You’ve got to be kidding me. If Ms. Sumners thinks the wise thing to do is to divide your membership by supporting three diffrent candidates in an effort to defeat the enemy she has a lot to learn about vote counting in a five way primary. This makes no sense at all. Some one please explain it slowly for us dumb folks.

Funny that a person can be anti-choice. I guess Ms. Sumners and her ilk are anti-life. How else could you justify snuffing out life? Or do you prefer Pro-Abortion Ms. Sumners?

Amazedbythelunacy, not all anti-abortion people are “Pro-life”. Some believe in the death penalty which would exclude them from carrying a “Pro-life” banner. Also, some “Pro-Choice” people are anti-death penalty which would not make them “anti-life”. Also, in my opinion people who support War would have a hard time convincing me that they are “Pro-Life” since war by definition involves the killing of another person.

Those who oppose abortion call themselves pro-life, their opponents call them anti-choice. Those who support abortion rights call themselves pro-choice, their opponents call them pro-death or anti-life. During my years as a talk host, I concluded that the best policy was to use the terms each preferred to describe themselves: pro-life, and pro-choice. This didn’t make anybody perfectly happy, but it was fair, and it eliminated the juvenile name calling.

By the way, frank, you’re absolutely right in what you’re saying. Endorsing three of the four candidates is a great way to lose the race when you are a majority in the district.

How about this, if you are in favor of abortion, you are pro-abortion. If you are not in favor of abortion, you are anti-abortion.

If you favor the death penalty, you are pro-death penalt. Against, anti-death penalty. Pretty simple.

Nice try, amazed, but many of those who “favor abortion rights” take great pains to explain that they aren’t “pro-abortion” … they very much wish that nobody ever had to get an abortion, but they think people should be able to get one if they want to. I know, you don’t buy that explanation - but that’s what they say.

I heard that Joan Landmann was NARAL’s volunteer of the year recently. In my book, that means she is the true pro-choice candidate. Her actions match her words/survey. What have the other two done for reproductive rights?

Amazed,

Every major organization that proports to be “pro-life” in this country is also against the use of birth control for family planning or the prevention of STDs. Anti-choice is a more descriptive term when considering that the mission of these organizations is to not only make abortion illegal but to do away with legal birth control as well.

For example, last week the American Life League protested the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that recognized American women’s right to birth control, with a nationwide campaign to protest any Planned Parenthood or other facility that provides birth control.

Griswold DID NOT legalize abortion. They weren’t protesting abortion, they were protesting birth control.

Considering that 98% of American women use some form of barrier or hormonal birth control method in their lifetimes–the anti-choice movement is drastically out of step with the rest of the country.

Since when does NARAL have the corner on the market for any person or any candidate to be “pro-choice” (whatever that term means!). Why does a candidate have to return their questionnaire; why does someone have to seek their endorsement. — In any event, most of us get too wrapped up into the semantics and terminology, using the ‘words’ themselves as mantras/credos. There are many places one can sit on the prolife-prochoice spectrum, albeit there does seem to be one big threshold, namely: is one in agreement with USSC’s constitutional interpretation in Roe v Wade or not; or perhaps even better stated: if one were a legislator, would one initiate or vote for legislation(or a constitut. amendment) to overturn R v W?! … In any event, I have heard Rob Stelzer speak several times this Spring, his story was always the same: he is Catholic and personally more in line with a pro-life view BUT politically has no intention whatsoever to initiate or vote for anything which is contrary to Roe v Wade. In fact, in front of the 15th Ward back in April (date ?) he emphatically stated this, and even stated that he was in favor of easing restrictions for out of state Missourians who had to come into larger Cities for abortions. Perhaps NARAL should have sent someone out to one of those ca. 15 speeches he gave this Spring … oh that’s right, they did have someone there … makes you wonder why they are making this BS up, doesnt it