Right-to-Life: Saxton's Cool

Over at The Christian Post, they've got a story on Ron Saxton's relationship to the pro-life movement:

Gayle Atteberry, the group’s executive director, says Right to Life won’t formally endorse Saxton because he’s not a “pro-life” candidate by the group’s way of thinking. That’s because Saxton won’t embrace an outright ban on abortion, she said.

At the same time, though, Atteberry said Right to Life might “recommend” to its members that they support Saxton because he does back some restrictions on abortions.

She said Right to Life doesn’t intend to support Starrett or any other third-party contender.

“We try to deal in reality, and the reality is that either a Democrat or a Republican is going to win the governor’s race,” Atteberry said. “And there’s a very obvious contrast between the two — Ron Saxton will sign pro-life legislation, and Ted Kulongoski will veto it.”


  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    "Ron Saxton will sign pro-life legislation, and Ted Kulongoski will veto it."

    Not a surprising statement whether true or not. Atteberry and the religious right have always been more Republican than religious.

    But that is a quote Kulongoski ought to use over and over again. The more Saxton disowns it, the more of his right-wing base will peal off or stay home. And the more he embraces it, the more moderate Republicans move to Westlund or Kulongoski.

  • DifferentSalemStaffer (unverified)

    Personally, I think this is great news for the pro-choice community.

    It shows that the pro-lifers are willing to embrace and support someone who's not 100% toeing the line... No, I'm not going to vote for Saxton, but it's certainly a step in the right (er... left)direction for the pro-lifers.

    A few cycles down the road, Republican candidates will start to notice that they don't have to be 100% pro-life to hold on to their base.

  • John Capardoe (unverified)

    I wish we could get rational about the abortion issue, it is not black and white as the R's and D's make out, and focus on solving the bigger problems we have in society. I have been an abortion rights supporter for women for years, but find aborting a viable fetus without any catostropic medical issues unthinkable.

    What is rediculous is there was even some debate on one extreme over whether some forms of birth control like the IUD's were actually working by creating mini-abortions and should be banned, to the equally absurd partial birth abortion mills. Why can't we just set a sliding scale of regulatory interest. The first month, morning after pill, etc, is just no one's concern but the woman, and really not have any involvment of law until the fetus is viable outside the womb, and make medical care available on both ends with birth control on the leading end and prenatal care and a path to adoption on the other end.

    I don't know too many women who will get all wild eyed about rights to abort a viable fetus, but when a soul or person is formed as opposed to a fetus viable is clearly a religious belief, and not something the goverment should be imposing regulation on.

  • geno (unverified)

    How uncomplicated all of life would be if we could just see everything in black and white. Just think of all the free, uncluttered time available when one no longer needs to question, ponder, cogitate, research and learn - you know think for themselves. Life must be idyllic in the fundamentalist world. I mean once you know all the answers, is there any good reason to consume yourself with critical thought? Oh well, I enjoy the thrill and adventure of continuing the search, it seems to engender evolution. A concept unaccepted in the world of black and white.

  • John Capradoe (unverified)

    The point is that all abortion is hunky dory is as absurd a statement as no abortion is hunky dory. The loony left has as big a problem with rational thought as the religious right.

    I am so sick of loony and religious, in lieu of rational and lucid.

    Women with wanted prenancy will tell you they start communicating with the little person inside you long before birth and I played the poking game with my son while he was still inside that swollen belly. He responded when you spoke to him, he was a person who deserved protection, where a morning after pill the woman has no idea whether she is pregnant or not, only she doesn't want to be.

    I am sorry but the left who would terminate that little person I knew in the final stages of pregnancy without reservation or medical catastrope is as loony as the religious right is on this issue.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    find aborting a viable fetus without any catostropic medical issues unthinkable.

    Is this issue not black and white? The question is should government, lawyers and courts decide when and whether a pregnancy should end? Or should it be left up to the woman and her doctor?

    If you answer that it is a decision for government, lawyers and courts to decide then you need to establish laws and criteria for them to make the decision. Then it becomes a political decision - how many people think this woman should have an abortion if she wishes? How many people think this woman should have an abortion whether she wants to or not?

    Frankly, I think the idea that politicians should not make that decision is about as black and white as any decision I can think of.

    And, like John, I find the idea of him having an abortion as unthinkable as it is for me.

