The main issue here seem to be the liberal embrace of abortion rights. Abortion incurrs automatic excommunication from the Church. Some one had asked “What have Republicans done for the pro-life cause?” Going back to the Clinton Administration, it was Republicans to introduced the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Almost every Republican in the House and Senate voted for the ban and only a few courageous Democrats. Pres. Clinton vetoed the ban and it was reintroduced later when President Bush signed it into law.
There are definite differences between the two major parties in regard to party planks and policy regarding abortion. That does not mean that everyone in a particular party agrees with the party position. There are pro-life Democrats and pro-abortion Republicans. Most Americans, though are unaware of most of what each Administration does in regard to abortion. The programs they start, what gets funded or de-funded, the laws or restriction enacted or repealed, and so on.
Obama is the most pro-abort of any president so far. There was much more that Republican presidents could have achieved
as presidents in regard to dealing with the abortion problem. But the Democratic Party will not select a presidential candidate who is not pro-abortion. Republicans, in general prefer a pro-life president. (But I don’t consider warmonger pro-life presidents to be very consistent in their pro-life position). The Democratic Party and its presidential candidates, on the other hand, receive enormous financial support from the abortion industry and its allies, and this determines much of what happens during an election and what a pro-abort Democrat does in office for the abortion industry.
President Bush had the opportunity to nominate 2 Supreme Court justices and he chose highly qualified men who are strict contructionists, meaning they take the Constitution as the Founders wrote it and do not read their own personal agendas into it. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and should be a matter left to states to decide. (I think that’s a moderate position between Roe v Wade and the proposed Human Life Amendment, yet the Left sees it as “extreme right-wing.”)
I disagree with you here. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution but the Constitution when read properly prohibits abortion. Justice Blackmum realized this in the Roe v. Wade case. The constitutional issue centers on the “Due Process” clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments, which basically state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without dues process of law. The 5th Amendment binds the federal government and the 14th Amendment binds the states. Due Process refers to legal proceedings, and since the unborn cannot be guilty of any crime, they cannot be legally denied the right to life.
Blackmum said if the unborn are considered “persons” according to the 14th Amendment, then the plaintiffs case fails. Blackmum refused to consider the scientific evidence presented to the Court showing that the prenatal child is a person. Even though “person” in the language of the 14th Amendment simply meant “human being”, Blackmum said the Court was not capable of deciding the issue of personhood. He proceeded to come up with a new doctrine to allow abortion: “the right to privacy” found in the penumbras emanating from the Bill of Rights. Huh?
However, the unborn are clearly persons according to a proper reading of “Due Process”. Even corporations are afforded the legal status of fictitious personhood. So, with a proper reading, the federal government and the states are not allowed abortion. If they are legally prohibited from engaging in abortion related activities, then it follows logically and necessarily that no organization, person, or agency in any state can be permitted either to commit abortions.
The upshot of my argument is that it is not strictly constitutional to return the abortion problem back to the individual states to decide on their own. The conservatives on the Court prefer to turn abortion back to the states, but such a view buys into the principle of the non-personhood of the pre-born. The current conservatives on the Court are not in all things strict constructionists or uncompromisingly pro-life.
Also, the Framers stipulated that the Constitution should never be interpreted apart from the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, this entails interpreting the Constitution according to the
natural moral law, or the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, as the Declaration words it. And that speaks volumes in regard to how far removed we are from true Constitutional government.
Reading these fora can be a culture shock - for example, being left-wing and Catholic is entirely unremarkable in the UK, but appears to be unusual, even shocking, in the US. I can see why some people might think that being Catholic requires some variety of conservatism - but the word is meaningless unless one knows what is being conserved, & and why: neither “conservatism” nor “liberalism” is a value in itself; both are qualities of things other than themselves. In Scholastic language, they are accidents, not substances. So one has to ask “conservative in what respect ?”, “liberal in what respect ?”. And one can perfectly well be a political liberal in some ways, yet be politically conservative in others. What this means in practice, depends on what the political culture of one’s country is: by UK standards, the USA seems to be extremely right-wing; the UK may be nightmarishly left-inclined by some US standards. One country’s political liberalism may well be socialism, or else something on the far right, by the standards of value usual in another counntry. Which affects how one answers your question 
), receive the Holy Eucharist, etc, etc. Yep, they proudly let the protestants and non-Christians know that they are Catholic (I’m the weirdo.) 