Last week, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made the following statement in an interview with Jake Tapper:
“I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life,” he added. “Because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.”
Which prompted this reply from me: Click Here.
The next day, I received the following reply from the Gingrich Campaign. The reply is presented in its entirety, with my analysis following.
.
.
.
Dr. Nadal,
Newt has stated many times throughout the course of his public life that he believes that human life begins at conception. Here is a statement Newt released today reaffirming that belief: http://bitly.com/tr7cP6 . (Full text pasted below)
In terms of new pro-life legislation, Newt said at The Family Leader Thanksgiving Family Forum on November 19 that he supports Congress enacting pro-life legislation under the 14th Amendment, including legislation that would define personhood as beginning at conception. Watch the video here: http://bitly.com/svuZAc .
During his 20 years in Congress, Newt held a consistently pro-life voting record. He received a 98.6% lifetime rating from the National Right to Life Committee, consistently voted for the Hyde amendment, and twice during his speakership passed legislation banning partial birth abortion. More details on his consistent pro-life voting record here: http://bitly.com/vzQkD4 .
For more info about the pro-life positions Newt will advocate as president, here is the Susan B. Anthony List’s 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge he signed in June: http://bitly.com/rAXj0E . And here is the candidate questionnaire Newt submitted to the National Right to Life Committee last month: http://bitly.com/u73oBP .
Thanks,
Dan
Gingrich Reaffirms His Belief in the Sanctity of all Human Life, Born and Unborn
Atlanta, GA – (12/3) – In advance of this evenings forum hosted by Mike Huckabee, Newt 2012 released the following statement today from Newt Gingrich regarding his belief in the sanctity of all human life, born and unborn.
“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception. I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.
“That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life.
“As I have also stated in the past, on day one of my administration, I will sign an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. I will also work with Congress to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood so that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions but rather transfer the money so it is used to promote adoption and other pro-family policies, and to enact legislation that provides greater protections for the unborn.
“In terms of new pro-life legislation, I stated as recently as November 19 at a public form of candidates in Iowa that I support Congress enacting pro-life legislation under the 14th Amendment, including legislation that would define personhood as beginning at conception.
“As I have also made clear in several of my public pronouncements throughout this campaign, I oppose federal funding of any research that destroys a human embryo because we are also dealing here with human life.
“My convictions on human life are longstanding, deeply felt, and irrevocable matters of conscience. I will do all in my power – always – to foster reverence for life.”
All of this is very reassuring, on one level.
That said, I cannot fathom how Mr. Gingrich could have uttered the words he did with Tapper, unless he has bought into the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s politically corrected definition of conception beginning at implantation. That is the only way that we can square Gingrich’s comment to Tapper with his reply to the criticism of those comments.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have always been a big admirer of Mr. Gingrich, and fully support his candidacy. However, I have a very basic question for him to put this issue to bed:
Do you accept the definition of conception as the fertilization of egg and sperm, with the resultant single-celled embryo being a new human being, or do you equate conception with implantation?
Thank you for this analysis of Newt’s statement. I had to ask the same question.
[...] on December 5, 2011 at 10:36 AM The Gingrich Campaign’s Reply « Coming Home [...]
[...] « Newt Gingrich’s Mistaken Notion: Life Begins at Implantation The Gingrich Campaign’s Reply [...]
Sorry to be a broken record, but I think the real question to put to Newt is: Do you support the banning of all direct and deliberate abortions no exceptions? If he does, he can hold whatever hinky theory of conception he wants in my book.
Gingrich needs to answer the question.
Gerard, I have a question. How will your question posed to Newt Gingrich alter Newt’s commitment to protecting embryos from Embryonic research, and his commitment to supporting Congress enacting pro-life legislation under the 14th Amendment, including legislation that would define personhood as beginning at conception. What will the pitfalls be if Gingrich does not grasp the meaning of conception as you present it? His platform seems to be answering the prayers of prolifers. Am I missing something here? After all it is legislation Prolifers are concerned about, and that is something Newt proclaims he is in favor of correcting. I am so grateful that God has Blessed us with a heavy weight champion to box Obama. Please tell me what your concern is in terms of correcting legislation and how the ‘conception’ question will alter things? Thank you.
Dawn,
If conception is synonymous with successful implantation, then banning surgical abortions, while good, will be replaced by chemical abortions with drugs such as Ella.
Ella is sold as a contraceptive, and not as an abortifacient, because it prevents implantation of the embryo. Gingrich’s original statement squares with the definition of conception as being implantation, and not fertilization. He indicated in that statement that defining it otherwise:
” … you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.”
Yes, indeed.
One of those difficult questions would be to force the FDA to rebrand the abortifacient drugs, and then outlaw them.
