
Beat me to it.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
10:55 am
carlos,
Natural miscarriages and abortion, which to me a woman goes to a clinic to kill her baby, are 2 different things to me.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
10:55 am
I love how no one has a problem with the fact that certain religions factions don’t believe in blood donation – but, yet, they still pay for it to be covered by insurance …
would love to see your cute little button noses if suddenly your employers decided they didn’t want to cover THAT anymore …
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:56 am
“That explaims who those here who think abortion is murder just try to ignore the fact of spontaneous abortions (natural miscarriages) in hopes they will just go away”
Yep…or as the White Queen said, they can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast
jm
February 22nd, 2012
10:56 am
John S
Careful what you wish for. You also make a compelling argument for closed primaries doing things like that, which is anti-centrist and bad for America.
Dbag
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:56 am
“Natural miscarriages and abortion, which to me a woman goes to a clinic to kill her baby, are 2 different things to me.”
But they aren’t to the foetus
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
10:57 am
“no, it isn’t.”
Well to me it is. You shouldn’t be able to have it one way and not the other. Either it’s murder, or it’s not.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
10:57 am
“Natural miscarriages and abortion, which to me a woman goes to a clinic to kill her baby, are 2 different things to me.”
well, my dear, they won’t be investigated by the police any differently in the brave new world the GOP and the likes of Santorum have in mind …
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
10:57 am
Yep…or as the White Queen said, they can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
10:57 am
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:51 am
“when a barely pregnant woman is killed the offender is charged with two murders but if that same woman has an abortion there has been no offense?
This is based on an assumption by the law that the pregnancy had value to the woman AND to her family. It is not, and never was, based on any sort of science about preganancy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How can they make that assumption. Maybe the woman was going to go get an abortion the very next day.
I’m not being a dick or being argumentative DG, I’ve always wondered about that ambiguity in the law. If abortion is NOT a crime, then that assumes the fetus is NOT a life and therefore not able to be “murdered” when the mother is. The should hold true in every case. If the fetus IS alive (IE murder charges) then how can it not be murder to abort it.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:58 am
Oh, and BTW Peadawg, even nature can’t abort a BABY. THAT would be an early birth, not an abortion
Joseph
February 22nd, 2012
10:58 am
Watch Carney lie…..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/21/carney_obama_didnt_turn_down_the_keystone_pipeline.html
Butch Cassidy
February 22nd, 2012
10:58 am
Peadawg – “Either it’s murder, or it’s not.”
Why are you so concerned, are you planing to kill a pregnant woman in the near future?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:59 am
“How can they make that assumption. Maybe the woman was going to go get an abortion the very next day
that is WHY it’s an assumption. Since the women is dead and cannot answer any questions, the law ASSUMES the pregnancy had value to her and to her family.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
10:59 am
I wonder if we’d be having this same conversation if conjoined twins with one that didn’t develop fully was much more common and science came up with a way to remove the undeveloped, but not dead, one. Since it’s life from the moment of conception and all….
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
11:01 am
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
10:50 am
Is the Pope going to hand out a survey afterwards?
If not then how will any know? I think the Pope was smart enough to know people would interpret it that way.
Maybe not, but that is what I thought when i heard the Pope say that.
Kinda how I tell my son his BB gun is only to be shot at empty bottles and cans, but I am sure a squirrel or 2 get shot at. Maybe things worse than that.
Butch Cassidy
February 22nd, 2012
11:01 am
Joseph – “Watch Carney lie…..”
Bah, blah, blah….. Again, regardless of how you move the product, prices won’t be affected until you control where the product is sold and for how much. Exactly how do you think the pipeline will solve that little problem?
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:02 am
“If abortion is NOT a crime, then that assumes the fetus is NOT a life and therefore not able to be “murdered” when the mother is.”
