New Missouri anti-abortion group launches radio ad against Nixon
Missourians United for Life, a new anti-abortion group, announced Sunday night that it has begun a radio ad campaign against the Democratic candidate for governor, Attorney General Jay Nixon.
The group’s spokesman is well-known in Jefferson City and the region’s social-conservative circles. He’s Ed Martin, a St. Louis lawyer long active in the anti-abortion movement and the former chief of staff to Gov. Matt Blunt, who has been in a longstanding political feud with Nixon over several issues.
(Martin also is a key figure in a new national 501c4 group, the American Issues Project, which has launched a TV campaign against Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president. That group has been involved in highlighting the Truth Squad controversy (click here and here) that kept our blog hopping all weekend.)
Martin’s anti-abortion group said in a statement that its radio ad “highlights Jay Nixon’s abysmal record on life issues.
“Nixon is a proponent of abortion, a protector of partial-birth abortion, and a supporter of funneling tax dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood,” the statement said. “The ad runs throughout the state specifically in southwest Missouri, southeast Missouri, the St. Louis metro area, and in parts of central and northern Missouri.”
Martin said in the same statement, “Jay Nixon is the most anti-life statewide candidate to ever run for office in Missouri. Electing him would mean that lives would be ended as he and his allies would seek abortion-on-demand paid for by tax dollars and would likely support euthanasia of our seniors.”
Missourians United for Life says it “has now endorsed nearly 50 candidates for public office – from U.S. Congressional candidates to Missouri state-wise and legislative candidates to local candidates…”
The group says it also has made more than 40 campaign donations, although small amounts: state House members have gotten $119.73 apiece, while the donations to state Senate candidates has been $219.73.
Missourians United for Life is a rival to Missouri Right to Life, a longstanding anti-abortion group whose leaders have been at odds with Blunt and some legislators.
willys - mlgb - Penelope - Garrison - LJ - RiM … you guys OWN the abortion issue. Enjoy!
Be certain to wear your shoe covers and scrubbies, it’s a messy business defending unrestricted abortion/life termination. Remember to throw around terms like propagandists, liars, domestic terrorists, etc., when challenging your opponents. Again, Enjoy!
===
Abortion should be illegal, plain in simple. If that involves putting pregnant women and/or doctors in prison, so be it. That is the logical conclusion to my position and I stand by it.
Jim the R said “But damn, we sure wish people would spend a little bit more time being responsible with their lives and their bodies, so that they won’t be putting themselves in the position of having to snuff out an innocent life.”
Well, most of the folks in this group are also people who are against comprehensive sex education. How are people to know how to be “more responsible with their lives and their bodies” when we are not teaching them?
Jim, the original post indicates the quote about euthanasia for old people is directly from the statement by Ed Martin. I don’t expect you to follow any links, but for the love of god, read the post before you comment on it. Your recent post makes no sense, railing against legal abortion and then encouraging women to drink or drug their babies to death. Bob Z, the world in which therapeutic early term abortion takes place is not as messy as you and your ilk like to fantasize about, although it is certainly better than where women and girls would assuredly go when abortion at any stage of fetal development becomes a felony. You’re not going to stop it, you are only going to make women who choose that alternative more desperate and remove the option to seek a safe, sanitary procedure by a qualified medical provider. As for the woman that drank her baby to death in hours of delivery, I am sad for the baby that had to endure even that much abuse and hopelessness after she had surely reached the stage of development at which she could feel pain and express her own will to live. That is the logical consequence of your absolutionist position on the sanctity of any product of human conception. The story would have had a much less tragic ending had her mother sought an early term abortion and gotten on with her life of self-destruction.
“…the world in which therapeutic early term abortion takes place is not as messy as you and your ilk like to fantasize about”
Penelope, elective or therapeutic early-term abortion is not as messy as… late-term abortion? Oh. Well that’s better. Less of the icky factor to wrestle with, eh?
It’s your crowning issue Liberals/Democrats. You own it. Wear it proudly.
===
I, and probably most of the pro-choice majority, will allow that elective late term abortion is not a cause to champion, which is why we don’t advocate or argue for it. Roe v. Wade made it clear that post-fetal viability abortion regulation by the states was then and remains appropriate. Obviously you oppose legal, safe, elective abortion at any stage, so I guess by your logic that makes you a champion of girls and women mutilating themselves with coat hangers and other non-sterile instruments or simply poisoning their unborn babies with drugs and alcohol and having them come into the world DOA. Talk about icky. You’d rather own and wear that?
Some of you are just idiots. Others only see what they want to see.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe V. Wade, did say that the government could control what a woman does with her body. They regulated her suposed right to get an abortion; didn’t they?
Can a woman get an abortion in the third trimester? NO
Prior to delivery, the unborn child was determined to be protected life.
It was the docile chimps known as citizens of this country that were willing to accept a judge, not a physician, when it comes to determining when you are alive and when you are not. -We should have revolted.
Prior to Roe, the courts had already determined that a pregnant woman was to be known as being “quick with child”. At 4 to 6 weeks, the “quickening” began with kicking and other movement of the fetus. The malicious removal of that fetus was known as an abortion.
Just for the record, I said “…people like these have a history of bombing health clinics and murdering doctors.” Not “Anybody who is against abortion” as Jim(the republican) wrongly quoted. You need only look back at the hateful speech of your republican friends in previous entries to find reference to all who support a woman’s right to choose as “baby killers”. So Jim, please spare us the melodrama.
“…and would likely support euthanasia of our seniors.” - Ed Martin.
Oh, Gosh, Mr. Martin - does this mean my kids will be voting for Mr. Nixon?
Horrors - and after all I’ve done for them !
How ludicrous is his statement - guess the Jeff City Reps will again be putting out vilifying ads, particularly in the 15th Senatorial District and the 94th House District, just as it did in 2006, huh.
Those were some really despicable ads - but that’s what we’ve come to expect from the Grand OP - whoops - formerly Grand OP…
Jim, only a sick f- would claim that Jay Nixon would support tax dollars for abortions and “likely euthanasia.”
Since you support these extremists who are trying to remake the anti-abortion movement in Missouri into a wing of the state GOP, you are the same!
As for the GOP, and Palin-McCain:
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/07/why-practicing-catholics-should-vote-for-barack-obama-not-for-john-mccain/