Bishop’s ‘pro-abortionist’ voting record

Published 2:57 pm Friday, June 25, 2010

I have heard some state that Sanford Bishop has a “pro-life” stance in Congress. I would like to set the record straight concerning these statements and reveal the truth about Mr. Bishop.

The truth now rising to the surface, like the nasty oil in the Gulf of Mexico, is that Sanford Bishop is a pro-abortion congressman. I stated pro-abortion and not pro-choice for a reason because Sanford Bishop is not about choice, according to where he votes to send taxpayer money.

In March 2005, Mr. Bishop voted yes on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. Some may argue that he voted to forbid human cloning in February 2003. This is just one of numerous flip-flops, but the fact in the matter is the National Human Genome Research Institute (a government agency) states that human embryonic stem cell research is the same as human cloning.

Email newsletter signup

Their Web site states: “The term cloning is used by scientists to describe many different processes that involve making duplicates of biological material. In most cases, isolated genes or cells are duplicated for scientific study, and no new animal results. The experiment that led to the cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 was different: It used a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer and resulted in an animal that was a genetic twin—although delayed in time—of an adult sheep. This technique can also be used to produce an embryo from which cells called embryonic stem (ES) cells could be extracted to use in research into potential therapies for a wide variety of diseases. Thus, in the past five years, much of the scientific and ethical debate about somatic cell nuclear transfer has focused on its two potential applications: 1) for reproductive purposes, i.e., to produce a child, or 2) for producing a source of ES cells for research.”

The “reproductive purposes” discussed above are referencing a genetic twin delayed in time, i.e. a clone made from embryonic stem cells. Bishop’s votes simply indicate he does not support cloning, but that he supports the research of cloning by manipulating cloned embryos. Which way is it?

Bishop voted yes on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime (February 2004), but yes on embryonic stem cell research (March 2005), which reproduces and destroys embryonic stem cells (fertilized eggs). The bill making it a crime to harm a fetus indicates that life begins at conception, or the fertilized egg, or the embryo. It is another Sanford contradiction. This flip-floppiness indicates that Bishop is subject to the political winds of Washington and listens to the powerful few over the “will of the people.” He is not a true representative of the people!

Bishop, in September 2002, voted to refuse to provide funding for health care providers who did not provide information on abortions, thereby forcing a taxpayer-funded mandate that “if you want the taxpayers’ money, you need to provide information on abortion.” His no vote was a vote against the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002, which would prohibit the federal government from discrimination against health care providers who refuse to pay for or provide abortion services, which would also expand the “conscience clause.”

Bishop, while he says it is not allowed to have interstate transport for abortion services (April 2005), which is important, evidently thinks that it is OK for our nation and our nation’s tax base to fund “Family Planning,” a.k.a. abortion services and counseling, to other countries through U.S. aid abroad (May 2001). So, while Bishop agrees to place needed restrictions on interstate transport in our own country, he supports organizations with our tax dollars in order to export abortion services overseas. It is a crime to kill a child during another crime, but it is evidently not a crime in Bishop’s eyes to export the killing of baby’s through U.S. aid abroad. This is performed through supporting organizations like Planned Parenthood that teaches how to get around state laws to get an abortion.

Interestingly, Planned Parenthood, a strong backer of the Democratic Party, was also created by the AES, the American Eugenics Society. This society had at its core a racist agenda of infanticide, they wanted to kill off what they considered defectives and deficient in society, i.e. Indians, African-Americans, deformed and disabled. Bishop, ironically or ignorantly, has voted to financially support an organization that is rooted in the reduction of his own race. Interesting, Bishop has also supported as recent as January 2009 the morning-after pill, which contradicts his stance of it being a crime to kill a baby after the point of conception (February 2004).

Let’s be clear about it. When you support financially to fund abortions to the point of exporting that support for those services overseas, pull back funding from people who refuse to provide abortion services, the fact of the matter is that no matter which way you cut it, you are not pro life. You are indeed, a pro-abortion wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Follow the money and the fruit that comes with it. The Bible states that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. Bishop’s fruit is every taxpayer dollar he has used to leverage support for abortion in one form or another. It is a bitter, diseased and rotten fruit that Bishop’s tree does bear. It is a tree that needs to be uprooted and all the more reason that we need to rally behind Mike Keown and boot Bishop, once and for all!

Jason SellarsBainbridge, Ga.