Sorry, missed this! The issue is not whether the foetus is a life, that is and always will be the wrong angle. The issue is that the foetus is not a PERSON. The woman is a person. The foetus does not become a person, legally, until it is born and takes it’s first breath. At that point it is, beyond revocation, a separate being from the woman who bore it and is entitled to all the rights we have as a person and a citizen of this country.
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
11:02 am
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:51 am
“when a barely pregnant woman is killed the offender is charged with two murders but if that same woman has an abortion there has been no offense?
This is based on an assumption by the law that the pregnancy had value to the woman AND to her family. It is not, and never was, based on any sort of science about preganancy.
Doggone – I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. However, I do know that “value” lawsuits are civiil court. The trial for someone who murdered a pregant woman is held in criminal court. It is a criminal offense.
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:03 am
“That explaims who those here who think abortion is murder just try to ignore the fact of spontaneous abortions (natural miscarriages) in hopes they will just go away.”
That’s like comparing a heart attack to an ax beheading……….
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:03 am
“The issue is that the foetus is not a PERSON.”
” The foetus does not become a person, legally, until it is born and takes it’s first breath.”
Then why can men be charged for murder if it’s not legally a person yet?
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:04 am
“This is based on an assumption by the law that the pregnancy had value to the woman AND to her family. It is not, and never was, based on any sort of science about preganancy.”
Does it matter the basis? The law and charges are based on the taking of multiple “lives”…….so the law must be recognizing more than one life.
Butch Cassidy
February 22nd, 2012
11:04 am
Peadawg – “Then why can men be charged for murder if it’s not legally a person yet?”
I understand your outrage now. Afterall, if a woman kills a pregnant woman, she should be charged with murder too! What’s up with all the man bashing these days?
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
11:05 am
If the fetus IS alive (IE murder charges) then how can it not be murder to abort it.
Because she’s voluntarily revoking consent for the fetus to use her body.
In our legal system your organs belong to you, no one else can legally demand part of you even if they will die without it. Well, as long as you’re a man anyway. The rules for women are different.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:06 am
“Then why can men be charged for murder if it’s not legally a person yet?”
Can you people reason AT ALL? The law ASSUMES the woman desired her pregnancy to come to term and RESULT IN a born baby that is a person and a citizen. Since neither can speak for themselves, since both are DEAD. The law ASSUMES IT.
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:06 am
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
10:59 am
“How can they make that assumption. Maybe the woman was going to go get an abortion the very next day
that is WHY it’s an assumption. Since the women is dead and cannot answer any questions, the law ASSUMES the pregnancy had value to her and to her family.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I still don’t get it, don’t think it’s right (the double murder charge) but it isn’t something I care to spend much time on. I’ve asked lawyer types, but the problem there is they think you are trying to draw them into a discussion on abortion, not a discussion on a point of law (which to me that scenario is).
Precedence has shown that having “value” to someone is not not reason enough to use deadly force, therefore using the same precedence I would think that since murder is a capitol crime then my charging someone with 2 murders because of the assumption of “value” is disingenuous.
Oh well. Like I said, nothing I’m going to sit and argue about, especially since this is a public forum and others will get involved clouding the issue making it one of “abortion” not a point of law.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:06 am
Then why can men be charged for murder if it’s not legally a person yet?
Not everything the courts do makes sense. It’s a codifying of an emotional reaction. We must CONTROL and PUNISH the person who murdered the woman EXTRA if she was pregnant and had an intent to carry to term. It doesn’t matter if it would have actually made it that for, or even 18 years down the line, because what matters is the EVIL PERSON we are trying to PUNISH.
None of it is based in logic. All of it is based on creating precedent out of nowhere. It only takes a judge or two to say this is actual justice for it to become precedent.