Another difficult question would be what to do with hormonal contraceptives that may act by preventing implantation.
Following on these would be conscience protection rights for physicians, PA’s, NP’s, RN’s, and pharmacists who do not deal in these drugs or their administration.
I agree that Gingrich is a pro-lifer’s dream candidate, and I support him. However, if we’re going after abortion, we cannot eliminate surgical abortions while leaving chemical abortions intact under the rubric of “contraception”, which is exactly the issue Gingrich was trying to duck in the interview with Tapper.
I think that this is a little clearer with the other statement… Read the second post first on my blog reader. I think some of the other candidates are good on life, too, though, and I am concerned about whether a man who can’t uphold the greatest promise in his personal life can be trusted on his campaign promises.
While being wowed throughout this campaign, by Newt’s intellect and ability to articulate ideas, I have been uncomfortable with my own momentary warm and fuzzy feelings toward him as the Republican candidate to oppose Obama. Somewhere deep inside I do not trust him and there are times I feel he is the conservative side of the Narcissist’s coin, the other side of which has Obama’s picture.
Aside from the obvious discomfort over his past adultery and three marriages, there are Republican congressman, who worked with Newt in the 90s, who were abandoned by him in the same way he abandoned his wives. In other words, he is not a faithful man. I know he has been born again to a new faith in Christ, but the old man is still at war with the new man and I am not convinced that he will not make compromises on the Life issue in order to exalt himself in some way.
This article by Charles Krauthammer gives some insight into the character of Newt with an obvious nod to Romney, who I don’t trust either, but it’s worth the read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html
One more thing. We have here in Illinois a House Speaker, a Democrat and one of the most powerful men to have ever run the State of Illinois. He claims to be a faithful Catholic and his voting record receives an A+ from the Pro-life groups in Illinois. However, behind the scenes he consistently blocks any pro-life and pro-family legislation that would further the cause for life. He determines which bills will make it out of committee and ours rarely do. I suspect the Pro-life legislators have to concede a great deal to him to get those bills to the floor. I know this because many years ago I lauded him as being a good Democrat for his pro-life votes. The person to whom I was speaking was a ardent pro-life legislator who set me straight on what really was happening.
My point is that I sometimes think of Newt that way. All good on the outside, by a political animal on the inside. Forgive me if my judgement sounds harsh.
Thank you Gerard for your answer. This makes sense to me and I now understand your concern here. I also understand the concerns of other commenters above. The concern is a valid concern.
With that in mind, all I can say is I trust, as we must all do at some point when voting for our particular candidate, that from what little I do understand about legislation, sometimes what seems to be the most perfect approach to a lay person, in correcting or changing legislation, sometimes a less perfect approach is the only route to take. At this point, although I like most of the candidates better than Obama, (scratching out Romney because of his healthcare plan looking too much like Obama’s and i don’t believe he will be as commited to pro-life issues, scratching out Ron Paul because of his seemingly irresponsible and simplistic ideas towards foreign relations) those who are left I feel do not carry the weight they’ll need to oust Obama.
If Newt is as articulate and knowledgeable as he has presented himself thus far, I trust that he will understand the language he needs to use to retaliate succesfully the language of legislation as it stands today agaiinst life. As a lay person, it may not be perfect, but in legisltion it may be the only route available to prolifers. If Newt continues in his polls in an upward movement, prolifers will still have to continue to educate and pray, and most of all pray, but it will be a good step towards protecting life. I pray and hope that America is ready to step in that direction. Ultimately, we’ve got to get Obama out of the White House, for many, many, reasons.
Thank you again, Gerard, for clarifying your concern.
When next November rolls around we will have a chance to vote for a president that is anti-life or his opponent who will in all probability be life friendly. If would be great to have a zealous pro-lifer in the White House, but at the very least it seems we will be able to count on the Republican to put his signature to pro-life bills. Let’s not savage our candidates.
Have you directed your question to the Gingrich Camp so that Gingrich himself can answer it? It’s an important question and I think he answered it already, BUT his answer needs to be clear and your question forces him to make it clear. All pro-life voters need this clarification, and Catholics need it since Newt is a Catholic and if he’s not thinking with the Church then some priest –I can’t think of any in particular right now — will have to make sure that he is thinking with the Church. He cannot be a hypocrite like the those in Congress who call themselves Catholics, but are, as Jesus would say, people “whom He does not know,” and who risk the door to heaven being shut to them. Gingrich loves the Church and I don’t think he wants to be at odds with Her teaching. So Gerry, if you haven’t done it already, please pose the question to Newt himself and thank you for asking the question. God bless you.
Father Fusare,
I’ve posed the question to Newt’s Communications Director. He has clarified, saying that life begins at fertilization.