Another Deceptive Voter Guide in the US Senate Race
National Right to Life Publishes Inaccurate, Anti-Conservative Voter Guide
You can add another one to the list of pro-family groups you can no longer put your trust in.
National Right to Life has, like the Family Research Council, sent out an inaccurate, anti-conservative voter guide. It leaves off the only candidate in the South Dakota U.S. Senate race who has a consistent pro-life record: Gordon Howie.
What’s more, it conveniently whitewashes RINO Mike Rounds’ record with some propaganda and glosses over his betrayals of Republican principles and pro-life goals.
Below I provide a look at what NRTL says about Mike Rounds (which is an echo of what RINO Mike Rounds says about Mike Rounds), then what Mike Rounds’ record says about Mike Rounds.
THE PROPAGANDA MIKE ROUNDS
THE REAL MIKE ROUNDS:
Why in the world would you put a shred of stock in anything said by a person whose actual record tells a different story than their rhetoric?
Meanwhile, Gordon Howie has been consistent in his opposition to the killing of unborn children. These are just a few of his pro-life accomplishments:
– Serves as President of the Board of Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center in Rapid City.
– Sponsored 2006 HB 1198 to define the applicable standard of care in regard to screening of risk factors for all abortions except in the case of a medical emergency.
– Sponsored 2009 SB 92 to require the physical presence of any physician scheduled to perform an abortion at the site of the abortion procedure on the day prior to the abortion procedure.
– Cosponsored 2005 HB 1166 to establish certain legislative findings pertaining to the health and rights of women, to revise the physician disclosure requirements to be made to a woman contemplating submitting to an abortion, and to provide for certain causes of action for professional negligence if an abortion is performed without informed consent.
– Cosponsored 2005 HB 1233, An Act to establish a task force to study abortion and to provide for its composition, scope, and administration.
– Cosponsored 2005 HB 1249 to prohibit the performance of abortions, except to save the life of the mother, and to provide a penalty therefor and to provide for a delayed effective date.
The duty of good people to be informed on the candidates and vote for the best one suddenly became a lot harder in 2014. Not only are several “conservative” groups endorsing liberal RINOs and publishing varnished information about these supposed “lesser of two evils,” they’re actually burying information that makes them look bad when compared to much better candidates.
It shouldn’t be the job of pro-family and conservative groups to push a deeply flawed candidate across the finish line because he’s “better than the Democrat.” It should be the job of conservative and pro-life groups to fully inform their constituency so the voters can make the best choice before God with their vote.
That isn’t happening when groups promote rhetoric instead of record, and deliberately hide a better choice.
It’s the prerogative of these groups to endorse whoever they want. You get to do that in a free society.
They just shouldn’t mislead the voters in the process. At a minimum, they could say something like, “We don’t think the best candidate can win, so we’re endorsing this ‘lesser of two evils’ slug in the desperate hope that he might surprise us and legislate according to his rhetoric instead of the way he’s actually behaved in the past.” Or they could say, “Yeah, I know his record stinks, but I don’t think the candidate who best reflects my values can win.”
That would at least be honest about the candidate and honest about their endorsement.
As Gordon Howie said recently, some of these people know better, and know Howie is a better fit for their organizations on the issues. I know who some of these people are.
As John Quincy Adams said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
How can a vote for a self-described “pragmatic“–who obviously embraces pragmatism over principle–be a vote for principle?
Mike Rounds undermined South Dakota’s 2006 abortion ban and started a chain reaction that will eventually result in the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent children around the world. Rounds signed the ban while clearly and repeatedly arguing that it was bad strategy and explicitly indicating that he wasn’t a supporter. He said the Supreme Court would reject it 5-4 and issue a ruling that would actually end up weakening the pro-life movement.
His argument that the law would do more harm than good doomed it in the referendum. Rather than campaigning for it, he created a rationalization for staying as far away from the issue as he possibly could. Ironically, he claimed his signature would give the law’s supporters a chance at the ballot box … while he was ruining that chance.
As a “pro-life” Republican, Rounds undermined public support for the law in a way no Democrat ever could have. He talked about what a setback it would be for the pro-life cause if the Supreme Court rejected the ban. I wonder whether he ever considered what a setback it would be if a strongly pro-life state like South Dakota voted it down.
If it was a bad law, he was wrong to sign it. If it was a good law, he was wrong not to defend it. If the Supreme Court had rejected it, the blood of the children would have been on their hands. Now it’s on his.
Most pro-life voters probably aren’t going to support Rounds when they understand that he took a nap during our Gethsemane.