Welcome back aCW !!! You missed a few days huh?
I do want to thank the hundreds of people that come to this thread daily in search of the truth. Even though many of them don't accept it, the seed of truth is planted in their mind, it's up to them if they want it to grow.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer fella. I hope you've been watching your President and his stance on abortion !!! Trump is keeping his promises.
Libertarian for life Ron Paul made the same promise:
Ron Paul on Removing Federal Funding for Abortion
June 21, 2011
I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion, and all government family planning schemes. Like millions of Americans, I believe that innocent life deserves protection and I am deeply offended by abortion. It is unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund abortion through their tax dollars. As a Congressman, I’ve never voted for any budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, I’ve introduced the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer funding of abortions, so-called “family planning” services and international abortions.
https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/ron-paul-on-removing-federal-funding-for-abortion
It's about money, not about protecting life, if it were, neither Ron Paul or Donald Trump would be pro LGBTQueer.
Donald Trump obviously doesn't have a problem with private contributions to Planned Parenthood or he wouldn't have nominated Rex Tillerson, who as CEO of Exxon/Mobil, contributed generously to Planned Parenthood (Tillerson also turned the once God-fearing Boy Scouts of America into the "Boy Sodomizers of America"...credit goes to AFA's Bryan Fischer for that term).
Now if you want to talk about Trump's promise to nominate pro life Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v Wade, how about we talk about that? Currently his #1 pick is Neil Gorsuch.
Neil Gorsuch
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
not pro-life, he has written about abortion using only the terminology of pro-aborts without any reference to the "unborn child." In the case of Pino v. U.S., 507 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2007), Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specially found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade. Gorsuch is also a big supporter granting special rights to men who say they have a female gender identity. He sided with civil rights for "gender identity" in 2009 by adhering to a Ninth Circuit opinion by the liberal Judge Reinhardt, which held the federal law called "Title VII" protects discrimination against gender identity. Kastl v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009) (Gorsuch, J., joining the court opinion). At the time virtually every other circuit rejected this liberal view. More recently Judge Gorsuch expressed his support for referring to biological men as women. Although religion is not a test for public office, Gorsuch belongs to the Episcopalian church that has publicly declared its “unequivocal opposition” to pro-life laws and Gorsuch has said nothing publicly pro-life.
Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it. “Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second Amendment rights of a man before his court. United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=30952401
Pro abortion, pro LGBTQ, sounds like "stare decisis" (i.e business as usual) to me.
Neil Gorsuch