CONTROL and PUNISHMENT.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
11:06 am
Generation – “Is the Pope going to hand out a survey afterwards? If not then how will any know?”
you really AREN’T Catholic, are you.
a sin in the heart is still a sin … and if, in your heart, you’re using a condom to prevent a pregnancy, then you should go to confession for it and ask for absolution.
if you don’t – or if you go to confession and don’t include it (sin of omission), then you will die out of a state of grace …
and it’s the FLAMES for you, mister! (and, no, I’m not talking about the former Atlanta hockey team)
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
11:07 am
Peadawg – “Then why can men be charged for murder if it’s not legally a person yet?”
because the law was passed and signed.
that’s why.
gm
February 22nd, 2012
11:07 am
Recon 0311 2533
as Obama continues to look less than formidable to Independents and moderate Democrats.
Stop dreaming Obama is leading in ever poll with independents, no one wants a right wing nut but the bigots of the tea party movment, Newt and Rick have even scared off the moderate rep with this religion bashing of Obama and Newt questioning his stance on National Security.
While these idiots are bashing and playing God, Obama is talking jobs, jobs, now we see why Rick got beat by 20 points in his home town, thank god for other regions of American who are not buying this crap, they have nothing to run on buy hate and jealous of the President.
ken
February 22nd, 2012
11:09 am
I love 15% unemployment. I love $5.00 gas. I love Government in my life. I love people being kicked out of their houses. I will really like it when I go to a government doctor. I love BHO . UM UM UM
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:09 am
as Obama continues to look less than formidable to Independents and moderate Democrats.
Uh, nope
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:09 am
“because the law was passed and signed.
that’s why.”
And that’s one reason for the abortion argument that still goes on. If one person gets charge for doing something and another person doesn’t get charge for doing the same thing….one of these things just doesn’t belong here.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:10 am
“CONTROL and PUNISHMENT.” – Only on men it seems. Not on women.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:10 am
ken: I love 15% unemployment.
Me too. I love that it dropped from 16% just 5 months ago to 15% now.
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
11:11 am
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
10:52 am
Those employed have a right to not work for any business that does not compensate them to their liking.
If I was not happy with the compensation package at this job I would leave and find another job, as that is my right.
If a group or business finds that there is nobody to work for them they may change their tune.
Me personally just do not feel it is governments place to tell any comanpy what must be in the compensation package. I know the min. wage argument, but I honestly do not think anyone of legal citizenship or legal immigration would work for less than min. wage now.
i may be wrong.
Again just not a fan of the gov telling anyone what they must purchase. Because it they can tell us what we must purchase they can tell us what we cannot purchase as well.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
11:11 am
“And that’s one reason for the abortion argument that still goes on. If one person gets charge for doing something and another person doesn’t get charge for doing the same thing”
actually, no, it’s NOT the same thing.
you seem to forget that it’s a DOUBLE homicide – that the woman is killed as well as the fetus.
interested observer
February 22nd, 2012
11:12 am
I’ll be voting for Obama in the fall and for Santorum on March 6. What a gift for Obama to have Santorum as the GOP nominee!
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:12 am
Last thing I’m going to say on the double murder thing: OBVIOUSLY there is a legal point or precedent other wise either some anti-abortion lawyer would argue it as a way to abolish abortion, or some Defense attorney would argue it as a way to get one charge dropped from his client.
In short, I think they do it just so they can double the sentence and make them back to back which extends the time until the murderer is eligible for parole. IF the defense lawyer pushes hard enough they drop the second murder charge. That’s just a guess, not anything I have any proof or knowledge of.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:12 am
Peadawg: So if a woman kills a pregnant woman she won’t be charged two murders but if a man were to murder the same pregnant woman at the same time instead, it would be two murder charges?
If so, that is even more wrong than I thought.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:12 am
“you seem to forget that it’s a DOUBLE homicide – that the woman is killed as well as the fetus.”
I get that. But it’s that second homicide charge for the unborn baby that’s the sticking point.
