While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.
"Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.
Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."
For those of you who have been standing in front of abortion clinics saving lives, I'd be careful not to cross the buffer zones when you pass out Vote for Brown leaflets:
Not all of Brown’s votes are easy to classify, however. In 2007, he cast a vote to create a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics to better distance protestors from patients.
You'd have to have long arms to distribute flyers from 35 feet.
Well, you could always try paper airplaning them?
It's may be true if prolifers send Brown to Washington he'll vote "no" on healthcare this round.
The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents.Brown is for national healthcare, he just wants to go back to the drawing board.
He's just said he supports Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue means very little to him.
Brown was a supporter of Massachusetts healthcare "reform" that provides abortion with taxpayer dollars.
Calling this guy a pro-life vote and lobbying for him is imprudent.
The reasons why we don't get prolife candidates to have succesful campaigns is because they're being sabotaged by prolifers by supporting prochoice candidates instead, calling it the lesser of two evils.
We've got to stop letting prochoice candidates use our leadership, our newtorking, our grassroots campaigning.
There was a candidate who supports the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death running opposite Brown in the Republican primary. Jack Robinson.
You know how MCFL is now saying there will be very little turnout and the pro-life vote can win it? Well, back in the primary days, they weren't willing to help Robinson win with the same votes they're now rounding up for Brown.
They had a different soundbyte back then.
Though Robinson answered he supported life from the moment of conception to natural death, Anne Fox sabotaged his campaign by saying - get this - Robinson was not pro-life because he wasn't for a constitutional amendment!
She ended the email by saying she would "keep you up to date".
How's she doing?
When will it get to the point where the pro-life community realizes we need new leadership?
There's a significant problem that we keep refusing to fix at the level of leadership volunteering our resources to prochoice candidates. By the time they get down to us, we feel desperate enough to vote for him.
Unless and until the GOP realizes we are NOT going to support a prochoice candidate, come what may - we'll continue on this collision course of compromise that is destroying our Nation.
If you're a prolifer, you better ask yourself in the face of the evidence whether Brown is a "pro-life" vote or whether he's going to "revamp" healthcare to exclude exploiting the poor, the elderly, the suffering and the unborn - and then ask yourself how you can sit on your hands while Anne Fox continues to take the unborn on this trajectory.