Monday, August 14, 2006

'Pro-life hero' Green hides his positions

NOTE: This post originally referred to Wis. Right to Life rather than Pro-Life Wisconsin, and has been edited to correct the error. WRTL has endorsed Green.

Rep. Mark Green's a busy guy. So busy he can't even fill out candidate questionnaires. (Maybe someone should tell him the candidate doesn't have to do it all himself; he just needs to sign off on the answers.)

First Green was too busy to answer a questionnaire on ethics reform.

Now, he's too busy to reply to Pro-Life Wisconsin. Green's website says:
Mark Green believes all human life deserves to be protected, which is why Wisconsin Right to Life called him a "genuine pro-life hero."
So why on earth wouldn't he want Pro-Life Wisconsin's endorsement this time?

Grumbleberries has the answer:
Could it be that Green could not "find the time" because of this? (Emphasis added)

Among other things, the Pro Life Wisconsin survey asked whether candidates would support legislation granting fetuses an "inalienable right to life from the moment of fertilization," banning abortion in all cases including rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger, and banning research using embryonic stem cells.
I've been on candidate screening committees before and the only candidates who do not fill out the surveys are those who know that they would never be endorsed or those who are hiding their positions. Which is it Rep. Green?
I'm pretty sure Mark Green will be way too busy to answer Grumbleberries. But we all know what the answer is.

POSTSCRIPT:
Pro-Life Wisconsin is the more extreme group on the abortion issue, only endorsing candidates who support no abortions, no way, not even for rape or incest victims. While wanting the support of their members, Green no doubt does not want to have to defend their positions.

Hat tip: James Wigderson, for pointing out the error.

3 Comments:

At 1:58 PM, Blogger James Wigderson said...

Xoff, you're mixing up Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right to Life, two different groups.

 
At 7:00 PM, Blogger SteveS said...

Why should any abortion be legal?

If it is a "killing" there is no ambiguity.

Of course if we are stuck with killing by abortion in Wisconsin we could use it for better social use.

We could execute criminals as a form of "very late term abortion"?

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger Mpeterson said...

So true Steve, it's black and white until you look closely enough to see the ambiguities. In fact, shouldn't we charge women who miscarry with involuntary manslaughter? And maybe women who miscarry after having a glass of wine or eating too many carbohydrates with voluntary manslaughter? In fact, if people practice the rhythm method this intentionally means that they conceive at a time of the month when that embryo is least likely to implant on its way through the uterus. Isn't this a kind of intentional homicide?

hiho
Mpeterson

 

Post a Comment

<< Home