Butch Cassidy
February 22nd, 2012
11:13 am
ken – “I love 15% unemployment. I love $5.00 gas. I love Government in my life. I love people being kicked out of their houses. I will really like it when I go to a government doctor. I love BHO . UM UM UM”
You should have made better choices in your life so as not to be directly affected by government influence.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:13 am
“actually, no, it’s NOT the same thing”
And here’s a question I don’t know the answer to: if a woman is attacked and as a result loses her pregnancy, is the attacker charged with murder? I don’t THINK so, but I don’t actually know for sure.
Jimmy62
February 22nd, 2012
11:13 am
By getting the most votes!
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:14 am
“I’ll be voting for Obama in the fall and for Santorum on March 6.” – That’s actually not a bad idea.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:14 am
GS: If a group or business finds that there is nobody to work for them they may change their tune.
That’s not how it works in the real world.
And the government already tells us what we cannot purchase. Heroine, and nuclear grade plutonium, for instance.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:15 am
Fred: In short, I think they do it just so they can double the sentence and make them back to back which extends the time until the murderer is eligible for parole. IF the defense lawyer pushes hard enough they drop the second murder charge. That’s just a guess, not anything I have any proof or knowledge of.
I’m pretty sure you’re right. It’s about an emotional need to punish the murderer EXTRA.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
11:16 am
So, first thing I see when I finally get a chance to get on here this morning is the scary headline about how Santorum could win Georgia. Then I start reading comments and find y’all are already trying to educate the masses as to the difference between a double murder and abortion. For everyone that can’t see the difference and thinks there is/should be a correlation, please find me a case where someone was charged with murder for an assault that resulted in the death of the fetus, not the woman.
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:16 am
“actually, no, it’s NOT the same thing.
you seem to forget that it’s a DOUBLE homicide – that the woman is killed as well as the fetus.”
Which means the law is recognizing 2 people………otherwise, it would be SINGLE homicide.
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
11:16 am
Fred – if you posted the same question as I earlier on abortion, I did not see it. The other day you claimed I stole the Red Rider – Lunatic Fringe from you. On the Red Rider song, I posted Red Rider about 5 or 6 times during that week trying to get someone on the Left to bite, but on one did. Believe me, I’m not stealing your posts.
If this means we think alike, that really, really scares me.
Adam
February 22nd, 2012
11:17 am
(ir)Rational: please find me a case where someone was charged with murder for an assault that resulted in the death of the fetus, not the woman.
Excellent point.
Aquagirl
February 22nd, 2012
11:17 am
If one person gets charge for doing something and another person doesn’t get charge for doing the same thing….one of these things just doesn’t belong here.
You can take possession of my car two ways: With my consent, or without. One way will land you in jail.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 22nd, 2012
11:17 am
I swear you CONs lose it more and more everyday……………..
-Indiana Republican lawmaker says Girl Scouts promote abortion-
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Undaunted by ridicule from the leader of his own party, an Indiana lawmaker is standing by his allegations that the Girl Scouts is a radical organization that promotes abortions and homosexuality.
http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-lawmaker-says-girl-scouts-promote-abortion-150745801.html
A question?
February 22nd, 2012
11:18 am
How do raging liberal moonbats call themselves independent?
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
11:18 am
Adam and Fred – Probably also a way to push for the death penalty.
Doggone @ 11:13 – So, kinda scary, you and I are on the same wavelength this morning. I’m almost positive it isn’t, but I can check with the Mrs. They’re going over homicide in her Criminal Law class today. Maybe they’ll touch on that subject.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:19 am
This is the only thing I found, Doggone @ 11:13
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-441599.htm
“A Bath pharmacist has been charged with causing his pregnant girlfriend — a Sayre resident — to have a miscarriage. Sayre police on Wednesday charged Orbin Eeli Tercero, 38, with criminal homicide of an unborn child, first-degree murder of an unborn child, aggra vated assault of an unborn child, aggravated assault, hindering apprehension or prosecution, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. ”
Looks like somewhere in Pennsylvania I believe. Not sure if he was convicted though or how long ago this was.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:19 am
“How do raging liberal moonbats call themselves independent?”
