If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Dr. Laurie Roth, Presidential Candidate

Campaign photo from Dr. Laurie' Roth's Facebook page

(Dec. 4, 2011) — Eventually Presidential candidates get forced into the corner they hate.  They get asked the question that separates the men from the boys,  the Constitutionalists from the ‘do what feels good’ crowd.  “Are you pro-choice or pro-life?”  “Do you believe in a woman’s right to choose and what about rape?”

To be fair,  some running for President have always been pro-life,  but many top contenders play games with this critical issue.  They are pro-choice when it fits them, then magically morph into pro-life when the conservative pressure is on.  It’s all to get votes, you know.

Herman Cain is now saying he is planning to bow out.  He has been pro-life but pro-choice when pressured in the past.  Then there is Mitt Romney.   He is a total piece of compromised work.  He was pro-choice from 1994-2008.  He proudly ran for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 as a pro-choice Republican.  That very year he and his wife attended a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood.  In 2002, Romney campaigned for governor of Massachusetts as a ‘pro-choice’ Republican again.  Get the picture.  Now,  magically,  the last few years he is ‘pro life’  because he thinks it is politically expedient.  Romney is no conservative.

Newt Gingrich,  now at the top of the GOP pie, told ABC News that life begins at ‘successful implantation’ not fertilization.   Is he confused about how science works?  Life begins at fertilization, as Michele Bachmann reminded us recently.  Notice the GOP establishment is shredding her, but on life,  she is one of the few pro-life candidates.

Rick Perry has been pro-life during his career but was for the NAFTA Super Highway from Mexico to the US.  He also signed an executive order forcing a three-step shot of Gardasil for 6th grade girls in Texas.    His own legislature overruled his action.  Magically he backpedaled when the heat from this horrific decision hit him upside the head.

How important is the life issue for young and old?

I must talk plainly about this since most others running for President won’t.  I am running for President and I will.  Abortion is murder.  In the name of ‘choice’ and selfish evil,  we have murdered over 52 million babies since 1973.  I have been dizzy for years with the endless word games,  “I don’t want Government on my body,”  “I am not for abortion,  but should have the right to make that choice,”  or the conservative game,  “I am against abortion and pro-life, except in the case of rape.”

So, what is it?  Is life worth defending or not?  According to our Declaration of Independence,  our first right is the ‘right to life.’  Common sense and basic 101 science tells us that life happens at conception and grows from there.  Millions, including many running for President and our current putative President, must believe that when a woman is pregnant she has a head of lettuce in her womb until month 9 when she amazingly gives birth to a baby.  Isn’t life magical, though?

Life and the right to live are fundamental in our Holy Bible and Declaration of Independence.  That is good enough for me.

As a conservative Independent for President of the United States, if elected,  I vow to stop all federal funding for any abortions.  I support 1000% Mike Pence (R-IN) who sponsored HR 217 and led in getting this passed in the House.  It would stop all federal funding to abortions.

Morally,  Constitutionally and Politically, we should have never been in the business on any level of supporting or funding abortions.  That is simply un-American and violates the rights of our young citizens.

Let’s Kill Them Going Out as Well

Not only have we desperately got it wrong with abortion since Roe vs.  Wade,  but state after state has been playing God by voting into law assisted suicide.  The state of my birth, Oregon, is one of them, I’m ashamed to say.  Now, with Obamacare being passed, the end of life debate has gone to a funded and clear agenda.  Let’s kill the seniors and disabled.  Naturally, neither the Obamacare bill nor Obama would dare say they want or plan to kill our seniors, but that is exactly what this bill will do.

The formula is simple.  When you take what was the best health care system in the world based on Judeo-Christian values and morph it from safe and effective care to ‘cost-effective’ care,  you have a nightmare such as evolved in Nazi Germany.  As it is now, if the horror show of the Obamacare bill isn’t stopped, seniors will have such long lines for care, they will be practically be dead by the time they get it.  Then, when they finally get care,  they will find that the older they get the less care will be paid for.  Naturally,  forced, end-of-life counseling will be paid for as will assisted suicide.

When are our leaders going to get it in their heads?  Life is precious,  authored by God,  not Government or choice.  Life is precious, regardless of age,  how healthy or unhealthy you are or what your care costs.

Join me and speak your mind on the issues at www.rothrevolution.ning.com  and join me on my daily radio show  www.therothshow.com.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I don’t believe that the abortion issue can be separated from the religious convictions of its pro-life advocates. To be a bit more specific, what the pro-life advocates are against is the killing of a human being with an immortal soul, as opposed to the killing of a simple mass of cells, like a tumor.

