Szabo Apologizes, Retracts 'Unacceptable' Statements Concerning Abortions
Hillsborough County Sheriff candidate says he "let his imagination get out of control" in suggesting arresting abortion doctors, using deadly force.
Less than 24 hours after telling Bedford Patch and other media outlets that he condoned the use of deadly force to prevent abortions, Hillsborough County Sheriff candidate Frank Szabo is backing off those comments.
In a written statement, Szabo today said he has reflected on the "unacceptable public comments" he made yesterday, and retracted the idea that he would use deadly force to stop an abortion doctor and apologized to the people of New Hampshire for so carelessly losing track of what he was saying.
“I want to be clear to the people of New Hampshire that I made several comments about the use of deadly force against abortion doctors that I regret, that I apologize for and that I fully retract,” said Szabo. “Clearly, I feel very strongly about life beginning at conception, and that will not change. But, in making comments yesterday, I let my passionate stance against abortion get the better of me.
“What I said was inexcusable, and as sheriff, I would not use lethal force against an abortion doctor,” he continued. “To explain my misstatement, however, I want to point out that for someone as adamantly pro-life as me, walking in on an abortion is the equivalent of walking in on someone who is in the process of stabbing someone else."
Szabo said he was caught off guard with a question about the use of lethal force to prevent an abortion.
"While I maintain that abortion is unlawful because it strips the right to life from a helpless unborn child, I recognize it is legal, and for that reason deadly force against an abortion doctor is not justifiable," he said. “As someone who has such a passionate respect for life, I also respect the life of abortion doctors, even if I don’t respect what they do.
“As sheriff, when the moral waters are murky, I would always err on the side of prudence. This isn’t the 19th century, and I am a man of peace. I honestly can’t imagine a situation where I would want to use deadly force. In fact, I would use every possible peaceful and lawful tool at my disposal to execute the job of Hillsborough County Sheriff, and the people of the county should have confidence in that.”
In a press release several weeks ago about abortion, Szabo said he would use the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office to arrest abortion doctors for murdering innocent life.
While he stands by his statement that a sheriff could do that, he admits that it was a bad example of a larger point he was trying to convey, which is that the county sheriff’s job is to enforce the law of the land, which is spelled out in the state and federal constitutions. While abortion is legal, he said it is not lawful because it violates a pre-born child’s natural right to life. However, in the system of checks and balances that America’s founders set up, a sheriff, he noted, would not have the final word on this matter.
Conceivably, a county prosecutor could choose to side with the sheriff and press charges following an arrest, he explained. The sheriff could also call a citizens’ grand jury to press charges. Even then, the case would be heard in a court of law, and a judge or even a jury would not likely convict the abortion doctor. The abortion doctor might then file a counter suit against the sheriff on any number of complaints.
“With government’s increasing encroachment on citizens’ natural rights, particularly their right to own and control their own property, the abortion doctor example was really a poor choice to prove a point about the sheriff’s potential role as a constitutional officer,” Szabo said. “In retrospect, I should have focused on issues like those highlighted in my press release earlier this week.
“In one example, an Oregon man was arrested for harvesting rain water on his own land. In another, the owners of family farms in Michigan were ordered by government agents to kill their heritage pigs as an ‘invasive species.’ It’s legal abuses such as these that a county sheriff can and should stop using his inherent constitutional authority. It’s legal abuses such as these that I would stop as Hillsborough County Sheriff," he added. “I truly hope the voters of Hillsborough County will give me another chance to prove my qualifications for office so I can help restore natural law, which is protected by the state and federal constitutions."
Gary Hoffman
8:50 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Just do everyone a favor, including yourself, and withdraw.
R. Scott White
8:55 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
"Never mind" is usually a poor political move.
susanthe
9:17 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Szabo's mistake was revealing his plans BEFORE the election. No wonder the Republicans are mad at him - he tipped their hand.
Dennis Taylor
9:23 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
The man is correct in his view that walking in on an abortion is very similar to walking in on a murder. What is shameful here is that he has to apologize for his wisdom.
