« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

With friends like Haley Barbour, who needs enemies?

By: Griffin@griffinelection (Diary)  |  November 9th, 2011 at 08:41 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Haley Barbour has been a consistent conservative throughout his term as Governor of Mississippi.  But yesterday, Barbour let down the pro-life movement when it needed him most. 

On Tuesday night, Mississippi’s personhood amendment failed with more than 55% of the people voting against it.  Leading up to yesterday’s election, the support for and against the amendment was completely split with 45% for and 44% against, with 11% undecided. 

Over 3,000 surgical abortions are administered annually in Mississippi.    

With 11% undecided, it was going to be close, and advocates of the unborn were going to need everything they had to pass it.  It was obvious early on that such a strict measure would need all of the help it could get persuading the undecided.    

But, every time I saw Haley Barbour on television this week, he was discussing how legitimate pro-lifers could vote against protecting life from conception.  He repeatedly said that he voted for it but had his own reservations on whether it should pass. 

The AP described his support as “wavering.” 

Politico described his support as “wavering.”

Barbour took a page out of the Romney playbook and saw which way the winds were blowing and blew over along with it.

Barbour, a political superstar and popular governor never threw his support 100% behind the measure.  He said that he voted for it, but hinted that others should not vote for it. 

The abortion lobby was all in against this measure and the right needed back up. 

This is an amendment that needed leadership and Barbour cowardly backed off of his support of the amendment.  He didn’t fight for it; he gave comfort to independents by providing cover for those who voted against it. 

With friends that say they “understand” why people don’t support your initiative and provide them a way out, who needs enemies?

Opponents of the measure were giving the same talking points as Barbour.  Which side was Barbour on?  Is he pro-life when it’s convenient only?  Is this an indication of how a Barbour administration would handle the life issue and stem cell research if he won the presidency in 2016? 

We have too many republicans who lend tepid support to the pro-life cause.  They are all in during the primary races but when you ask them to walk the walk; they find more important things to do.  Needless to say, the pro-life movement is very disappointed in Haley Barbour and will not forget his actions should he decide to run for president in 4 years.     

This is another defeat for the personhood amendment, but we will learn from this.  This isn’t as detrimental as Ohio’s loss.  The GOP lost a messaging war, but they will be back.  We will never stop fighting for the right of every American to live and be protected by the due process of law owed to them under the 14th Amendment.  We will pass a personhood amendment soon, and then we will have another shot in front of the Supreme Court. 

Until then, beware the Barbour republican who talks the talk, but refuses to walk the walk.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • wbf

    this morning. He said that if the measure had been worded differently it would have passed easily. I don’t fully understand. I do not even know the language used. This needs to be cleared up.

    • dvdmsr

      so the rights of some people could be disregarded if it convenienced certain special interests like those folks who want to clone themselves to kill their twin for his/her stem cells, or for those who want to throw caution to the wind and be reckless with the lives of their children to increase the odds of getting pregnant with certain fertility treatments.

      Here is the wording:

      Be it enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

  • clintonformccain

    I doubt anything Haley Barbour could have said would have made any difference when the outcome is this decisive. To me, this kind of result suggests that the pro-life movement would be better served by efforts to reduce the number of abortions than trying to pass thorny constitutional amendments. It’s a pretty big leap to legally define a fertilized embryo as a “human being”.

    • dvdmsr

      the proposal in question was simply going to define these unborn human beings as a “person” under the law, which is no big leap at all.

      • clintonformccain

        qualify for a dependent tax deduction on the mother’s tax return? Does it count in the population for redisctricting purposes?

        In general, I believe that we should be very, very slow to amend state and federal constitutions. Putting more stuff in constitutions typically increases the ways that the government can stick their noses into our private lives.

        But, it really doesn’t matter. If this amendment gets crushed 55% to 45% in Mississippi, then the odds of it passing anywhere are pretty apparent: slim and none.

        • avgjo

          is still legal to murder the baby until it is actually birthed. clear that up and these questions are answered in an obvious way: yes.

          • Menlo

            If someone is not licensed as a “doctor,” he or she is in many states prosecuted for murder.

  • griffinelection

    scientifically, a fertilized human embryo is alive and human from the moment of conception.

    It is undoubtedly and scientifically alive. It is not dead or in some state between life and death. It is growing and maturing at a rapid pace. It is alive.

    It is undoubtedly and scienticially human. The only thing standing between you and this egg is a couple of months. By the end of 100-150 days, this thing will be unmistakenly human. There is no chance that it could become anything other than human. From the moment of conception, it has a unique DNA sequence.

    You may not think a fertilized egg has much in common with a baby, but it does. It just doesn’t look the same for a few months. Just like any human it will grow and become stronger with proper shelter and nutrition.

  • Menlo

    Such an amendment would not criminalize abortion. To do that requires a distinct statute with criminal or civil penalties. Existing statutes would not be adequate, even given the amendment’s terms.

    A look at prior court rulings and laws here and in many other countries make a similar case. Several nations have constitutional provisions protecting the unborn, but their governments have had no problem actually decriminalizing abortion under them.

    Conservatives in this country should know that the government is totally incapable of following the Constitution. What good is an amendment if it is not going to be followed? What’s more, the left has a clear history of actually using Constitutional provisions to justify violations of those same provisions!

    It’s unfortunate to see the highly exaggerated scaremongering and how powerful it is. However, like so many proposals in government today, such scaremongering is only exacerbated by the fact that it would move not one step closer to achieving the aims of supporters.

    I never cease to be amazed at the things most people in this country are able to take (and not take) seriously.