    Assuming the above is correct, the difficulty begins with the 3rd Amendment of our Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion. Freedom of religion however means more than just the right to worship the God of one’s choice, it also means that one is free to believe in no religion at all. Atheists however, do not believe in the existence of an immortal soul.

    Any laws passed prohibiting abortion therefore by logic, gives the majority who were in favor of the law, the legal right to force their religious convictions on the minority, who for whatever reasons do not share the majority’s religious convictions.

    Hence the conundrum, and since I believe that the guarantees of our Bill of Rights trump any and all other rationalizations and justifications for any laws prohibiting abortion, I must disagree with the entire premise of the pro-life community.

    IMHO, the entire issue should be outside the purview of government altogether, and the decision relegated to the individual and his or her family and religious advisors.

    On another level, it is a fact that the majority of Americans are pro-choice. I don’t know by what percentage, but we all know that left is for the most part pro-choice while the right is, for the most part pro-life. It’s also a fact that our country is in the middle of the greatest crisis in its entire history, and that if we’re not successful in kicking Obama and the rest of the progressives out of our government in 2012, that it’s all over.

    I know for a fact that all of the talk and debate over issues like abortion and gay marriage makes the Republicans look like a bunch of bible thumping bigots to lots of people on the left. When you put those 3 factors together, you come to one inescapable conclusion: We should eliminate all talk about abortion and gay marriage etc. from the political debate.

    In the midterm elections of 2010, one of the reasons why we were so successful is that virtually all of our candidates stayed on point about the economy, immigration and national security. It’s essential that we stick to that strategy in 2012 in order to best ensure victory. Thus, it follows that:

    A: We should stop all discussion of abortion, because it will help us defeat Obama and the progressives, and that has to be our first priority for now.

    B: Since the country is predominantly pro-choice, all talk about abortion is an exercise in futility because we simply can’t do anything about it anyway, so why bother.

    I don’t remember who said it first, but it’s true. You can’t legislate what’s in a man’s heart.

    Let’s keep our eye on the ball folks. If Obama wins reelection, we know with absolute certainty that our tax dollars are going to be paying for abortions on a regular basis. The best thing all pro-life people can do in support of their beliefs for now, is to keep them to themselves.


  2. Dr. Roth,

    Although I fully acknowledge that a unique human life is created at the moment of conception, I am not prepared to equate a newly fertilized human egg cell or even a young embryo to a full-fledged person, for that would morally obligate me to demand that we apply the death penalty for the 100 percent willful, premeditated taking of another person’s life even if that so called person is just one cell. Pure elective abortion of a person has no excuse or mitigating factor – it can only be considered murder in the first degree and respect for the rule of law demands that we penalize it equally as such as with any other first degree murderer.

    Make no mistake about it: being a sympathetic, beautiful young woman at the full peak of the bloom of youth and perhaps the mother of other small children is not a valid mitigating factor when it comes to willful, premeditated murder in the first degree. Are you prepared to see such a woman put to death for taking a morning after pill? I find the thought abhorrent and sincerely hope that you would too.

    Defining personhood as beginning at conception leads to this troubling cognitive dissonance. If a fertilized human egg really is every much a person as a newborn child or a five year old toddler, then the penalty for willful, premeditated murder of each of those must be the same. However, I don’t believe that most prolife advocates really see things in such black and white terms. Please consider the following idea.

    Think of two beads on a timeline stretching from conception to birth. Now push the right most bead forward to the time point where you are comfortable demanding that elective abortion be considered full fledged murder (for me, this is somewhere around four months). Now push the left timeline bead back to the point where you can be sure no person yet exists. For you, this would be all the way back to the start whereas for me it would be at six weeks or so. Your timeline would have only two zones whereas mine has three. In my opinion there is a short period at the beginning of the development of human life where I am so certain that that life is not yet a person that I am compelled to protect a woman’s freedom of control and use of her own body with regard to that non-person life. You recognize no such zone and I fully respect that.

    Once we get to the middle zone, we probably agree again. Here abortion should be strongly discouraged and may even be made illegal if the voters of an individual state so chose. However, if someone were to get a purely elective abortion anyway, we would not considered it to be heinous murder in the first degree – we would not demand the death penalty be applied. And in doing so, we would be admitting that prenatal human development is a continuum where, even though they most definitely are human life, very immature “pre-persons” are not really equal to other, more fully developed persons.

    Also, we would probably agree about the third and final time zone, i.e., a full person, a pre-born baby exists and to kill such a person for any reason (other than perhaps to save the life of the mother in an emergency situation) would be equivalent to the murder of any born person.

    So, Dr. Roth, what say you?