Carol Moyer
10:05 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Wisdom? Seriously?
Sharon LaCouture
10:56 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
Why DENNIS, would Frank Szabo EVER 'walk in on' an abortion? REALLY????
Dennis Taylor
11:40 am on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Carol, go watch an ultrasound that shows a baby in a mother's womb and then ask yourself why you should not kill it? Does getting mommy's permission to do so make you feel better about it? What if mommy doesn't want to kill her baby? Why is it the mother's choice and not a recognition that the child has rights? If I kill the mother and baby, I am charged with a double homicide. Is the baby thus property but not human that the mother's wishes should be involved? Clearly, if the baby is not human, no double homicide. If the baby is human, how can its humanity be terminated simply because a mother wants to do so? The baby cannot be human under one law and inhuman under another. So, yes, Carol, this man has the wisdom to recognize the truth.
Dennis Taylor
12:12 am on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sharon, is your question above, after reading my reply, really the best you can do?
Chuck Rogers
2:54 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
I believe the "nudge nudge, wink wink" here is that if he's elected sheriff, while he himself wouldn't shoot doctors, his department might use "judgement" in prosecuting those who do. Perhaps his department would be "too busy" or they'd "lose the paperwork."
Either way -- if he's elected, doctors should fear for their lives. He's sounded the dog whistle loud and clear.
Frank W. Szabo
11:23 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Chuck: I appreciate your understandable apprehension about me after the interview. I value all life and would never condone any violence whatsoever. I also hold the public trust to the extreme and would not tolerate the inappropriate actions you mentioned.
Kevin
6:24 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
I'd like Mr. Szabo to define exactly, in detail, the "natural law" that he seeks to restore.
Sharon LaCouture
6:49 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
This guy scares the crap out of me. It scares me to think of how many like-minded people there are out there. We are supposed to be a civilized society. I am a woman and I will not allow ANYONE to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. Not religious people, or society or government. I'd go to jail to stand up for my own convictions.
Frank W. Szabo
11:27 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Kevin: Natural Rights are to what the founding fathers referred in their writings. They are the inalienable Rights we have simply by virtue of being alive. Some of these Rights were deemed so important for the continuance of liberty that they were enumerated in The Constitution for protection. Natural Law can also be viewed as Common Law or common sense which was used prior to codified laws.
Sharon LaCouture
12:39 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Natural law, or the law of nature , is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature -- both social and personal -- and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law") of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law. According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right,
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.
Mr Szabo, you do not have the right to impose your personal moral code on anyone. Not pregnant women or doctors who perform LEGAL abortions.
Sharon LaCouture
6:46 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Firstly, I wonder WHY would he be 'walking in on an abortion'??? SERIOUSLY? And he retracted his statement? I guess he never learned that 'once said words cannot be unsaid' This guy is so ignorant I'd be afraid to live in the county if he was the Sheriff.
Dennis Taylor
9:01 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sharon, in a society that valued human life, you would be in jail for killing your unborn child. I hope, as you age and need expensive daily care, that you will reflect on your value to a society that already allows the "burdened" to kill their young. What right will you have to burden your children with your nursing home care? If human life is not worthy of protection, do you believe that you, as an old woman in a nation struggling under unfair inter-generational debt, will be seen as worthy of life?
Steve From NH
8:30 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
Dennis - where are you on the death penalty?
Dennis Taylor
9:04 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Sharon, you just stated that, if you feel strongly, you will not be restrained by any person, law, or government to do exactly as you please. How can you then be afraid of this candidate, if you are not also afraid for your family members who must reside with you? Have you given thought to moving out as you recognize no restraint to your behavior, other than your perceived self-interest???
Dennis Taylor
9:05 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Oh, wait, I just read your rant again. It is only in one area, the right to kill your baby, that you would be unrestrained. Whew, for a moment there, I thought you were a psycho.
Frank W. Szabo
11:35 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
I sincerely regret all of the embarrassment and real concerns I caused with my comments of Wednesday. I posted this on my campaign FaceBook page this morning;
*****
Apology to my supporters:
Never in my wildest nightmare would I advocate violence, especially the initiation of deadly force. My supporters know that I am a man of peace. Yesterday’s interview was poor judgment on my part.
