In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

HornIt Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 1:58 AM
And what of Obama's partial birth abortion stance? Why doesn't that position, which is far more extreme than Murdock's, cost Democrats the election? While you wring your hands about a perfectly defensible position to have, Democrats boldly move on without a care for their indefensible positions. If the bed wetters would stop reacting out of fear and actually make a strong defense for what is not a political loser of a position, we wouldn't have this problem. It would be nice to see some true Republicanism being espoused. The kind that holds in matters that are not and should not be the purview of federal government, it should be decided by the people of each state.

As Richard Mourdock’s Indiana Senate fate hinges on how voters absorb his views on rape, all conservatives have an opportunity for a look in the mirror.

Just how pro-life do we want to be?

The Mourdock controversy is nothing like Todd Akin’s self-inflicted wound in Missouri, the result of an embrace of just plain bad medical information.

Mourdock is in hot water for accurately (if not particularly skillfully) articulating what God instructs about the life of the unborn.

If he is on politically shaky ground, it is because he had the courage to stand on the...