Virginia House of Delegates 2005 Elections

Keeping You up to date on the status of Virginia's 2005 Delegate races!

Friday, July 01, 2005

First Race, Now Abortion

Today must be hot button day.

Everyone we are sure is watching the impending retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the swing vote on the abortion issue the justice to replace her could be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

For many bloggers too young to remember it's time for a history lesson on Roe v. Wade.

Roe versus Wade

The Roe versus Wade decision was NOT to legalize abortion. This decision was based on equal access. Prior to Roe versus Wade every state had different laws on whether abortion would be legal. Roe v. Wade forced every state have the same basic law that abortion was legal, with regulation left to each state.

If Roe versus Wade is overturned abortion then would become a state by state issue. That means this Supreme Court nomination battle could have a major impact on the Virginia elections this year. If overturned the next General Assembly and Governor will likely determine if abortion stays legal.

According to yesterday's SurveyUSA poll in Virginia
54% Pro-Choice
41% Pro-Life

Since the 1989 Governor's election when Doug Wilder used his Pro-Choice position to win, Pro-Life candidates have had tremendous success. Much of this is based on Pro-Life voters voting solely on this issue, while Pro-Choice voters were choosing other issues to vote on.

Now it's back on the radar screen.

Depending on the President's nominee abortion will become a major issue and quickly. This could be a particularly big break for Democrats in Northern Virginia. Candidates still on the competitive board who would benefit are: David Poisson, Steve Shannon, David Bulova, Vivian Watts, Dave Marsden, Greg Werkheiser, Earnie Porta, Hilda Barg and Chuck Caputo.

This national issue may have a major impact on this election.

Developing...

43 Comments:

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying this issue if handled wrong by Bush could result in a 6 seat pickup in Northern Virginia ALONE for the Democrats???

 
At 12:31 PM, Anonymous Not Bob Marshall said...

I really think this could put Bruce Roemmelt way back in play in the 13th district. Voters in the 13th have tolerated Bob Marshall's insane antics with the security that he really could do no serious harm when it came to banning contraceptives and abortion. But just last week he came out saying that candidates should declare whether they'd support a return to an 1847 Virginia law banning abortion. Yep - let's party like it's 1847! He's THAT regressive. O'Connor's resignation will remind complacent pro-choice voters that there really is a reason to go to the polls this year.

Bruce Roemmelt is running one of the best House campaigns out there. He's organized, he's got a great staff, and he's hitting big door-knocking targets each week. Bob Marshall frankly hasn't got a clue what to do with this since he hasn't had a serious challenger in so long. Even when asking for money from fellow Republicans, he can't stop himself from playing the "sodomite" card - which frankly turns off a lot of Republicans who are quite embarrassed to be represented by someone who would openly call gay people "sodomites". And he told the Republican committee that he doesn't have time to campaign because he works for a living!

Seeing a very real threat to the end of access to contraceptives and to abortion will drive women to the polls, and Roemmelt's got a very appealing resume for "crossover" voters, especially men who've moved away from the Democratic party because they think the party is too "wimpy". Roemmelt's a tough firefighter and veteran, with a campaign stock car and the physique of a professional wrestler. But he appeals to women, too, since he's very warm and personable. The more doors he knocks on while Bob is "busy at work", the more in-play this district gets. O'Connor's resignation could have a real impact here.

 
At 12:46 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

That's an excellent point. It certainly won't make the 13th a tossup, but depending on what the President does we may move it back on the "competitive list".

 
At 1:03 PM, Anonymous Paul Orondorf said...

I can really only see this effecting Craddock/Caputo race. Most of the others are already established and I don't see people who have voted for a legislator before, although they disagreed with them on this one issue, changing their minds now.

What makes Craddock different is that he not an established figure and people are open to the idea that he is too right wing for them. So the issue of abortion could be used to swing some moderate Republicans away from him and toward Caputo. But that depends on Caputo coming back from Europe and actually campaigning against him.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a smart call that Northern Virginia is going to go for the pro-choice candidates... but I doubt this will be a deciding issue for any of the campaigns...