It never occurred to me that I was being asked about using deadly force as an aggressor. Initiation of violence is not part of my consciousness. If the reporter came out and asked me plainly, “Would I shoot the doctor?”, I would have been appalled at the question.
A formal apology will be issued this morning and posted on my website.
*****
I am running for Hillsborough County Sheriff because of my concerns about serious government overreach. I discuss some recent examples in my presentations and articles. The Sheriff has the authority and duty to protect all of the Citizens, their Rights and their property - from any unlawful action. That is what I hope to do.
Patrezi
1:34 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
Mr Szabo, if you were a voter and someone made what you would consider to be a foolish foolish statement, would you wonder about his/her sense of judgment if they were running for office? After all, especially in your field, quick decisions have to be made that require a keen mind.
Sharon LaCouture
11:02 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
You are an idiot Mr. Szabo. And I hope the constituents are never EVER required to address you as Sheriff Szabo. You DID advocate violence by stating the 'use of deadly force' should you 'walk in on an abortion'. I would like to know, in your current state of confusion and back-peddling, please explain to me in what circumstance you would ever have the need to walk in on any medical procedure.
Steve From NH
8:24 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
You have said repeatedly that you, as Sheriff, would be the ultimate authority in the County, responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and Common Law. Your knee-jerk reaction to the scenario of walking into a room where an abortion was taking place is that you have the right to use deadly force to prevent that abortion - which, by the way, is a legal practice, whether you like it or not. You can't as they say "put the toothpaste back in the tube" - you have shown what you might do with your ultimate authority.
You are done with your quest for Sheriff, whether you realize it or not - you haven't a chance.
Question is, do you still have the support of the Republicans for Liberty and the NH Tea Party Coalition? Their silence speaks volumes about what they really consider "Liberty" - seems like "liberty" is what they say it is, and what you say it is, and if I don't agree I should be shot, or arrested, or shut up, or whatever the Sheriff thinks is appropriate.
Jane Aitken? Tea Party? Republicans for Liberty? Any response?
Dennis Taylor
12:06 am on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Steve, I am all for a death penalty that is swift and is fairly enforced on all classes and races. Should the children of a man murdered by another man have to also pay all of their lives to keep him alive in prison? To do so is to compound the damage of the initial crime. The abortion is the murder of an innocent, while a death penalty is the natural defense response of a society against killers.
As far as my support, Mr. Szabo has it as I see that he understands the truth of abortion, but is willing to restrain himself. Right now, this is the best we can get. Consider a similar situation in our nations history. Would you have preferred that the blacks not have risen to slay or escape their southern masters out of the proper deference to the current laws on the books of the southern states? Can you never make an exception to disobey an unjust law? I want a sheriff who would help a slave escape, even if it was illegal for him to do so. I guess you would want one so bound by the law that he helped the owners capture and torture said slave. I await your reply.
Steve From NH
8:28 am on Friday, August 24, 2012
P.S. Abortion is legal, period. To paraphrase, "if abortions are outlawed only outlaws will have abortions". Women are going to make that choice, whether we ignorant men agree with them or not. In the old days, women of means would go to another country, those without would find someone with a coathanger. And that, if you will, is a "Natural Law".
Sharon LaCouture
11:03 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
applause. applause. applause. Thank you Steve
Dennis Taylor
12:10 am on Saturday, August 25, 2012
I take it you cannot see that a woman free to kill her baby is also free to kill your child. I am not aware of any law requiring a mother to get the consent of the father before doing her child in, are you? Where is the father's natural right to his child, his right to know before so that he can appeal to a court, or his right to damages from the mother for the taking of his offspring?
Marilyn Jones
1:04 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
Frank Szabo has demonstrated to the world that he is absolutely, stark staring nuts. He must withdraw from the race, and find a hole to live in.
Sharon LaCouture
11:04 pm on Friday, August 24, 2012
...or crawl back into the hole he came out of. Enough said.