Easy answer: they don’t
Bruno
February 22nd, 2012
11:20 am
How about we get birth control pills from our doctors, instead of jumping through a bunch of hoops?
Aquagirl–You can already do that. All you have to do is make an appointment. But, horror of horrors, you might have to actually pay for your own prescription. Which is the real issue here.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
11:21 am
md – Care to respond to the idea that if someone goes out and assaults (well, I think the legal term would be something to do with battery as assault is just the threat of harm) a pregnant woman and it results in the death of the fetus, are they then charged with murder as well as assault and battery? Or just assault and battery?
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:21 am
Re: my 11:19
Just the fact that he was charged doesn’t seem right…if it’s a person and all.
Seems like the queen of double-standards if you ask me.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
Ah GA the most irrelevant bassakward state in the union……losers….
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
Scott Petersons case will automatically go to the CASC, so this discussion will be played out sometime in the near future……..
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
if it’s NOT a person…the baby that is
Acer706
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
Currently, the choice is ours. Why is the ability to choose such a big deal?
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
JohnnyReb
February 22nd, 2012
11:16 am
Fred – if you posted the same question as I earlier on abortion, I did not see it. The other day you claimed I stole the Red Rider – Lunatic Fringe from you. On the Red Rider song, I posted Red Rider about 5 or 6 times during that week trying to get someone on the Left to bite, but on one did. Believe me, I’m not stealing your posts.
If this means we think alike, that really, really scares me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL No kidding right? It’s funny how often folks post the same thing or have the same ideas. But you really SHOULD open your mind more as to who you are lol. I’m not a democrat nor a republican, I’m an independent. As such I have views that will coincide with each “group” depending on the issue.
Actually what got me posting here (as opposed to other blogs) was when Jay stole my FAVORITE civil rights position. I have always said the Martie King’s dream has come true as his kids ARE judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. Judged and found to be scum. And then Jay posted that last year or so ago. Man was I hot. Who now would believe it was MY line for all this time………..
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
Peadawg – without knowing the length of her pregnancy at the time of the assault, we don’t know enough. If the pregnancy was far enough along that it could be terminated and the child was developed enough to survive, then homicide (not murder, BTW) might have been a justifiable charge.
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
11:23 am
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
11:06 am
I understand what sins of the heart are…
I’m Episcopalian, so I’m a red-headed step-child to catholics, or a gay uncle/aunt whichever suits them best.
But I also know that sometimes the voice of the mind is much louder and more convincing than the heart. Meaning we can talk ourselves into alot eventhough we know deep down it is wrong.
This is what i think the Pope was doing. He knows that condoms are of value, but also knows of historical and values of faith. therefore he kinda made a compramise without really making one.
But just my opinion, I do not KNOW the Pope’s true intent nor that of any Catholic. It is not my place as i see it to KNOW what is in any man or womans heart. Maybe you do, but as for me I can only go by what i think he/she means.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
February 22nd, 2012
11:23 am
Its her uterus she can haul coal in it if she wants too.. geezzzz…
St Simons - we're on Island time
February 22nd, 2012
11:23 am
the diversion topics on today’s menu incluuude –
-abortion (the trick is getting “murder” in the same sentence)
-food stamps
-47% pay no taxes
-gas & oil prices
-wahwahwah
-”our way of life” (creepy wink-wink)
annnnything but your candidates & what they have to offer
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:25 am
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
Scott Petersons case will automatically go to the CASC, so this discussion will be played out sometime in the near future……..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Was he charged with two murders? I forgot about him.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:25 am
“annnnything but your candidates & what they have to offer”
It’s b/c most everyone no here agrees that Santorum is an idiot and we must argue about SOMETHING. it’s no fun when everyone agrees.
Generation$crewed
February 22nd, 2012
11:26 am
(ir)Rational: please find me a case where someone was charged with murder for an assault that resulted in the death of the fetus, not the woman.