 
At 1:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally, timely and mostly correct analysis. This could help Democrats depending on how it unfolds.

I wonder why you limit the benefit to "particularly Northern Virginia," and the six candidates you name.

You (not me) have Paula Miller in play in Norfolk, Lowell Fulk who has Harrisonburg in the district and others (you have not called it yet, I think) and others.

 
At 1:43 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

Paul Orondorf- I disagree. If it impacts the Craddock-Caputo race because people do not know the challenger well enough it would also impact the 41st (Golden) and 37th (Mason). As well as impacting the challenges to Steve Shannon (35th) and Vivian Watts (39th). I agree the impact on Albo-Wekheiser, Barg-Frederick, McQuigg-Porta and Black-Poisson as well as possibly Marshall-Roemmelt are more questionable.

 
At 1:44 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

I limit this to Northern Virginia for now as the Pro-Choice-Pro-Life spread there is much wider. In other areas, we need to take a careful look. I doubt this helps Fulk in the 26th which has ultra-conservative Rockingham County as its population base.

 
At 2:06 PM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

I disagree that the 13th district will be effected by any change in the Supreme Court. Indeed, a more conservative court may even help Bob Marshall. The 13th district is VERY Republican and quite conservative at that.

Bob Marshall and I only share one large precinct but, when I was campaigning there, I could assume that at least twice a day someone would ask me if I was pro-life, even though they KNEW that Supervisors have essentially no authority over pro-life issues. Even in other precincts that he no longer represents (thanks to redisctricting) there are Marshall bumper stickers on cars in every neighborhood. While this may not be the case everywhere in his district, I look at a precinct map and I can identify several that are very similar demographically to this one. Plus, there may be more Catholic Churches and Knights of Columbus Councils in the 13th district than in any other district in the state.

I have not met Bruce Roemmelt, so I have to assume that he is a generally good person despite issues where we might disagree. He may indeed have a number of assets as a candidate and campaigner, but when Bob Marshall has an opponent, his supporters come out of the woodwork to work for him like no other delegate I know. Any opponent has an uphill battle to fight against Bob. His last two opponents (Lou Brooks in 2001 and Denise Oppenhagen in 1999) were both hard working and personable, but got less than 40%.

Plus, it should not go without saying that Bob has a reputation for opposing unfunded mandates and supporting additional land use authority to localities, both of which are important issues in Prince William and Loudoun.

New court or no new court, Republicans and Catholics love Bob and the 13th has A LOT of both of them.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Not Mark Rozell said...

I don't think O'Connor affects these races at all. It might drive more of the pro-choice people out to vote, but the majority of people don't think this stuff through that deeply.

One thing I did learn from Tom Davis is that it is difficult to "trend" legislative races. Legislative races are affected more by individual personalities and local issues than by broad national themes or overarching issues. I don't think O'Connor's presumed retirement will matter in these local races.

 
At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Paul Orondorf said...

NLS,

Looking at it further and considering what you said I would now agree with you and admit that I spoke too quickly. The Democrats trying to take seats in these three races (Marsden, Bulova, and Caputo) were handed a big plus. I hope they can use it.

As for Watts and Shannon I did not think they were in jeopardy before and now I think this only cements that.

Sincerely,

Mr. Wonderful

 
At 2:29 PM, Blogger James Young said...

I think we should all thank NBM for giving us insight into the inner workings of the Roemmelt campaign.

Anyone who thinks that a union thug like Roemmelt has a prayer in the 13th needs to put down whatever they're smokin' for a few minutes. Roemmelt embarrassed himself last years with his virulent and strident support for the Poodle in letters to local papers. While it doubtless endeared him to Democrat Kool-Aid drinkers, it's wonderful ammunition for Marshall.

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

Good points Marty. Those are all the reasons we called the 13th for Marshall two months ago.

However, this issue COULD change two things

1) The 13th has a lot of new residents moving in who know nothing about Virginia and who do not plan to vote this November. It's hard to say if they represent the same demographic that is already in this district.

