Indianapolis, IN – Indiana Right to Life PAC today is pleased to announce its endorsement of Jim Banks for State Senate in District 17. Indiana Right to Life PAC is widely regarded as the state’s most powerful pro-life voice in state political and legislative issues.
IRTL-PAC Chairman Mike Fichter issued the following statement today regarding the endorsement of Banks:
“Jim Banks is a longtime supporter of Indiana Right to Life and its ongoing efforts to defend and uphold the sanctity of life. We know that Jim will be a rock solid pro-life voice in the Senate. We also know that he will never be intimidated by powerful lobbying forces in Indianapolis who want to see abortions expanded and paid for by our tax dollars. There is no doubt that Jim Banks will quickly establish himself as a leading voice for family friendly values in the Senate. With today’s endorsement, we are encouraging every pro-life voter in State Senate District 17 to support Jim Banks in the upcoming primary election.“
If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.
No related posts.
Tags: Jim Banks
Entries (RSS)
One of the biggest challenges pro-life organizations face is when to endorse. If both candidates say they are pro-life, have they demonstrated it by votes and action? Will they be an advocate or just a vote? Will it divide the organization more than the differences between/among candidates? The most controversial in Allen County was, of course, Peters versus Kelty. It certainly did divide the organization. Both candidates were pro-life. I was backing Nelson Peters and felt the risks to the organization were high. I was not asked (nor should I have been, not on board) but, ironically, I defended their decision to endorse Kelty to many for a simple reason: few had been more active than Matt for the cause so it was defensible even if risky. The endorsement of Jim is clear because he has a track record and will be a needed advocate. He is a leader, not a follower.
In this case, the contrast is pretty clear. Banks's opponent filled out his Allen Co. Right to Life survey and said he supports a "woman's right to choose" in some cases, was undecided on some key pro-life issues and said he'd support abortion in cases of illness which is a pro-abortion candidate's typical cop-out answer that is not a pro-life position whatsoever. Banks is clearly the pro-life candidate in this race while his opponent is clearly the pro-abortion candidate. While some won't care about this issue, the 17th senate district is very pro-life. I don't agree with Banks on everything but on this issue I see no choice in supporting him and at least appreciate that he hasn't been afraid to answer my questions on issues as well as others which his opponent has so far avoided.