A 'pro-life' candidate has said that if he were elected governor and the opportunity to change the abortion laws in this state were given to him he would not do it."The current laws in the state of Michigan are sufficient."
The question was then reasked and the response repeated by the liberal media questioner. It seems as though he was quite surprised by the candidate's response.
If you do not believe it- check the transcript. And, no, I am not a Democrat. I just cannot support any candidate that does not uphold what the LORD requires of us.
The LORD hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? -Micah 6.8
25 comments:
I agree. I was shocked.
I didn't watch the last debate, but I was really expecting to agree with Devos. He just seemed to be the weaker canidate in almost aspect. And really, not taking a stand on abortion...? Why?
"I just cannot support any candidate that does not uphold what the LORD requires of us."
If you truly believe this, then there isn't a single candidate you can support. You show me the candidate you think fits that requirement, and I'll show you why he doesn't.
Michigan law already outlaws abortion, if the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade the state wouldn't have to do anything because the previous law would be constitutional and enforcable.
Then why didn't he say that? Clearly there is a demographic that doesn't know (like me and my roomates) all that much about where abortion is legal and where it is not. He definitely made it sound like he was pro-choice.
I don't know why he didn't say that, maybe he thought people knew, maybe it slipped his mind.
Steve
With all due respect, DeVos was NOT talking about a Michigan law that is obsolete since Roe v. Wade.
He was talking about CURRENT Michigan law:
From Wood TV8:
However, they differed on abortion rights and stem cell research. DeVos said he is happy with the laws in place in Michigan for abortions, but added he supports a ban on partial-birth abortion. Granholm said DeVos had previously said abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest. She also emphasized the importance of stem cell research. DeVos agreed that it was important, but said only adult stem cells should be used for research.
DeVos has a lot of explaining to do in the next 27 days- I would like to know what he means by this.
Let's consider that the state has no power to overturn Roe v. Wade and if that case is overturned all abortions would be outlawed in Michigan. He's fine with the current laws, which have some sort of parental notification and he wants to add a partial birth abortion ban. Really, what more can he be expected to support? The state is only allowed to put so many restrictions on abortion, Michigan has many of them already, what more do you want? He's already said he's pro-life and wants the whole thing outlawed but in the end, the Governor doesn't have the power to outlaw abortion unless the Supreme Court overturns Roe.
Even Granholm- who is a Harvard Law graduate- found his comment to be one that did not sound to be prolife. Watch the debate- wood tv has it for realplayer- she was shocked!
The question was then reasked by the questioner- because he obviously could not believe it either- and then DeVos did this odd little wrinkle of the nose thing and repeated that he was fine with current MI laws.
Is Christ fine with them?
I just think he should have been a bit more clear in his comment. It was shocking and confusing. According to records the law has been repealed anyways...is this only because of the Federal law?
We cannot read into what he was saying. We will take him at what he said and hope he clarifies. We have emails sent out in hopes of some clarification.
As far as I know, Michigan's abortion ban is still on the books and is only invalid because of Roe.
Seeing what DeVos said, it seems clear to me that he isn't going to place any further restrictions on abortion. The fact is, there really aren't any more restrictions that the state can legally enforce. I'm sure he's trying to appear as to not be extreme on the issue, which I don't per se like. On the other hand, it's clear that he understands that he can't do anything more to further restrict abortions in Michigan, save the partial birth ban he wants.
Let's keep in mind, he's running for Governor and this stuff really isn't in his hands. It's in the hands of the Supreme Court. This is why we vote for Republicans for President, so they'll overturn Roe. We're close with Roberts and Alito, we really just need one more.
I listened to the video again (at about the 46:50 minutes mark) and the question was clear. --If there was a bill placing further limits on abortion.....
Further limits. That is clear. That seems to apply to the current law and changing it and "further limiting" it.
DeVos said he is comfortable with the law. He made it clear that the CURRENT law....the law allowing for abortion....he again left it up to being a people of conscience. He stressed the disgusting partial-birth abortion being wrong, but he did not stress the killing of babies in the womb as wrong.
I don't know. He claims pro-life....but will he defend and help change it?
"I just cannot support any candidate that does not uphold what the LORD requires of us."
Then I suppose that you're going to stop voting for the rest of your life now, Nate?
I understand COMPLETELY where you are coming from, but seriously, who of US here upholds what the LORD requires of us? We may try, but we all fall far short.
One way or another, either Granholm or DeVos is going to be elected governor of Michigan, with or without you. But that one vote - one vote - can help sway the outcome of the election.
If Granholm gets it, then we stay with the status quo. If DeVos gets in, there's at least the possibility of the status quo changing in Lansing. The question is: are you going to abstain from the democratic process simply because the candadites are sinners?
Here's what I don't get - if state law bans abortion as it is, then why argue for a partial-birth abortion ban? Wouldn't that already be covered? Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's pro-choice, but that strikes me as political posturing.
As for the state law - Roe v. Wade is clearly an unbiblical ruling. What we need is a state government that will stand up to the feds and enforce the current anti-abortion laws.
Mark, the abortion ban is on the books but it is trumped by Roe v. Wade, therefore there is no abortion ban unless Roe is overturned. We would need a seperate partial birth ban if we wanted to ban that practice today.