2) It brings additional attention to this issue to voters who have been for Bob before. As you say, his positions on land use are very popular in his area, so additional issues don't help him.

In short, change is the one thing that can really hurt incumbents.

 
At 2:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a focus on abortion can elect a black governor in Virginia, it can certainly affect legislative races as well, although probably those closest to the margins.

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the Poodle?

 
At 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NMR--
You are right on. I can't believe that anyone who has any political knowledge would think that who Bush picks for Supreme Court Justice will sway some toss-ups in Northern Virginia--especially the Frederick/Barg race. She claims she's a "Republicrat"--whatever that means...

 
At 4:11 PM, Blogger Virginia Centrist said...

I don't think this will affect the race. For two reasons:

1. Even if Bush nominates someone ultra-conservative (which I doubt he'll do) abortion will still be legal for at least 1-2 years. Arguably there's a 6-3 majority right now for modest abortion rights...

2. While this will bring abortion up in the priorities of issues debated, many Republicans will continue to smear their opponents as pro-partial birth abortion. Democrats will smear their opponents as anti-choice. And Republicans (in NOVA, except for Craddock and Golden) will moderate their positions. It's not really going to be a huge issue in my opinion.

 
At 4:15 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

My sources tell me otherwise. I hear Democrats are already planning to try to take over Northern VA on this issue with it's new relevance. All is a guessing game until we see who is nominated, obviously a pro-choice moderate would crush this as an issue. I don't see that happening.

VA Centrist may be correct on the actual Supreme Court vote breakdown but the media will not play that way.

Another interesting twist is Pro-Choice Democrat Tim Kaine has been remade as a "Pro-Life who will keep abortion legal" candidate. When Leslie Byrne and the Northern Virginia Democrats begin hammering this issue where does that leave waffling Tim?

 
At 4:37 PM, Blogger not paul goldman said...

Tim is going to be left twisting in the wind...stick a fork in him he is done....he cannot get out of this one..having invoked his faith..he has left himself no where to go...

 
At 4:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Tim pro-life or pro-choice?

 
At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Not Jeff Frederick said...

Don't forget the 52nd district... Frederick is a Delay lackey and every move by the conservatives in DC reflects on him...

so as this heats up look for Barg to gain ground and make a serious charge for Frederick's seat...

 
At 6:02 PM, Anonymous RD said...

Marty is very correct.

Roemmelt cannot wrap himself in the Dean wing of the Democratic party and have any hope of winning in the 13th.

 
At 6:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Kaine is neither Pro-Choice or Anti-Choice.

He's multiple choice.

 
At 6:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone asked ealrier what a "republicrat" is. I would point them to Russ Potts. He calls himself an "independent republican". In the end, both are politicians who put their finger in the wind to find out how they stand on an issue.

 
At 6:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must disagree with the premise on the abortion issue. There are just as many conservatives who stay away from the polls because of the US Supreme Court. While they would normally support a candidate who would abolish abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is at risk, they instead choose not to vote because they have seen the Supreme Court heinously knock down law after law that restricts anything more than completely free access to unregulated abortion up to full term. This kind of change in the court would actually give them a reason to vote. There also are I suspect a number of pro-life Dems who would consider crossing over if they thought something might really be accomplished.

I fail to see where contraception would ever be an issue of concern as one blogger suggested. Except in the case of contraception where the ending of a human life is concerned (e.g. abortion itself or RU-486 and other similar drugs that actually kill the human embryo post fertilization). There is nowhere near enough support for that on either side of the aisle.

I also think the selection of a conservative Supreme Court Justice would impact a number of other issues on the minds of voters that could skew your assessment. Issues like private property rights, definition of marriage, ethics of euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research to name a few might just help the Republicans out some as well. It's short-sighted to look at this solely through the abortion prism.

Finally, what I really think would happen is it would force a number of Republican legislators to put-up or shut-up on the issue since I believe there are many who use abortion as an election issue, but in reality have no concern for the sanctity of life a'la Russ Potts.

 
At 7:13 PM, Anonymous Not Bob Marshall said...

