A “TAKE NO PRISONERS” APPROACH: A Lesson for the Florida Family Policy Council

In Florida Family Policy Council, Florida Family Policy Council Gets an "F" from Marielena Stuart, MARIELENA STUART 2012, MARIELENA STUART IS A PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE, Principled Conservatie, UNITED STATES SENATE 2012 FLORIDA on August 9, 2012 by Marielena Stuart 2012 Tagged: , ,
PRESS RELEASE: For Immediate Release

Thursday – August 9, 2012

A “TAKE NO PRISONERS” APPROACH: A lesson for the Florida Family Policy Council on medical and moral ethics—and what it means to be a principled conservative.
MARIELENA STUART (Marielena Montesino de Stuart)
Republican Candidate for the U.S. Senate 2012 (FL)
New Conservative Leadership and Courage for America

On August 1, the Orlando Sentinel published a statement from John Stemberger, the President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, after I gave an “F” to the Florida Family Policy Council on the issue of abortion.  All other morality and family issues addressed by the FFPC are weakened, when the fundamental point of departure—the defense of innocent human life, is nuanced. (See Stemberger’s statement below).

It is important to note that I issued an “F” grade to the Florida Family Policy Council after the FFPC used my photo and my good name – and plastered them on the FFPC “voter guide” giving me an “F” because I “failed” to participate in their survey.   Actually, as a solid social conservative—and as an authentic 100% pro-lifer who defends the unborn, I refuse to participate in the Florida Family Policy Council survey– and I refuse to have anything to do with John Stemberger and his organization.This is consistent with my public statement, that as an authentic conservative I am on my way to Washington DC—and I will take no prisoners.

Since the beginning of my campaign for the U.S  Senate, I have made it clear both in my words and actions, that I am a “no exceptions” candidate on the question of abortion. As I would not compromise the right-to-life of children already born, so I would NEVER compromise the right-to-life of an unborn child.

As a candidate for the office of U.S. Senator I have been contacted by a number of organizations and political PACS which call themselves  “conservative” and “pro-life,” but are on record as favoring “abortion exception clauses.”  Some of these organizations and / or their leaders have endorsed candidates and career politicians who are “moderates” that compromise—not just on social and fiscal issues, but specifically on the pro-life issue.  The price these groups wish to extract from me for their endorsement and/or  support is the betrayal of the unborn child and the Pro-Life Movement, and this I will NEVER do.

Caving in to pressure for an “endorsement” or “support” from these organizations– is an erosion of what it means to be conservative.

The grassroots Pro-life Movement in the United States and around the world has not worked tirelessly for the last four decades on behalf of the unborn child– only to have the movement compromised on the altar of political expediency by these organizations.Such organizations should be shunned by any one and every one who calls himself or herself pro-life.   Any organization which holds to pro-abortion exceptions is pro-abortion – PERIOD.

John Stemberger’s statement, published by the Orlando Sentinel,  is that I “apparently misunderstood the questions”.   Actually, I understand political expediency very well, as well as what John Stemberger’s organization and his survey are all about.

Stemberger states:

In the very rare case of the life of the mother being clearly in danger such as in an ectopic pregnancy (where the developing baby gets embedded the fallopian tube) then the mother should be given the difficult ethical choice of deciding which life should continue.”


The above statement by John Stemberger appears to be in conflict with his  endorsement of politicians who have gone on record also using rape and incest as exceptions for legalized abortions.

Regarding Stemberger’s statement [emphasis added]“…the difficult ethical choice of deciding which life should continue”?! — may I suggest that John Stemberger take a basic course on medical and moral ethics.

Mr. Stemberger– a direct induced abortion, that is– a direct and intentional attack upon the life of the unborn child, is never required to preserve the life or health of a woman.

John Stemberger’s attempt to discredit this pro-life principle by including “ectopic pregnancy” as an “exception” to justify abortion– needs to be exposed.  

In any pregnancy the doctor has two patients – the mother and the child.  In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the very young unborn child is growing in the fallopian tube, the doctor is obliged to use whatever treatment or medication is necessary to try to save both lives. In doing so, neither the physician nor the mother deliberately wills the death of the unborn child, even though, in the end the mother or child, or both, may die.  This is not considered an “exception” in abortion—because it is NOT an abortion.   Even first year students of medical and moral ethics understand, apparently what John Stemberger does not – that is, the validity of the principle of double effect.

It is time that we put a stop to the moral and medically bankrupt statements that have crept into the pro-life discourse.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) states the following:

“When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention.”  

On the subject of ectopic pregnancies,  AAPLOG adds:

“The intent for the pro-life physician is not to kill the unborn child, but to preserve the life of the mother in a situation where the life of the child cannot be saved by current medical technology.”

“For these reasons the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians recognizes the unavoidable loss of human life that occurs in an ectopic pregnancy, but does not consider treatment of ectopic pregnancy by standard surgical or medical procedures to be the moral equivalent of elective abortion, or to be the wrongful taking of human life.”

I again issue an “F” to organizations like the Florida Family Policy Council, on the issue of abortion.  

Politics may be called “the art of compromise,” but there are human rights and principles which admit of no compromise or modification, and the “inalienable right to life” is preeminent among these basic rights.

Clearly it is time for the grassroots Pro-Life Movement to clean house and restore the meaning of the terms “pro-life” and “the right to life” to their original luster and integrity. As your U.S. Senator, I pledge to do my part by carrying the “no-exceptions” battle into the halls of Congress. Pro-life means FOR LIFE without exception.  This must be our point of departure, if we are to be principled conservatives.

Stand with me– and vote for me on August 14.

I remain sincerely,


Republican Candidate for the U.S. Senate 2012 (FL)

New Conservative Leadership and Courage for America


Paid for and approved by Campaign to Elect Marielena Stuart to the U.S. Senate 2012 (FL)


FOR INQUIRIES CONTACT Marielena Montesino de Stuart through the following form:

Comments Off on A “TAKE NO PRISONERS” APPROACH: A Lesson for the Florida Family Policy Council