Pro-Life Fiorina Outraged When Called Pro-Life

Senate candidate Carly Fiorina wants you to know she's pro-life. But she wants everyone to know that she's not like really really pro-life.

She's kinda' OK with life, not totally against it but if someone wanted to be against it she'd be cool with that too. But if you wanted to do something kinda' pro-life she might be into that too maybe if it maybe wouldn't hurt her candidacy.

Last night, Fiorina freaked out at the debate because Senator Barbara Boxer has accused her of being pro-life.

From The Politico:

But when the moderator, KPCC’s Patt Morrison, raised the lightning-rod issue of abortion rights, Fiorina accused Boxer of engaging in a "unconscionable shocking misrepresentation" of her record to divert voters’ attention.

While Fiorina considers herself "pro-life" and has the backing of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony Group, she said she does not support the criminalization of abortion in any instance, would not introduce legislation to ban abortion and promised not to use the issue as a litmus test in determining her support for candidates nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So she's pro-life but wouldn't make it against the law, wouldn't introduce legislation to make it against the law, and wouldn't work to put judges in place who would rule in a pro-life manner.

But she considers herself pro-life so don't worry. I'm starting to think that Carly Fiorina might just be pro-Carly Fiorina.

Here's the rule. Pro-life with caveats means you're not pro-life. Got it?


  1. Ah, politics. The art of choosing the least offensive candidate.

    Unfortunately there aren't any better options on the scene right now. Not practical ones. One has to do the best one can, with the material one has. Sadly. And a Senate with Carly Fiorina in it instead of Barbara Boxer (my fingers rebel at even typing her name) would be an improvement, even if only a small one.

  2. Right Paul, vote for Carly Fiorina so that the Republican establishment can continue to pretend to be pro-life so that the pro-life rubes will keep voting for worthless Republican candidates like Carly Fiorina who will do nothing to end the slaughter. Keep doing the exact same things you've been doing for the last 40 years with absolutely no positive results - that makes a lot of sense.

    A nation that murders its young does not deserve to survive

  3. "A nation that murders its young does not deserve to survive".

    Amen to that!! I am sick of so-called fiscal conservatives who imagine that the issues are mainly economic when this country has already slaughtered up to 50 millions unborn infants since 1973 with substantial taxpayer financed money voted on by moderate Republicans. Between abortion and our rampant sexual depravity, we are a nation on a track to becoming moribund with a generation.

  4. At least most republicans won't force me to pay for abortions. On the other hand I tend to agree with the comments above

  5. I think of the supposed need for abortion as a symptom. Maybe us women deserve what we have settled for. Two wrongs don't make a right (pun intended).

  6. So the choices seem to be to vote for Fiorina, to vote for Boxer, or to not vote. If you don't vote for Fiorina, you are not helping to defeat Boxer. Doesn't this mean that the proper thing to do is to vote for Fiorina, the lesser of the two "evils?"

  7. Doesn't this mean that the proper thing to do is to vote for Fiorina, the lesser of the two "evils?"

    The problem with this is how quickly it turns into the Devil's Mambo in which evil takes two steps to the left toward Hell and our vote for the lesser evil is one step right. Eventually one has to refuse to dance.

  8. Nevertheless, there will be an election, and somebody is going to win. Unless one doesn't care about the outcome, what is one to do?

  9. Anonymous, you are assuming that all people who don't vote don't care about the election. This is not true. Not voting is a legitimate choice. We've somehow accepted this nonsense that all good citizens must vote. The former Soviet Union had elections in which almost 100% of the citizens voted. What a joke. Better to not vote than to give your vote to a jerky Republican which will only reinforce the establishment's strategy of duping the pro-life rubes as they have been doing for 40 years. Don't vote - it only encourages them.

  10. Geronimo, good point. I don't know the answer; I wish I did. I just don't want to give the election to Boxer.

  11. I personally will no longer dance the dance romishgraffiti describes. A politician must deserve my vote. Carly seems to not want it - she is consciously sacrificing my (and those of people like me) to get others. Actually, she is hoping we will see her as tolerable.

    Sorry, Carly. I WANT you to introduce pro-life legislation. I WANT abortion to be illegal. I WANT you to consider it for appointing judges. If you aren't that person. I will vote for someone who will - even if they are not likely to succeed.