The reality of the 13th district is that there are two dominant groups of Republicans. One group (the smaller, but more active) is the right-wing Catholics, some of whom have settled in the area to be close to Marshall's very right wing parish and who support either homeschooling or the new Catholic elementary school, who completely oppose reproductive freedom (including contraceptives), who believe there is a "homosexual agenda" and fear it, and who supported Marshall's dramatic antics in the Hugh Finn case.

The other group of Republicans are the more traditional libertarian-leaning conservatives who believe in small government, both when it comes to investment in public infrastructure and government interference in personal lives. These Republicans have been embarrassed to be associated with Marshall for a long time. They don't believe that goverment should stop women from taking the pill. They may not support gay marriage, but they don't believe gay people are trying to take over Virginia and turn everyone into "sodomites". And they absolutely didn't believe Marshall should have created a circus around the Hugh Finn tragedy.

Look at Marshall's anemic fundraising. He's gotten big support from predictable anti-abortion extremists, but not much from the Republican establishment. Most of his Republican colleagues in the House would be happy if he would just go away. And quietly, there are some in his district who hope he can be beaten this time because they believe they can run a more mainstream conservative Republican in '07 and trounce Roemmelt.

If aggressive campaigning and door-to-door outreach are characteristic of the "Dean wing", then Roemmelt is certainly guilty of that. But standing up for bread-and-butter issues and pointing out Marshall's obsession with fringe social issues is hardly out of the mainstream.

And if you think a few letters to the editor are going to hurt Roemmelt, what about all the crazy stuff that Marshall has published over the years? I guarantee there's a lot more out of the mainstream stuff that Marshall has written just in the last two years.

 
At 7:17 PM, Anonymous Not Bob Marshall said...

To the commenter above who suggested that there is no risk to contraceptives, I suggest that you look only to the failure of the Birth Control Protection Act this year. That bill said simply that contraceptives are not abortion and should not be governed by Virginia's very restrictive abortion laws. And it FAILED - and "mainstream" Devolites-Davis was instrumental in killing it. And you don't think access to contraceptives is at risk?

 
At 7:41 PM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

NBM- If you are right that "Most of his Republican colleagues in the House would be happy if he would just go away," why would they, in 2001, have drawn the district lines in a manner that gave him one of the most solidly Republican districts in the state?

NLS - You make a good point about the impact of population growth on this race. The new registrations in precincts like Linton Hall, Bristow Run and Tyler probably don't represent a group that have any specific loyalty to Marshall because they don't know much about him. But that doesn't mean they won't vote for him as these precincts have been going Republican. Meanwhile, Woodbine, Nokesville, Brentsville, Catharpin, Buckhall, Evergreen, Haymarket... These precincts are not just solidly Republican, they are solidly Marshall territory.

 
At 7:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a longtime Prince William resident I will tell you two things:

Unless Marshall steps on it or some sort of gigantic seachange occurs he will win. If Marhsall loses the Dems will take back the House and no one sees that happening.

Frederick is toast. Hilda Barg is more well-known and well-liked. "Dead Man Walking" has his spaced reserved as a temporary blip on Virginia politics radar.

Aside from Barg's inherent strengths, this district went for Warner, Kerry, and gave Davis his toughest time. Even my old friend Jim Young would would be hard-pressed a Frederick victory.

 
At 7:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Supervisor Nohe - they drew Marshall's district to be one of the most solidly Republican district to help McQuigg in the east and create an open seat (that became Lingamfelter's)with a clear Republican lean. As we all agree western PWC is solidly Republican, it would almost be impossible to draw a legislative map and not put Marshall in a very R district.

Here's the real dirty little secret (as opposed to the crap book someone wrote by that name). The reason they dropped Jay O'Brien's district into Prince William the way they did is because the Republican Senators do not Marshall in the Senate. Hence they created a Fairfax County dominated Senate seat that encompasses Bob Marshall's home.