Dennis Taylor
12:11 am on Saturday, August 25, 2012
In a world of baby killers, the man who objects is the insane one.
Dennis Taylor
12:15 am on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sharon, when you put down your literary knife and stop encouraging other women to harm themselves and their babies, when you turn and ask forgiveness from those you have cruelly misled, and when you cry out your sorrow to the babies you have helped slaughter, I hope that will be enough said.
Sharon LaCouture
12:35 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
DENNIS. You are obviously an idiot and I will not waste any more of my time responding to your idiocy. When you come back in another life as a woman and get pregnant and choose not to have a child and have a legal abortion, then your opinion will have some validity. Until then, stick a sock in it.
Sharon LaCouture
12:44 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Mr. Szabo, You are mistaken in your above statement where you wrote " Natural Law can also be viewed as Common Law "
Natural law is NOT the same as common law.
And a women's right to choose to have an abortion is her absolute legal right. She has the LEGAL right to do so, and not by natural law or common law but by virtue of our legal system.
Sharon LaCouture
12:48 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Uh DENNIS.... you just admitted your insanity.
Dennis Taylor
12:11 am on Saturday, August 25, 2012
In a world of baby killers, the man who objects is the insane one.
Dennis Taylor
7:05 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sharon, rather than offer debate, you offer a hatred no doubt born from a personal knowledge of guilt. I wonder if your hands are bloody or those of a loved one? You cannot conceive that you have aided a murder, and so you try to shout me down. As I stated earlier, any vocal support for abortion is your hand on the knife that kills a baby in a mother's womb--far, far away perhaps. I really wonder if you have not done this deed and seek to clean yourself by getting the support of your peers. The first step is to admit, privately, that you were wrong. Screaming at me here will only drive the nail in deeper.
Dennis Taylor
7:53 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sharon, sorry that I did not see your prescient point in the above statement. You are pleased to have created and to live "in a world of baby killers" like yourself. In order to remain sane as you try to reconcile the slaughter of your own baby with your personal belief in your own righteousness, you must consider any challenges to that volatile world-view as insane. By denying the truth I suggest, you cling to your own sanity. I get it, and please give your car keys to a responsible adult.
Steve From NH
1:14 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
If you look at Mr. Szabos lawn signs, it says "Protect YOUR property" or similar. I have an idea his sentiments come from his experience in Pennsylvania in 2010, when he lost an appeal that he be allowed to keep chickens on his 1.6 acre property in defiance of local zoning laws. Szabo, representing himself, argued that towns have no constitutional right to enforce zoning laws, and a property owner should be able to do whatever they want on their own personal property. He lost, but did establish his belief that the state has no right to tell a property owner what they can or can't do.
In a stunning display of hypocrisy, Joe Szabo apparently does believe that a sheriff has jurisdiction over a womans uterus.
His qualifications for sheriff stem from a "Sheriffing for Dummies" type book written by some guy named Anderson in 1942, otherwise he has experience in the insurance and Limo industries.
All this noise has something do to with abortions and nothing to do with slavery, but it's mostly about the rights that Szabo has accorded to County Sheriff - presumably himself. Those rights, according his authoritative Sheriffing for Dummies, are absolute, there is no federal, state, or local entity that Sheriff has to answer to beside himself.
Looks like the top of Sheriff Szabos to-do list will be policing the uteri of those in danger of falling afoul of his interpretation of Natural, Common, and Constitutional Law. Maybe we should also ask to look at the rest of the list.
Dennis Taylor
7:09 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Steve:
I am still waiting for a response to my argument that we should want law enforcement officers to refuse to obey laws that are manifestly unjust. I understand if you cannot make a rebuttal, as I think my argument is a good one. If one agrees with the premise that fetuses have the same rights as newborns, killing them is unjust and should be stopped by all means. One would have to argue that they are not. If not, when do these fetuses, in your opinion, become fully vested with the right to life?
