Information Women's Right To Know and 
other Right to Life issues

For Immediate Release: 7/15/2004

At 6:53 p.m. Wednesday, May 19, 2004, Congressman Johnny Isakson cast a fateful vote for H.R. 4200, Vote #197.  No other Georgia Republican Congressman joined him in the vote to allow abortions in military hospitals.  Yet, all four Georgia Democrats (Sanford Bishop, John Lewis, David Scott and Denise Majette) voted with Johnny Isakson.  The vote failed just as it did the two previous years that Congressman Isakson voted to allow abortions in military hospitals. 

The day after the vote, Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Coalition, said, "We're extremely disappointed in the Congressman; this came out of the blue.  All bets are off" referring to the uneasy truce Isakson had developed with pro-life activist.

In this week's AJC article "Abortion frames top GOP race", two defining statements were made related to abortion and Isakson's vote on H.R. 4200, Vote #197.  Sadie Fields said, "Unlike other issues, there is no nuance when people discuss life.  You're either pro-life or you're not."  GRTL PAC Director Dan Becker said, "Clearly, the recent vote indicates his (Isakson's) core position.  We are very much concerned his message does not match his actions."

The Isakson's vote on H.R. 4200, Vote #197 is troublesome to pro-life activist because it represents some very basic conflicts between Johnny Isakson's words and actions.

First, Isakson's vote causes one to wonder which Isakson should voters believe?

• The pro-choice 1996 U.S. Senate candidate who ran ads declaring, "I don't believe our government should fund, teach or promote abortion, but I will not vote to amend the Constitution to make criminals of women and their doctors.  I trust my wife, my daughter and the women of Georgia to make the right choices."

• The self-proclaimed pro-life 2004 U.S. Senate candidate who's web site states, "I have a deep respect for life, and a voting record that reflects that respect. I am personally opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. I strongly support President Bush's view that we need to create a culture of life in America. A key step in this process is appointing federal judges who understand that laws are made in the Congress, not in the courthouse." 

• Note: Isakson still doesn't support a pro-life Constitutional amendment.

Second, Isakson's vote was to allow abortions in military hospitals. If passed, the vote would have meant the legalized killing of unborn babies by U.S. military doctors.  How does that square with Isakson's deep respect for life and personal opposition to abortion?   

Third, Isakson's statement about judges implies he thinks legislation and not the courts should address the abortion issue.  Isakson's justification for the vote was American women overseas should have equal access to the same abortion rights to as available in the States.  Rights created by the courts and not the Congress.  When given the opportunity to legislate, why did Isakson justify his pro-abortion vote by deferring to rights created by the courts? 

Fourth, Isakson's vote on May 19^th was a direct contradiction with his other pro-life legislation activity. 

• Was it just a temporary setback in his pro-life journey and if elected, he can be counted on make the important pro-life votes? 

• Or does the vote indicate Johnny Isakson's true beliefs and how he will vote?  Does it hearken back to his 1990 Governor's campaign when he was described as a pro-choice candidate or 1996 when he ran the pro-choice campaign ads during the U.S. Senate campaign?  http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1996/07/29/editorial1.html?page=1

• Isakson's pro-life supporters would have you believe Johnny has changed and ask you to trust him to support and protect the sanctity of life.

• GRTL PAC Board members have reviewed Johnny Isakson's long history on the life issue.  His statement and actions over the long term lead us to believe Johnny Isakson cannot be counted on to vote for the sanctity of life and his vote just six weeks ago is proof positive. 

In conclusion, Sadie Fields words ring true, "There is no nuance when people discuss life. 

You're either pro-life or you're not."

Now the decision is yours; vote NO to Johnny Isakson.  Someone's life may depend on it!"

Mike Crane, Georgia Senate District 51 - http://www.electmikecrane.org
Kenny Rowland, Effingham County Sheriff - http://www.electkennyrowland.com

please consider making a monthly contribution that fits your budget through the November elections. No contribution is too small and these men are working to provide A Real Choice, one that you can be proud to support.

Why many of the unborn are not born

Life Chain Georgia, Sunday Oct 1

Has Ralph Reed abused and misled Christians for personal profit?

Unborn Babies position statement by Mike Crane, Senate District 51 candidate

The Religious Right Has Fled The Battlefield