 
At 8:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NBM you are incorrect on the contraception bill. Such a bill would have protected just the practice I mentioned above declaring items such as RU-486 and "morning after" pill as contraceptives and therefore untouchable. Both of these items if used as prescribed kill unborn children and would codify in Virginia law a basic disrespect to our fundamental inalienable right to life. Anyone who thinks that conservative Republicans really want to make traditional birth control pills, condoms, and other true "contraceptives" (methods to keep fertilization from occurring rather than ending the life of the living unborn human) is smoking too much weed. Don't confuse personal views of some with policy direction of a whole movement. I know many Catholics (some legislators) who personally disagree with contraception, but would never consider trying to force their opinion on others. Contraception is not a Sanctity of life issue when you remove those methods that kill unborn children. There is not even a miniscule percentage of opinion on this planet to legally restrict real contraception methods.

 
At 9:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most-single issue Governor's race I can remember was Doug Wilder's 1989 race after the Supreme Court hinted that regulating abortion was up to the states. It definitely looks like a rerun of that campaign and Kilgore is on the wrong side of public opinion.

The race I see this affecting the most is the 68th Marrs-Waddell race which was already a Republican anti-choice/pro-choice battle.

 
At 10:06 PM, Anonymous rd said...

NBM- When I refer Mr. Roemmelt wrapping himself in the "Dean Wing" I refer to this:

http://www.outletmedia.com/bruce2005/archives/2005_02.php

He cannot win in the 13th without moving away from his Union & Dean banner.

 
At 10:15 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

9:33 anonymous, we have a thread for discussion on NLS. We said a week ago, we are not going to let every discussion get killed by someone posting the same thing over and over.

I think I have let you say everything you want more than a few times. Now please let other people discuss what they are interested in also.

 
At 10:22 PM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

Good point on the 68th.

 
At 10:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh please, Tim is hardly waffling on abortion. He had the same position as Kerry and that didn't hurt him among pro choice voters.

 
At 11:52 PM, Blogger Virginia Centrist said...

"Issues like private property rights, definition of marriage, ethics of euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research to name a few might just help the Republicans out some as well."

This makes me laugh. Sure, the supremes screwed up on the New London case. But the rest of your examples are hack republican crap...

"definition of marriage"? Where has the supreme court weighed in on this issue?

"ethics of euthanasia"? Let's pretend like this phrase makes any sense. I suppose you're referring to the Schaivo case, where 80% of the country supported pulling the plug.

"cloning" - What a non issue if there ever was one. Who the hell supports cloning?

"embryonic stem cell research"? That's an issue that, if it ever gets media play, works against the Republicans. After all, Nancy Reagan is a huge supporter of it. Polls show that 60-70% of americans support it. How is that going to help Republicans in NOVA?

NO - whoever that anon was is a complete Republican Hack.

 
At 7:00 AM, Blogger Not Larry Sabato said...

VAcentrist and Anon that VAcentrist just blasted-

Anonymous those are good base issues. But you missed my entire point. Pro-Choice voters have been ignoring that issue because they feel like it is settled. Those issues you list won't excite people to the polls if they feel like they have won them.

I agree with vacentrist that none of them are going to be major fall issues, except perhaps marriage.

 
At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened to the Cathy Belter endorsement on Marsden's webpage?

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous Not Bob Marshall said...

Anon 8:26 -

Read the Birth Control Protection Act yourself. It absolutely does not apply to RU-486, which everyone in the medical establishment recognizes as a form of abortion.

The "morning after" pill is something else entirely, and if you don't understand the difference between the two, you are the one who is smoking weed. (Or just woefully ignorant.) The so-called "morning after" pill prevents conception; therefore, it is "contraception". And the medically accepted definition of conception is the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus. When an egg is fertilzed outside of the woman (for instance, with assisted reproduction methods such as IVF) no one considers the woman PREGNANT - and conception has not occurred - until the fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus. Eggs naturally become fertilized all the time in the absence of contraception, but they don't become pregnancies until the eggs implant in the uterus. Anything which prevents that is contraception.