    Given the choice, I would rather be faithful that successful as the world sees it.

  12. If I had to live in California, this time around I would probably hold my nose and vote for Fiorina (after campaigning for a better candidate in the primary) to help take the Senate away from Democrats - or at least this seat for the next six years. And during her term, help to recruit an authentic, viable replacement to challenge in the primaries and seek to advance the Culture of Life in California to the extent that candidates like Boxer and Fiorina are less possible going forward.

    Pax et bonum

  13. Well, this is a sad day.

  14. There is a fourth alternative -- vote for Fiorina and fight, fight, fight to make her feel and listen to the PRO-LIFE heat: Get out the pro-life vote by getting out to educate, by speaking out in words or presence at abortion clinics, at pro-life pregnancy centers, by supporting advocates for life issues that defend human life -- including groups like the Thomas More Center and the American Center for Law and Justice. Whoever does the hard and good work, send them money and pray for them. Pray and fast. The Fiorina's of Congress will listen then or lose out. Make them hear us, the NEW fourth estate, the one that tells the truth and tells it tenaciously.

  15. Bottom line. If the GOP takes the leadership of the senate back it absolutely helps the pro-life cause. Vote for Fiorina.

  16. Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned by introducing legislation, and who's more likely to nominate a pro-life SCOTUS candidate? Don't be foolish, vote for Fiorina.

  17. blah blah blah - same old stuff we've been hearing for the last 35 years. Let me fill you all in a little secret - the Republican party is not pro-life, never has been and never will be.

    Here's a little factoid for those of you who like to talk about SCOTUS candidates. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 by a vote of 7-2 - that's 7 baby-killers v. 2 men with brains. The next 6 vacancies on the Court were filled by Republican presidents. Let me repeat that in case you didn't get it - the next 6 vacancies were filled by Republican presidents. If the Republican party were pro-life we would have had an 8-1 majority on the Supreme Court. Instead, of those 6 justices appointed by Republican presidents, only 2, count them please, 2 were pro-life.

    But facts don't seem to matter to die-hard Republicans. So, go ahead and keep doing the exact same thing all the pro-life rubes have been doing for the last 35 years.

  18. geronimo, the Senate has to approve SCOTUS candidates. Remember the fight to get Thomas on there? What about what happened to Bork? Kennedy took that spot, and has been wishy-washy.

    I'm not saying the Republican presidents have appointed the greatest people, but they have had to deal with a Democratic Senate most of the time.

    So, blame it on the Republicans if you want, but I place the blame mostly on the Senate Democrats making it clear that they would block the appointment of any pro-Life nominee.

  19. Sorry, Matthew, but your argument doesn't fly.

    The Republicans controlled the Senate during the first 6 years of Reagan's presidency, and whom did this great pro-lifer give us for his first appointment? Yes, the mental midget Sandy "Baby" O'Connor. He could have appointed anyone he wanted to and the Senate vote was just a rubber stamp. Did you understand what I just said - Reagan could have appointed anyone and instead we got Sandy O!

    You say that the blame is "on the Senate Democrats making it clear that they would block the appointment of any pro-life nominee". Well, how about giving them a chance to actually block the nominee. Following your line of reasoning, you're saying that since a pro-life nominee would be blocked, we'll appoint a pro-baby-killer instead so that the Senate will approve. Instead, why not nominate a pro-lifer, have a big drawn-out fight on national TV for weeks on end, and force the pro-deathers to stand up and be counted. And if they block it, then leave the position vacant - there is no law that requires the President to fill a vacancy in a certain amount of time.

    The only pro-lifer they did block was Bork, but that was because the Reagan administration left him out to swing in the wind. And note that although the pro-deathers tried to block Thomas, they failed even though the Democrats had a majority in the Senate at that time.

  20. We tend to spend a whole lot of energy fighting among ourselves when the enemy is at the gates. Consider that once elected, the senator will communicate with those who supported her election. She will be more likely to take the advice of those who worked with her and naturally to advance our agenda. Get her elected first. Considering the source of the so called statement, I suspect she was trying to diffuse the charge of extreme - something all politicians are prone to do. and it is true that one does not have to use the issue as a litmus test, while still using it as a thresh-hold test. Californians should get rid of Boxer. Boxer is bad news - period. Then if Fiorina fails to do what is needed, she can be replaced.

