BLOG: Why Does Joe Atkins Hide His Pro-Choice Record?

candidate for Minnesota House 52b goes on the record...

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” ~ Mother Teresa

Abortion is one social issue that tends to divide people. You have two camps, one being pro-life, and the other being pro-choice. One thing both sides can agree upon is that society would be much better off if there wasn’t a demand for abortion.

Thomas Jefferson and the members of the Second Continental Congress affirmed that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I believe that they rightly placed ‘Life’ as the most important unalienable right endowed to us by God. Government’s main duties are to protect life, liberty and property rights. We cannot protect liberty or property if we do not protect life; especially the right to life of the unborn. 

As it stands in the United States, the US Supreme Court decided in 1973 (in conflict of the 10th Amendment) that abortion is a fundamental right. To many people, taking the life of an unborn life is nothing short of murder. Allowing abortion to continue is a violation of their conscience. Certainly using their tax dollars for state-sponsored abortion violates their moral convictions.

Abortion is legal in the United States and has been for almost 40 years. Presidents, Congressmen and Supreme Court judges have come and gone, but the decision has stood, despite pledges to overturn it from pro-life groups and politicians.

Although this is an issue which the founders believed should be handled at the state level, I do respect the rule of law. However, I do not feel it is right to take tax dollars from those who believe abortion is murder, and subsidize it.  

Because I agree with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors," I will work to end forced taxpayer funding of abortion in Minnesota.

Joe Atkins, who received the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Endorsement this year (http://www.prochoiceminnesota.org/media/press/20120806.shtml), may claim the contrary but his voting record indicates that he is strongly pro-choice. Here are a few examples:

  • In the 2008-2009 Health and Human Services Budget, an amendment to “Prohibit Public Funding of Abortions” was presented to the Minnesota House. Joe Atkins voted against it. The bill failed by just four votes.
  • In 2012, HF2341 was passed by the Minnesota House and Senate which stated that, “Prescribing Physicians must be present when abortion-inducing drugs are administered.” Joe Atkins voted against this as well. In a procedure like abortion, shouldn’t a doctor be required to be present, if only for the health of the mother?
  • In 2012, HF1921 was passed by the Minnesota House and Senate which simply required licensing and inspections of facilities which perform more than 10 abortion procedures a year. Joe Atkins voted against this as well. While Joe voted against allowing adults to purchase higher-powered fireworks due to safety concerns, he seemingly does not have those same types of safety concerns about abortion facilities.

As your Representative, I will fight to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion. For those abortions which we cannot prevent, I will work to ensure that they are provided in a safe manner, by a trained professional.

I think it’s time to elect a representative with the courage and conviction to stand up for every Minnesotan’s right to life. All life is sacred and must be protected.

When we live free, we live better.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Thomas Dippel October 25, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Partial birth abortion-inserting a scissors into the base of the babies scull and sucking babies brains out. Dilation and evacuation-breaking babies bones or pulling limbs off, sometimes achievable without pulling the baby apart. Suction aspiration-sucking the baby out. Induction-Salt water burns the baby and creates an unlivable situation.
Thomas Dippel October 25, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Partial birth and Dilation and Evacuation.
Ray October 25, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Let me see. Here is what i read from it. "Partial birth abortion is not a medical term; ... The term "partial birth abortion" was coined in 1995 by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in hopes it would spur anti-abortion response. " So you want me to comment on a "procedure" that was made up by non-doctors ?
Thomas Dippel October 25, 2012 at 06:33 PM
I'm done, Ray. You're being unreasonable.
Ray October 25, 2012 at 06:44 PM
Thomas - I'm posting from the very link you gave me. Now you are calling me unreasonable. Aren't you being the one who is being unreasonable by posting some made up hyperbole about abortions ?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »