Teresa Collett is not really pro-life, she favors abortion-on-demand. She says she's both pro-life and pro-choice, that she's among "many thoughtful Americans" who believe they can be both pro-life and pro-choice (she calls it "women's liberty.") CLICK to watch and listen, and you decide.
">
Candidate Carlson tells Republican-endorsed Teresa Collett: "I think that human life is sacred."
I want to thank the MCCL for taking the stand they have against Jim Oberstar and sending a message to Congress that ObamaCare is anti-life and that the Democrats are supporting an anti-life position. I ask them to stop trying to expand Medicaid abortions to all 50 states and to protect the life of the unborn. There should not be an abortion lottery to see which of us are allowed to be born.
I disagree that abortion is "health care" except in the rare instance of the health of the mother, and then doctors need to make an ethical decision. Unfortunately, the ObamaCare notion that all abortion is health care actually undermines with and conflicts with good medicine.
The truth is, ObamaCare initiates a horrible, unprecedented abortion industry. There is NO legitimate moral argument for any of the sides in this debate about ObamaCare and abortion except the side to vote against ObamaCare. 17 states, as far as I know, already use federal Medicaid dollars not for treating catastrophic illnesses of people in real medical need, but to control the population by aborting children of poor people. It truly is an accounting gimmick to say a family with an ObamaCare plan can go to the health care provider and get the abortion, but they'll set up some separate installment plan to pay the "health care provider" for the abortion on the side. Those who voted for ObamaCare support a federalized abortion industry.
This isn't about women. It's about people, it's about life, it's about responsibility of both a mother and a father, about our country's disrespect for the lives of its citizens, and ultimately is a judgment on the American voters.
My opponent, the Republican challenger Teresa Collett took the abortion-on-demand position on June 7, 2010: “That being said, the primary concern that many thoughtful Americans have is whether or not preserving embryonic life will in fact be consistent with women’s liberty. I would argue that it is entirely consistent with women’s liberty, because until our ability to conceive and bear a child is respected in the marketplace and in civil society, we will continue to be discouraged from pursuing our careers if we can become pregnant, we will continue to experience pregnancy discrimination, and so I’m both pro-woman and pro-life.”
If you have listened to the clip above, you have heard that Teresa Collett says she's pro-life [and has argued abortion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court]. But she says, on the other hand, she's pro-choice (she calls it "women's liberty" instead of "women's choice".) She thinks she is pro-life and pro-choice. But instead of openly defending abortion because it interferes in lifestyle choices like outgoing Senator Arlen Specter, she defends women's choice in the matter, for life-style reasons.
On our KSTP-TV debate, Collett argued that "Jobs is a pro-life issue, because many women who choose abortion do so because they don’t feel like they can find the economic support for an additional child." So if society provides economic support, then women will not choose abortion. What gives Collett the right to make this deadly bargain?
I believe human life is sacred, and that if two people conceive a child, a fetus, they have a responsibility to follow through to birth that child regardless of the economic consequences. That responsibility is of both the mother and the father, there is no choice for the woman or the man. The exceptions would be rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother, or long-term physical health of the mother. I don't think this responsibility is at all tied to any pregnancy discrimination issues that might arise for a conceiving woman. I think I have a difference with Candidate Collett on this, with all due respect to her important work in the courts on pro-life legislation, and as eloquent as she obviously is. There is no part of "women's economic liberty" in the life decision. How would you feel if we allowed end-of-life decisions by a wife or a husband because they thought it was too much of an economic burden to allow their spouse to live? This is a violation of medical ethics, and Teresa Collett is NOT pro-life, with all due respect. Her position is HARDLY "thoughtful"--it is thoughtless. Teresa is more knowledgeable about abortion than any lawyer I've ever met. But human life CANNOT hang in the balance with women's, or men's, liberty. Obviously, Rep. McCollum is also not pro-life, she stands for abortion as liberation, a kind of anti-life. When I am elected will fight, successfully to overturn Roe v. Wade, which stands for the proposition that life is no longer sacred. It is an evil and shameful decision and must be reversed. It's so-called "penumbra of constitutional rights of privacy" is a ridiculous judicial artifice which stands as a symbol of judicial tyranny over the most defenseless humans. I weep for this decision.
With all due respect to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, it is not for them to establish anything in this regard. To our great shame, Mr. Justice Harry Blackmun, the creator of Roe v. Wade, also came from the 8th Circuit and in fact from the 4th Congressional District in Minnesota. I think we'll put human life, created by God, above the federal courts. This should be in the hands of the states, and they should protect the unborn and the dignity of mothers and fathers, and I will work for the day that they do just that.
I am pro-life until the end of life, too, as I discuss this under Health Care Repeal and Reform. I will use the power of the state to protect human life, so help me God.