  21. Geronimo, somewhere is better than nowhere. What you say is true essentially -- for all the pro-life support of Republicans we haven't ended legal abortion. BUT we have curtailed it alot, which means that at least we can get somewhere with a lot of Republicans (but not all). The first week of a Democratic administration and the Mexico City Policy dies, taking a lot of human beings with it. This trend continues. I say let's support the "Repulican Alive Act" and if they show any signs of life, we help them live. Elect them and feed them.

  22. My point is this - keep doing what you have been doing for the last 35 years and you can expect to have the same results. If you're are satisfied with the results of the last 35 years, then by all means, go ahead and continue what you've been doing.

    And by the way D408, we have not curtailed abortion at all legally - It is legal through all nine months of pregnancy (and sometimes after birth) for any reason whatsoever.

  23. And John, the enemy is not at the gates - the enemy is inside the gates and is running the show, as they have been for quite a long time.

  24. The other option is to vote, but vote third party. Every third party vote decreases the winner's percentage of the vote, thereby decreasing the "mandate" for their ideologies. If every pro-life American did this when they didn't have a real pro-life candidate, imagine the embarrassing percentages the winners would have. If they all voted for the same third party candidate, they would win.

    But getting a third party candidate in is not really the point .. it'd be nice, but is unlikely. The point is to move the other parties. Show the Dems that there are people out there who will vote for life. Show the Reps that their wishy-washy pro-life activity isn't good enough. If we all refused to give them our votes, but still gave our votes to someone, imagine what the reaction would be in the parties. The Dems would win far less and the Reps would have to get serious about being genuinely pro-life if they really wanted to win.

    Many pro-lifers criticize those of us who vote third party when there are no real pro-life candidates for helping allow the pro-choice candidate in. But they are the ones who have chosen a provenly ineffective route. And when it comes to voting for people like Scott Brown, they are actually choosing to vote for someone who supports intrinsic evil. The lesser of evils is still evil. And I would rather choose a course of action that could, if more people did it, change the parties rather than choose a course of action that will lead to more of the same of what we've had. No one can say with even a crumb of credibility that the Republican party has been effective for the pro-life cause. In fact, I think there is an argument that they have been a hinderance to the pro-life cause with their unfilled promises.

  25. also Geronimo, if the enemy is within and has been for a long time, whose fault is that? We are the electorate... we each one need to join the war, at each our own task, and understand that we do have right on our side, if, of course, we conduct our fight morally.

  26. geronimo, i define "curtail" as lessening the incidence of abortion. Results! Pro-life elected officials and even occasionally prolife elected officials have helped enact legislation at both the state and federal levels that has: outlawed partial-birth abortion,
    mandated full consent and information,
    mandated parental consent,
    mandated criminal charges of fetal homicide when an expectant mother is killed,
    outlawed use of federal funds for abortion, outlawed the provision of abortion on military bases...
    you get the idea. In come the Dems, who are almost unanimously pro-abortion, as the voting record shows -- any curtailing legislation gets tossed, any restriction at all, beginning with the Mexico City policy.

    We need to fight: Elect Republicans who profess to meet us at least even half way, and then fight to bring them the rest of the way.

  27. Republicans are pro-life when we vote, not when they vote.

  28. That should be, republican politicians

  29. Thank god this country still separates Church and State. If you pro-lifers had your way 12 - 18 yr/ old girls would be dieing left and right from back alley abortions. When are you going to learn that America is about difference of opinion, just because you feel your opinion is right, and you have the moral and religious high ground, doesn't mean everyone else should follow.

    If abortion was banned, do you pro-lifers have a plan to take care of the influx of homeless foster children in this country? If you're a pro-lifer, and you don't have 10 adopted children yet, you're a part of the problem and should keep your political opinions to yourself. There's already hundreds of thousands of children that were born, and have no home, why can't you focus all this energy on saving the ones that are alive?

    Oh, and lastly, if you're republican, supported the war, and you're pro-life, you're very very confused about reality. It's cool to kill living men women and children, but eliminating a grouping of cells that can't sustain life on it's own, now that's a problem.

    You people disgust me.


Post a Comment