Sharon LaCouture
7:56 pm on Sunday, August 26, 2012
It seems the rules do not apply to Mr. Szabo and if given the power of the office of Sheriff he would undoubtedly abuse it, and to his own benefit. I still say he should be court ordered to have a psychiatric evaluation for threatening the use of deadly force. If you or I did that in a public forum, we would be arrested!
Steve From NH
12:26 pm on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Dennis:
Just noticed this, sorry for the late reply.
In a passive way, I suppose so. For instance, if I transported myself back in time to 1850's Virginia, and I was a sheriff, and a slave ran away, I would not look too hard. I would have let Rosa Parks ride at the front of the bus. But like many facets of life and society, a lot of what you want to paint as black and white is really gray. For instance, I wouldn't want to get caught looking the other way, because I'd have to feed my family somehow.
I don't consider abortions to be unjust. I don't think anyone should have one unless it's necessary, but it's not my business if they do - and they will continue to have them whether they are legal or not and no matter what I or you or Mr. Szabo think.
So in my case, I would be the Sheriff outside keeping the screaming people with the signs away from the women going into the clinic to have a legal procedure done to their bodies.
And I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision regarding fetuses and babies and rights.
P.S. Be a little careful how you apportion responsibility - according to some of your arguments, I think that you would have to accept responsibility for 100's of thousands of innocent lives being taken in Iraq if you voted for GW Bush.
Dennis Taylor
11:40 pm on Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sharon: You have clearly stated that noone who has not killed their own child should voice an opinion here. ( "DENNIS. You are obviously an idiot and I will not waste any more of my time responding to your idiocy. When you come back in another life as a woman and get pregnant and choose not to have a child and have a legal abortion, then your opinion will have some validity. Until then, stick a sock in it.")
Thus, I apologize for opining. You had the right to kill your child and I have no right to demur. I hope that you all can now go back to viewing me as a polite poster, as that clearly is what matters with this issue, the poster, not the post.
Sharon LaCouture
11:40 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
You have the right to voice your opinion DENNIS, just as the rest of us do. This is America! But I will defend myself when put on the defensive by your opinionated and overbearing rants, which from what I have read [all over the web] you are quite well known for. You are a blowhard DENNIS. You start talking the second your eyes open and don't shut up until they close at night. Do you never tire of the sound of your own voice?? I have known men like you and have rid myself of them because they do nothing but drag you down, belittle you and make you feel inadequate. I feel sorry for anyone who HAS to be around you all the time. I'm serious. Go burn a book DENNIS.
Dennis Taylor
9:39 pm on Monday, August 27, 2012
You do condone abortion, Sharon, or you are too witless to understand the meaning of your own words. You want us all to think you have clean hands while you hold the door open and beckon others to slaughter their children. You have the blood of children on your hands and you are too numb to realize it. Call me all sorts of names if that momentarily lifts you out of the mire in which you live. If your evil covered only your own life, that would be grim enough indeed. You would spread it to others, and for that, you are truly, truly reprehensible.
Sharon LaCouture
11:34 am on Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Okay, perhaps condone was [in part] the wrong word to use
con·done/kənˈdōn/
Verb:
Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.
Because I do accept and allow LEGAL abortions which YOU and others LIKE you consider behavior that IN YOUR OPINION is morally wrong or offensive.
But I also uphold a woman's right to have a legal abortion with reluctance because IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I would rather see children born and offered for adoption [being an adoptive parent myself, as I understand you are also] rather than aborted.
So I do condone legal abortion. And calling you names makes me feel good.
I DO have clean hands DENNIS, probably cleaner than your own. And you are a smug SOB to assume that I do not.
I am neither numb nor witless and I do not have the blood of innocents on my hands. And the mire in which I live? really?? Fancy up your words DENNIS IF THAT MAKES YOU FEEL SUPERIOR to me. You're not. You're nothing.
I will eat my words and agree that I misused the word 'condone'
I will gladly hold the door open to any pregnant woman who chooses to not be pregnant and end an unwanted pregnancy by means of a LEGAL abortion. Nothing you say will change that, so I suggest you just STFU.
THERE! THAT made me feel a LOT better!
Have a beautiful day DENNIS. : )