MUST READ MUST RETRACT
In her MRAK article, “Donna Celia: Cynical view of Palin’s loss and what we voters can do about it,” appears to attack all things that do not promote Nick Begich, including Alaska Right to Life.
Included in her criticism of Ms. Palin, Ms. Celia wrote:
“According to Jazmine Ulloa of the New York Times, Palin ranked Peltola #2 on her own ballot. It’s unclear what she actually did but this ought to send a clear message to Alaska Right to Life and any die-hard pro-life voters in Alaska: Palin is not voting pro-life in her own election. Get a clue, folks! She is pro-life in name only. If she meant it when she claimed to be the most pro-life candidate, she wouldn’t have ranked Peltola.”
Since Alaska Right to Life did not file with the FEC for this year’s races, we have not spoken publicly or officially about any of the US candidates. Any mention of Alaska Right to Life in this article should be retracted with an apology issued.
Why Ms. Celia mentioned Alaska Right to Life at all in her article is unclear – again, we have not taken a position on either Ms. Palin or Mr. Begich.
Were Ms. Celia familiar with our unpublished criticisms of Ms. Palin’s record as governor, or Begich’s current pro-choice stance, she certainly would not have included Alaska Right to Life at all in the article.
Referencing Alaska Right to Life in the context that she did is inaccurate and again, a retraction and apology are in order.
Referring to Ms. Palin as the “pro-life in name only” candidate without labeling Mr. Begich, in the same way, is also inaccurate.
Ms. Palin’s record as governor is certainly not a shining example of protecting babies as Ms. Palin made many mistakes – chief among those, appointing a pro-abortion DHSS commissioner.
But Mr. Begich’s current position on life is far from a beacon of pro-life protection either.
Any pro-life label ascribed to Mr. Begich requires serious scrutiny. Mr. Begich has made it clear that he would protect a ‘woman’s right to choose’ under certain circumstances. That is not a pro-life stance.
When a politician does not have a record he can point to that supports his claims of being “pro-life,” but does allow for women to kill their babies under any circumstances, that’s not a pro-life stance.
And that is Mr. Begich’s repeated stance: he would protect a woman’s right to kill her baby if the baby were conceived in violence or incest. He would also protect a woman’s right to kill her baby if her health were at risk.
Among the exceptions that so called pro-lifers allow, protecting a mother’s “life and health” are so broadly undefined that any abortionist could drive a Planned Parenthood kill mill through it.
Regarding rape and incest, remember why we’re pro-life. We’re not anti-abortion because we’re opposed to rape, but because we’re opposed to killing babies – for any reason, at any age, and any stage of life.
Killing a baby does not “un-rape” a woman. Abortion after rape adds wounds to the wounds and trauma to the trauma, multiplying the horrific memories and regrets that will haunt rape victim with the knowledge she killed a baby for the rest of her life.
This is not compassion.
This is not justice.
This is an attempt to justify killing a baby.
While the bleed red-republicans are going to have an all out fit about this, my challenge is the same as always: if your “pro-life” candidate has a pro-life record, then put that out. Prove it.
Show us Mr. Begich’s record. If he does not have an official voting record, then provide donation receipts or volunteering and activism records.
In the absence of any true pro-life record, given Mr. Begich’s “pro-life” with exceptions stance indicates that a woman’s right to kill her baby would be protected should the issue come to a vote.
Now that the air has been cleared – on Ms. Palin’s occasionally pro-choice record and Mr. Begich’s current pro-choice stance – and Alaska Right to Life’s stance on any candidate that uses human atrocities to justify killing babies, we’ll be looking for a retraction and apology from Ms. Celia and Must Read Alaska.