  • John Capardoe (unverified)


    I think we can agree, the issue has no place in politics or as a political issue, and wastes a lot of time and energy and accomplishes nothing but fundraising for the radical right. This at at time when we need to be discussing global warming, the economy, and other issues that people can make some meaningful decisions and work together on solving that will effect our future well being and not something like a discussion between a woman and her Dr. and agree to disagree.

    The thing that kills me is if you heard Lars Larson carry on bashing the woman who had her child in a local hospital last week using a fake name and left it there legally. That's what I mean to say about options for women once the baby can survive outside the womb, the woman bravely exercised it and that baby will get a chance, and she shouldn't be made to feel bad about it. I was in the room when my son was born, and it is a miracle of sorts and one we should celebrate not snuff out if the child has a reasonable chance to a healthy life and be adopted by a family. We are not talking forcing a woman to go through a pregnacy here, we are talking she has been pregnant for quite some time, the baby is viable, can breathe on its own, does not need the mother to survive. If she has been pregnant for 6 months and there is nothing medically wrong with the baby, is it too much to ask she give it a couple of weeks more before she walks away, as long as we as a society agree to shelter and medicaly care for her, and protect her against any harm that might come from an abusive spouse or other relative.

    If the answer is no, then what about the woman really wanted that child and an abusive spouse whacks her in the belly and killed the baby is it murder if the baby dies just before or just after deliver from the trama. That unfortunately is a legal question, or is this just a late term abortion initiated by an abusive father.

    I'm sorry but I also pick up stray animals and try and nurse them back to health too. I believe in life and giving life a chance when ever possible.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    John -

    There are a lot of "what if's" to the question of why a woman decides to have an abortion. As a practical matter, a healthey mother does no have a healthy fetus aborted after six months. Its hard to say never, but that is as close to never as it gets. After six months abortions are done almost entirely because the mother's life is in jeapordy. There may be some doctors who will perform an abortion on a severely damaged fetus, but even that is rare.

    The fact is you can trust women to make the decision and they will get it right 99% of the time. You can't get those same results from politicians, judges, lawyers and courts.

  • John Capradoe (unverified)


    I learned something, this is from the ACLU website.

    Myth: Abortion bans are necessary to prevent elective abortions late in pregnancy.

    Fact: Abortion bans are not confined to any stage of pregnancy, and third-trimester abortions are not elective.

    Don't women seek elective third-trimester abortions?
    No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake. <i>

    I wonder what 10 states are that don't have the referenced Statute.

    Ohio, must be one. This is from testimony from congress.

    Doctors Haskell and McMahon were the subjects of tape-recorded interviews with the American Medical News in 1993, in which they addressed many of the disputed issues surrounding this abortion method. For example, Haskell said that 80% of these abortions were "purely elective" in his practice. Dr. Haskell is a family practitioner who has performed over 1,000 such abortions in his walk-in abortion clinics. Dr. McMahon performed thousands of these abortions before he died in October, 1995.

    I remeber watching an interview with one of these women in Ohio, I can't remember where, but she had been threatened by a boyfriend if she didn't get rid of the baby, and was quite scarred by the experience. She had been a walk in with no medical care or exam to say the baby was anything but normal.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    I remeber watching an interview with one of these women in Ohio,

    Television is an interesting. Unlike the internet, people believe anything they see represents some element of the truth. But you can find people who will say and do almost anything to get on TV.

    This is from testimony from congress.

    According to congressional testimony, global warming doesn't exist and evolution is just a theory with no more credibility than creationism or intelligent design. The right to life folks have trotted out all sorts of nonsense regarding late abortions.

    That said, Haskell and McMahon may have violated medical ethics and/or the laws of their state. Making late abortions illegal doesn't prevent people from having them, it just makes them and their doctors criminals.

  • been there (unverified)

    It's so easy to know what other people should do. But you never know when you'll find yourself somewhere you never thought you'd be.

    I was depressed during my pregnancy six years ago. After months of painful ambivalence I made an appointment and travel arrangements to fly to Kansas, the last state at that time that would perform an abortion that late in the pregnancy. On the day I was to go, I called the clinic with additional questions. Two medical staff listened and quickly figured out that I was suffering from depression. They were extremely compassionate -- They encouraged me to get counseling, and said they would not perform the procedure since I was buried under piles of grief already and that my ambivalence told them I would be worse off emotionally if I went through with it. They lost their $8,000 fee by refusing to follow through with the appointment, but this shows me that these people are very compassionate and ethical, and were wisely discriminating in whether to provide the service.

in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon