10th Congressional Democratic candidate Dan Seals is an abortion champion, and wants you to have to pay for anyone who wants to get one, but can't afford it.
That's the gist of the Daily Herald profile today on the abortion stances of Seals and GOP nominee Bob Dold, who, while supporting the legality of abortions, favors restrictions on late-term abortions (only in cases where the life of the mother is threatened), and also supports parental notification in cases where a minor seeks an abortion.
Dold also doesn't think federal tax dollars should be used to fund abortion clinics.
Seals, on the other hand, doesn't think notifications should be required, and thinks the federal government should chip in to make sure that anyone who demands an abortion should get one, free.
Seals' campaign website offers the rather disingenuous statement that "Dan strongly opposes a constitutional ban on abortion favored by many Republicans." As we can see from the Dold position, a "constitutional ban" isn't a position espoused by Dold, so we here at Team America wonder who Seals is talking about, and question Seals' intent to mislead voters regarding Dold's position, which seems pretty clear on his website:
As Congressman, I will protect a woman’s right to choose, while encouraging that the decision is an informed one and made with knowledge of the full range of options, which is why I support parental notification laws. As a parent, I believe that our most fundamental role is to provide guidance, support, and direction to our children -- especially in those difficult times when a child needs it the most.
I oppose partial-birth abortion procedures, except in cases of where the health or life of the mother is in danger. Further, I do not believe that federal taxpayer money should be used to pay for abortion procedures.
Will north shore voters support the idea that their daughters can get an abortion without their knowledge? Will they support the idea of their tax dollars going to pay for abortions? Well, the Seals fans love to try to paint Bob Dold as a right-wing extremist, but one might suggest that Seals is the one with the more extreme views on this hot-button issue.
We'll leave it to the informed voters of the 10th District to decide which viewpoint on abortion is more in line with their views, come November 2nd.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Dan Seals comes from the mind set of the liberal wing in this nation supporting the notion that the Federal government should pay for everything. The only sad part of this is that they fail to grasp the understanding that WE are the Federal government and that it's our tax dollars paying for things that Dan Seals feels are entitlements worthy of funding. It fits. This guy hasn't worked in years, doesn't grasp the concept of the American way or of moral values that need to be understood and appreciated. Let's hope that Dan Seals goes away forever. Bob Dold is a man with the personal and profesiional background we need to help right this titling 'ship' we're sailing on thanks to the Obama fiasco. So how IS the hope and change working for you?
daily herald has gone from getting story ideas from your blog to getting stories from the new york times and catlady's rag. No wonder no one reads that trash anymore.
I've said you've been to nice on the pup. I urge you to attack him for saying he's too poor to live in the district even though his house in wilmette is worth a lot more than most homes and he hasn't worked in 1823423432 years.
FOKLAEAPS
FOKLEAPS
So your frustration is that the DH is taking stories from locations other than TA's sensationalism and falsities about Dan Seals (endorsement "story").
Bottom line: Dold wouldn't even sit down with Planned Parenthood and willingly accepted endorsements from Right to Life and the Eagle Forum. Seals says that he supports federal funds for abortion and cited the case of low-income women. TA's "analysis" reflects the Republican view that people only matter before they are born.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
Concerned, once again you are wrong. This has been a recurring theme for 3 years now.
In case you missed the health care debate 219 democrats in the house and 59 democrats in the senate voted AGAINST federal funding for abortion. That was a democrat congress with 259 democrat members. If you care about abortion you should ask jan schakowsky and melissa bean why they thought a new federal entitlement program was more important than a woman's right to choose.
Democrats had a do or die moment on abortion and told planned parenthood and poor women they didnt matter.
By the way, we won in Iraq, no thanks to dan's chickens--t cut and run policy that would have handed the country over to Iran.
FOKLAEAPS
Dan Seals' Nanny Make $50,000 per year, while Dan Seals makes about $18,000. Only in the strange world of Dan Seals is it ok to pay your nanny more than you make.
Bob Dold is talking Jobs, Dan Seals is talking Bob Dold. Just look at their respective Facebook pages-Dan Seals uses one of three posts to attack Dold with his usual misinformation, while Dold is talking 100% issues. Dan Seal is a vapid empty candidate.
In fact, I'd vote for his Dan Seals' Nanny before I would vote for Dan Seals. At least she can hold a job.
It is amazing that Seals continues pushing his same tired old messages that the 10th Congressional District voters have twice rejected, for a THIRD time!
If an underaged teenager wants a tattoo, they need the permission of their parents. If that same teenager wants an abortion, Seals wants the parent to be unaware of it, and for the federal government to pay for it.
It certainly is a strange world we live in.
Louis G. Atsaves
abortion's not a winning issue in a district that has never elected a pro-life congressman. It alienates the hard core base of the party we need and highlights differences between us and the district as a whole. Dold has completely botched his social issue rollout, but that's his campaigns problem.
I think the better story is how a major seals donor, joe crowley is the subject of a major investigation by his own party on the Hill in the new york times this morning because of allegations he traded votes for campaign donations.
For some reason Dan seems to love corrupt dirty new york politicians.
FOKLAEAPS
FOKLAEAPS, funny that you didn't mention the story about one of Dold's major donors who is is part of a loan-sharking family that has been offering ultra-high-interest pay day loans to servicemen for almost 20 years, whose father is serving 10 years in the federal penitentiary for what the Tribune called "a two-billion book-cooking scheme" that federal prosecutors called "the biggest accounting fraud in the history of northern Illinois."
TA, you know the truth about the fine man Jack A is slandering. If this man doesn't retract his statement, bet on a lawsuit. The man he falsely accuses as a payday loan shark is NOT that at all. I am shocked that you, TA, would allow that post on your blog knowing the truth.
Wow, Anon @ 6:37 you went from 0 to lawsuit in ten seconds.
Also you never offered a whit of proof to show that Mr. Brincat didn't offer super high interest payday loans.
I'm not going to defend the inflammatory language used by you or Jack S. in this case.
Also these appeals to TA to censor commenters, because you don't agree with them have grown rather passe.
10th District Values Voter
You're too damn lazy to follow the link. All I did was repeat what is already out there at Keeping An Eye on Lake County.
So go ahead and sue me. I can't wait to see you in court.
Let's move along, everyone, shall we?
As a Dold supporter my personal opinion is "Nice to see the candidate talk about himself without just attacking his opponent."
Dold campaign is trustworthy
Yes, that's true if that's the case.
It takes confidence to sell yourself and someone else you believe in through positive "messaging".
Just about anyone--given the right motivation--can stay on the attack--pretty much 24x7, hoping there's enough ammo, that it eventually hits, and that the damage--no matter how great--is fussed over by others who are willing to "enable".
I'm pro-life and this is what pro-life means to me:
The Government has no business regulating a woman's uterus.
The only people--who should have ANY say on a woman's most profoundly consequential, deeply personal decision on whether or not to bring a human life into the world--are the WOMAN and HER DOCTOR.
Adherence to that principle, my friends, is PRO-LIFE.
--Kimberly Vertolli
Post a Comment