It’s no surprise that the chickenshit Republican frontrunner, who has waffled on the abortion issue — as he has on most other issues — decided to duck this event:
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney was conspicuous by his absence evening at a debate organized by an anti-abortion group in South Carolina.
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry, ultraconservative former
Senator Rick Santorum and Texas Representative Ron Paul all responded to the invitation to speak at Personhood USA’s Presidential Pro-Life Forum ahead of Saturday’s key primary vote.
All four of the candidates repeated their opposition to abortion, a subject on which Romney’s position has varied over the years.
The president of Personhood USA, Keith Mason, said Romney was invited to the forum at a Greenville hotel in front of an audience of several hundred people.
“Why not Romney,” Mason asked. “He was invited but he had a conflict and was not able to make it. He also had a conflict in Iowa…”
This time Texas Gov. Rick Perry isn’t making vague threats about secession. He’s merely threatening to ignore a possible Supreme Court ruling:
At a radio forum sponsored by the anti-abortion and anti-birth control group Personhood USA, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that he would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision striking down the group’s signature anti-choice proposal:
QUESTION: You have agreed to “endorse legislation making clear that Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to unborn children” . . . . What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court attempts to strike down this legislation, and replace it with one of its own edict denying the inalienable right to life for all persons born or unborn? Would you enforce the inalienable right to life or the Court’s opinion as the law?
PERRY: Well, obviously you enforce the right to life opinion.
Perry’s promise to openly defy the Supreme Court is disturbing, but it is also far from original. Fellow candidates Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich have also pledged to treat binding Supreme Court opinions as if they were merely optional, and Gingrich even supports legitimizing his radical view of the Constitution through a campaign of intimidation against judges who disagree with him.
Nevertheless, the GOP’s burgeoning love affair with Jim Crowesque defiance of the judiciary is very strange, considering that activist judging is the backbone of their policy agenda.