If you believe that methods of contraception which prevent ovulation and also may prevent implantation should be treated the same as methods of abortion, which terminate an established pregnancy, then you are as out of the mainstream as Bob Marshall and Dick Black. The fact is, studies have shown that the "morning after pill" works by preventing ovulation. Like regular oral contraceptives, the morning after pill cannot and does not abort an established pregnancy.

Of course, if you think that women who use contraception are "chemical love canals for frat house playboys" (as Marhshall himself has said) then there's probably no reason to continue this conversation. But personally I'd rather be represented by a delegate who respects science and medicine and wants to actually reduce abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place - and that's Bruce Roemmelt.

 
At 8:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For one, I do not accept the medical establishment's definition of contraception. To me there is a basic fact in biology that one the egg is fertilized you have a new human life with a set of DNA separate from both its mother and father. Whether it is implanted in the womb is meaningless. This is a separate human life and from a moral perspective it should be protected as our founding documents recognize. The "morning after" pill will end this life by design even if in most cases it prevents fertilization, in some cases it will end the life of a fertilized egg. This is not extremism, it is biological fact, If you choose to ignore that this is a human life, that's your choice (and the medical profession's), but I think I am on more firm ethical ground. Also, this does have implications to things like embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and yes IVF itself. All of these techniques have huge ethical life issues that we should allow to be debated in the public square. I for one believe if this were to happen, more people would likely be on my side.

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Not Narrow-Minded said...

Last I checked, no one was "preventing" debate on embryonic stem cell research, IVF, or human cloning. There has been significant public debate on all of these issues and in each case a wide public consensus has been reached. Embryonic stem cell research has broad approval ratings, among both progressives and conservatives. Human cloning has been deemed unacceptable by wide swaths of the population, just as IVF has becomes a popular method of reproductive therapy. If you disapprove of IVF, I would suggest that you don't practice it, just as if you disapprove of embyonic stem cell research, I would suggest that you refrain from benefiting from any positive results.

The argument that life begins at fertilization does not stand on any firmer ethical ground than the arguments of the "medical establishment" or anyone else. I was unaware that there existed a consesus within the medical profession of when life begins. Personally, I believe that life begins when a fetus is able to exist independently of the mother's womb. However, I recognize that vast numbers of people disagree with me on that topic, and therefore I would refrain from pushing my views onto anyone else as I would expect them to refrain from instilling their perspectives upon me. Our founding fathers, as the previous anonymous invoked, favored civilized and informed discourse within our democracy. Perhaps its time that we learned to respect each others opinions and return to that principle.

 
At 11:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree anonymous that civil discourse is required and I also believe my posts have been both civil and respectful of others opinions. The crux of my argument however is that innocent life is precious and should also be respected. Our founding fathers thought it important enough to include reference to that basic right both in the original founding document (the Declaration of Independence) and the current governing document (the Constitution of the United States). For this reason it is critical to have an open and complete discussion on the sanctity of human life in the public square along with a thorough discussion on just when life begins. As the President has said, it is best in this case to err on the side of life.

I have to disagree with you on this point on most of the issues you mention above. I doubt that most people you claim polled in favor of embryonic stem cell research were aware that a living human being was destroyed in order to create those lines of stem cells. I also doubt that most people are aware that for every successful IVF procedure there are possibly dozens of fertilized embryos frozen for unlimited periods of time. I find it unethical to not give those humans any choice in the matter as to how their life unfolds or is ended.

To be specific I am not opposed to the IVF procedure itself, just to the inhumane practice of freezing living embryos (read living humans) for perpetuity. If IVF could be accomplished without leaving these fertilized embryos lying around or destroying them, I might be much more supportive of it. I doubt even that many who have undergone this procedure have given a second thought to the fact that these are living human beings. The medical profession for the most part glosses over this because of it's ambition to create new procedures, possible cures that might help some, and yes to increase their bottom line.

I am not interested in forcing my opinion on anyone, but in certain cases the government is there to protect the weak from the tyrrany of the powerful. The voices of the unborn are not being hear by and large in our society in most of these areas and were there an informed populace, I doubt there would be a majority of support for them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home