Horner tangles with anti-abortion group

Regardless of a candidate’s personal position on abortion, the fact is that Choice is still the law of the land. As for taxpayers footing the bill on abortion, that can be changed. As a member of the Party looking for practical solutions, I would be very interested in hearing how the MCCL would foot the bill to pay for additional Health and Human Services required to finance EVERYTHING necessary to see a woman (especially low-income, uninsured women) through a full-term, unwanted pregnancy.

Educating women to reduce the need for elective abortion is a fair position, and unworthy of the moral stone cast by any group.

Sounds like MCCL is more interested in driving a political wedge for their favored candidate, the right-wing extremist Tom Emmer, rather than talking about how to actually reduce the number of abortions. Mr. Horner may as well say Q.E.D.

I have this suspicion that the last thing in the world that the anti-abortion political/lobbying industry would want is to see Roe v. Wade overturned. They desperately need this as an eternally unsolved issue to keep in line a segment of voters who, because of the emotional strength of this one issue, can be persuaded to vote for candidates they would otherwise abhor. And to that end, policies that actually reduce the incidence of abortion and thus reduce the whole scale and importance of the issue are nothing they get very excited to support.

Your selection of media quotes left out an important one:

“Horner also said he’s willing to support state funds to pay for a new Vikings stadium, would work to provide marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples and would continue to allow public funding of abortions.” (by Tom Scheck, MPR News Q)

So Horner supports taxpayer funding of abortion and opposes informing women of the risks and complications of abortion procedures (Woman’s Right to Know). Clearly he has no problem with abortion on demand and doesn’t want any restrictions–even those that empower women with factual information. How is this not pro-choice, if not pro-abortion?

Factual information such as the erroneous theory that abortion can cause breast cancer (which was removed from the so-called Right to Know act)?

“I would be very interested in hearing how the MCCL would foot the bill to pay for additional Health and Human Services required to finance EVERYTHING necessary to see a woman (especially low-income, uninsured women) through a full-term, unwanted pregnancy.”

You’ll be waiting for a very long time for that answer.

“Tom Emmer is the only major candidate for governor who understands the importance of supporting unborn children and their mothers in our state,” he said.

Until they are born, then they are on their own

Actually, Aliecat, a recent government research team discovered a causal link between abortion and breast cancer:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175394.php

MCCL is another one of those organizations that uses wedge issues to keep the contributions coming so the CEO can live high on the hog without raising a sweat. Scott Fischbach is just another leech on society, willing to keep the pot boiling for his meal ticket. He and Tom Prichard (who stirs up hatred of gays at the MN “Family” Council) are parasites who live off hatred.

Jackson, I looked at your link, and the researcher admitting a connection is doing no such thing. That person isn’t even quoted. Instead, a finding, not quoted, is characterized as an admission, but it’s clear that person wasn’t contacted for the article. That sort of reporting smells, and makes the claim of a connection between abortion and breast cancer purely ideological, not scientific.

From the article:

Dolle’s team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions. They listed abortion among “known and suspected risk factors.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

It is well-known that statistics need to be interpreted with caution as they can be misleading. The numbers can both lie and tell the truth.

So which is which? Abortion a known or a suspected risk factor?

Given the plural “factors,” all other factors besides abortion needs to be accounted for; otherwise, discussion in that article is meaningless.

Jackson, you’re in violation of our comment policy, which states one username per email or IP address. I see you’ve got several usernames on this email address, plus several others coming from the same IP address (which would appear to be your employer’s). Please stick with one username if you’d like to keep commenting. Thanks.

Sort of interested on how this all plays out. after all, Horner, Emmer, and Kelliher are all Catholics. Archbishop Nienstedt is busy with other things right now. Personally, I love Perot’s comment. “If men got pregnant, we would not be having this discussion”.

That is a classic cop-out by Horner on abortion. He is a career Republican and PR specialist. Why would anyone expect such a person would make a good governor?

I would suggest that every anti-abortionist in the USA sign up to ADOPT every baby that is on the list to be aborted.Isn’t that a very simple solution?That way a life would be spared and many of these children could be raised in poverty and despair!!

Abortion is a legal choice that needs to remain so. Anti-abortion people should chose to not have one if that’s their deeply held view.