Michigan has most of the allowable restrictions on abortion, I'm sure that DeVos had that in mind when he made his comment. He understands that there isn't anything more the Governor can do to restrict abortion in Michigan. He's on the record as being pro-life, his charitable organization gives money to pro-life causes, this really is a non issue.
But how would a partial-birth ban not be trumped by Roe v. Wade? Not trying to be difficult, but that really doesn't make sense to me.
I think the Supreme Court (it may have been the 6th circuit though) allowed for a partial birth abortion ban, the reasoning was that it only banned a certain procedure and not abortion itself. They demand a life of the mother exception though.
Echuck
I understand your point, but we can be one who stands on and would defend Biblical principles.
When one is in power and they choose not to sign an further restriction on abortion in our state- then they are not standing on a biblical principle.
I am not saying that I would only vote for a sin free candidate- but I will not vote for one who refuses to do what is right either.
As far as never voting again- if my conscience will not allow me to vote- I will not vote!
You know, Right to Life does endorse him. They require strict guidelines for their endorsed candidates to follow. He must have had some interview or questionnarie he had to fill out for them. So, we all have to take him at that. Trust that he will fight for the lives of the unborn moreso than Granholm ever would. Now he just publickly needs to stand up for what he believes. Say that it is wrong even in cases of incest or rape.
Unfortunately, RTL allows for abortion in cases of the mother's life in danger. DeVos' view? I don't know. He may think that, too. Not even the PRC takes a strong stand on that but suggests the parties involved pray for wisdom and clarity on what to do is such a rare circumstance...
Anyways, I do agree with eChuck. One vote is important. I rather get in someone that will be closer to upholding my views than the party of the opposite extreme. But, is it wrong to withhold a vote? Not if your conscience does not allow for it, IMO.
We need to remember prayer in this situation. The power of prayer.
:)
Tell me Nate, what power do you think the Governor has to restrict abortion? Southern governors have tried any number of restrictions and nearly all of them have been ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Courts. Michigan has nearly every restriction it can in place. DeVos understands that and he understands that even if he signed a further restriction it would be overturned by the courts. What's the point in doing that besides creating even more precidence against anti-abortion laws? Seriously Nate, what do you want DeVos to do if he's Governor?
Biblically speaking- sometimes laws are in place as a testimony against something. For example, there is no historical evidence of any parent stoning their own child to death, yet the law was in place in ancient Israel to show the importance of obedience of children and the passing down of the covenant.
Most scholars say that this law stood as a testimony against covenant breakers.
I would like to see him stand up for what is right even if it is a testimony against our current culture of death and enmity against God.
In the event RvW was overturned- then we would be set.
Birn, they didn't ask him what he would do. They asked him if something was brought before him that would put further restrictions on abortion, would he support it. And he said no.
Y'know, if you still want to vote, you may as well go Constitution Party. The MI site is awful - awful! - but you get the general idea. And "Dashairya" would be an awesome name for a governor.
http://www.constitutionpartymi.net/cpmi/Patriot/Dashairya/
Hmm.. let's try that as a link instead.
Thank you Mark. I secretly follow what is going on via their crappy website.
Devin Scillian:
Mr DeVos, abortion law isn't always germane to a gubernatorial race, you've talked before about living under the law of the land, and you told me several months ago that abortion law wasn't the reason why you were running for governor. But we have seen renewed momentum to overturn Roe. vs. Wade in this country, most recently under the pen of the South Dakota governor. If, a bill came to your desk that would place further limits on a woman's right to receive an abortion in Michigan, would you sign it?
DeVos:
Devin, I'm comfortable with the laws that we have in Michigan and I see no change. In fact, I opposed, when there was a proposal, a petition initiative that was in this state that was going to, that was going to change the law around in this state, I actually opposed that legislation. Our current laws are quite sufficient. I’m on the pro-life side of this debate, everybody, I think, in Michigan knows that today, but there are people of conscience of both sides of this very challenging issue and our current laws, as it relates to abortion, as it relates to abortion in Michigan are sufficient. I would say that with one exception, and that exception is this, we should be, we should be banning partial birth abortion, a terrible procedure, a terrible procedure that allows for a child that could be very late term, could be very sustainable, outside the womb to be, to be terminated, to be killed. I just think that's completely unacceptable in Michigan and the Governor vetoed that legislation to change that. I would have signed that legislation. I just don't think a procedure like that is something that should exist in Michigan, in fact, the vast majority of people in Michigan agree with me on that particular problem.
Scillian:
Just so we are clear, apart from that, you're telling your pro-life colleagues in Michigan that, if a bill were to come to you that would further limit abortion in Michigan, you wouldn't sign it.
DeVos:
The bill, the bills, the laws, that exist in Michigan, are sufficient. Thank you.
Granholm:
I find it curious because my opponent has said that he doesn't believe that there should be an exception for abortion even in the case of rape or incest. I , too, would ban partial birth abortion, if there were an exception for the life and the health of the mother, that's what the Supreme Court has said would be constitutional. The bill that came to my desk was not constitutional.
Post a Comment