Did FL Gov. Crist leave pregnant woman high and dry but now says he would ban abortion?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Crist said he would ban abortions if it was up to him. Now there are reports that he fathered a kid when he was 32 and a successful lawyer but left the mother high and dry and denied being the father.

Why wouldn't he take a test to find out if he was the father and then raise the kid? ONe reason would be he didn't want to know and he didn't want to raise the kid. He wants to ban abortions though, which I am sure happen in tons of cases because the father doesn't want the kid and does what Crist is accused of doing.

http://sptimes.com/2006/03/22/news_pf/State/Crist_says_he_would_s.shtml

PENSACOLA - Attorney General Charlie Crist would sign an abortion ban similar to South Dakota's if he were elected governor, he said Wednesday before announcing proposals to increase adoption and protect children from Internet predators.

When asked by a Roman Catholic Priest whether he would sign a bill like South Dakota's abortion ban, which only allows the procedure to save a woman's life, Crist quickly answered "Yes I would."

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/25/Tampabay/A_girl_wonde...

The Tuckers adopted a seven-pound, 8 1/2-ounce girl who was born on June 23, 1989. That's the same day Rebecca O'Dell Townsend then named Wharrie gave birth to a girl, whom she said was fathered by Crist after a one-time sexual encounter in the fall of 1988.

When Townsend, who was going through a bitter divorce at the time, accused Crist of being the father, he steadfastly denied it. Yet he signed legal papers waiving parental rights, which helped pave the way for Townsend to place the child for adoption.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. You needed a 2nd thread on this?

Crist denies having intercourse with the woman, and thus denies he's the father of the child.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

2. Other thread is family values, this one is abortion

Who cares if a RePUKE denies paternity? They lie.

[mondo joe]

4. He's wrong about abortion. I don't see how this is relevant.

He denied paternity, then and now.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Relevant because his denial is meaningless, especially

when he went and filed legal papers to deny paternity and CONSENT to adoption. Why didn't he just challenge her with a DNA test? Guess?

[mondo joe]

6. I told you in the other thread. He could go through a costly legal challenge,

or he could simply deny paternity and any associated rights.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. Or he could offfer a DNA test, not costly, cheap, easy, and accurate

Why didn't he?

[mondo joe]

8. Apparently this satisfied those administering the surrender.

It further satisfied the birth mother, who could have sued for paternity.

Why didn't she?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. She didn't sue because she wanted to give it up for adoption

But the adoptive parents and the mother or both wanted to make SURE he waived his rights. Why would they if there was no chance it was his?

[mondo joe]

10. LOL! Why would they want to make SURE? Because the mother said he was

the father, of course.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. Exactly. The adoptive parents didn't believe him

and wanted to make sure he waived any paternal rights. He was exposing himself to exactly what is happening and the only way he could have prevented it was to take a DNA test which he didn't, and there are obvious reasons why he wouldn't.

Now the daughter wants to find out, she is a party not even involved in the original negotiations. Why wouldn't he do it now? Can you guess?

[Divine Discontent]

3. oh...

well from my viewpoint, I figured he didn't take the test because he knew there was never a worry in his head whether he fathered a child...

he's another right wing shill... we have so many of them down here, it's a shame. sometimes I think they brainwash the old folks with propaganda so well that they never from all the lies they spew out on the phone to them, and in mailings.