Excellent point.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308942/posts
didn’t research it too much but seems kinda legit, woman was assaulted, fetus died as a result, father charged with murder and assault.
Mother lived.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:26 am
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:22 am
It says in there that the woman was going to get an abortion but changed her mind. Using your favorite word from today, we can ASSUME it would have been aborted by the woman if she had gone through with it.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
11:27 am
Pea – This gets into the way the law works, which I am by no means an expert on, but I believe the difference there is specific intent. Really not sure though.
Doggone/GA
February 22nd, 2012
11:28 am
“It says in there that the woman was going to get an abortion but changed her mind. Using your favorite word from today, we can ASSUME it would have been aborted by the woman if she had gone through with it.”
read your first sentence again, especially the last three words
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:29 am
(ir),
Sure, I’ll repond……seems you may soon have an official answer:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/20/woman-may-be-charged-for-killing-unborn-baby-in-shooting/
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:29 am
@md: He (Peterson) was charged (and convicted of) with 2nd degree murder for the baby
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:30 am
“read your first sentence again, especially the last three words”
Yup. What’s up?
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:30 am
md@11:29: Nice find. I’ll try to remember to keep an eye on that one.
TaxPayer
February 22nd, 2012
11:31 am
By the way, what is that Republican definition of conception? Have you guys reached a concensus on that one yet.
sheepdawg
February 22nd, 2012
11:32 am
fun watching the gop slowly implode. go t party dummies and evangelical zealots!!!
carlosgvv
February 22nd, 2012
11:32 am
Peadawg, md
So this perfect all-knowing, all-caring God of love you worship causes women to have natural miscarrages. However, is a woman, on her own, does the same thing, it’s murder? With that kind of muddled thinking, I wonder how you two make it thru the day.
md
February 22nd, 2012
11:32 am
And from the link:
“In Alabama, criminal code defines a homicide victim as “a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.””
Fred ™
February 22nd, 2012
11:34 am
St Simons – we’re on Island time
February 22nd, 2012
11:23 am
the diversion topics on today’s menu incluuude –
-abortion (the trick is getting “murder” in the same sentence)
-food stamps
-47% pay no taxes
-gas & oil prices
-wahwahwah
-”our way of life” (creepy wink-wink)
annnnything but your candidates & what they have to offer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In all fairness St. Simon, that topic has been talked to death lol. It’s just the gateway topic anymore…….
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:35 am
“However, is a woman, on her own, does the same thing, it’s murder?”
If a man causes an abortion, or kills a pregnant woman, he’s charged for homicide or whatnot of the unborn baby. Why can a woman get away with homicide but a man can’t? Double-standard to me.
Here we go!
February 22nd, 2012
11:35 am
What is a barely pregnant woman and what specific case are you referring to? Name the case and the state.
USinUK
February 22nd, 2012
11:35 am
“Which means the law is recognizing 2 people………otherwise, it would be SINGLE homicide.”
funny how they’re not counted as persons for the census … or anything else.
and, as I mentioned earlier, this is only a NEW phenomenon which is part and parcel of the anti-choice agenda.
Peadawg - Yasmin Neal is one craaazy b*ch
February 22nd, 2012
11:36 am
“In Alabama, criminal code defines a homicide victim as “a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.””
Only for a man it seems. Women can commit homicide all they want. Pretty sick if you ask me.
Jefferson
February 22nd, 2012
11:36 am
I want to be a GOP voter, just tell me who to vote for.
(ir)Rational
February 22nd, 2012
11:36 am
md – That is the first case I’ve found where they didn’t show specific intent (although the news story is very scant on the details and the relationship of the two women) to kill the fetus for some reason (typically because the boyfriend felt she should get an abortion), so that will be an interesting case to follow. I think the most interesting part will be in the details that come out. What was there relationship, did she specifically intend to kill the fetus, did she even know the woman was pregnant? Depending on the answers to those questions, that could be a very ground breaking case.