Obama Claims No Abortion Litmus Test for Supreme Court, But Establishes One

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Washington, DC – President Barack Obama met top Senate leaders today to discuss is upcoming Supreme Court nomination and he promised he will have no abortion litmus test. However, most of the potential nominees said to be on his short list to replace pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens also back unlimited abortions.

LifeNews.com/nat6270.html
 
Washington, DC – President Barack Obama met top Senate leaders today to discuss is upcoming Supreme Court nomination and he promised he will have no abortion litmus test. However, most of the potential nominees said to be on his short list to replace pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens also back unlimited abortions.

LifeNews.com/nat6270.html
That’s why we have elections and we had an election.
 
There is good news here: Obama has not yet had the opportunity to tilt the Court to the pro-death side. So far, his only nominations have been to replace liberal pro-choicers with liberal pro-choicers.

Effectively this means that, although we’re not gaining ground, at least we’re not losing any – and that seems to be a victory for the pro-life side and something of a loss for the pro-death side.

Now if all of our pro-life justices can just hang on until January 2013…:gopray2:

Peace,
Dante
 
There is good news here: Obama has not yet had the opportunity to tilt the Court to the pro-death side. So far, his only nominations have been to replace liberal pro-choicers with liberal pro-choicers.

Effectively this means that, although we’re not gaining ground, at least we’re not losing any – and that seems to be a victory for the pro-life side and something of a loss for the pro-death side.

Now if all of our pro-life justices can just hang on until January 2013…:gopray2:

Peace,
Dante
I’m sure they will try. Incase we have another election like in 2000 the 5 will have to choose our President. And look where that got us.
 
I’m sure they will try. Incase we have another election like in 2000 the 5 will have to choose our President. And look where that got us.
It was the Electoral College who chose the President. And if you remember, it was a unanimous court that halted those unconsititutional falling chad hunts.

The only thing that was not unanimous was weither the timelines outlined in the Florida State Constitution for reporting results prevented a full State recount.

And, of course, several news agencies did a full State recount after the election and Bush won those.
 
I’m sure they will try. Incase we have another election like in 2000 the 5 will have to choose our President. And look where that got us.
Please get your facts right. The court did not CHOOSE Bush. But thank God he WON the election.

As to the OP, Obama can claim that he will have no litmus test, but its simply an empty statement as the only people he will consider will be pro-abortion jurists, rendering his comment meaningless.
 
Please get your facts right. The court did not CHOOSE Bush. But thank God he WON the election.

As to the OP, Obama can claim that he will have no litmus test, but its simply an empty statement as the only people he will consider will be pro-abortion jurists, rendering his comment meaningless.
👍
 
Please get your facts right. The court did not CHOOSE Bush. But thank God he WON the election.

As to the OP, Obama can claim that he will have no litmus test, but its simply an empty statement as the only people he will consider will be pro-abortion jurists, rendering his comment meaningless.
The facts are a 5-4 SC vote more or less basically on conservative-liberal lines paved the way for Bush to enter the WH. And we are in 2 wars as a result, the economy went into the tank and no change in abortion. But you can believe as you want. Peace.
 
The facts are a 5-4 SC vote along the conservative-liberal lines paved the way for Bush to enter the WH. And we are in 2 wars as a result, the economy went into the tank and no change in abortion. But you can believe as you want. Peace.
I can see you feel very strongly about this. I applaud you for having such strong convictions.

However, there have been changes in abortion policy. Bush ensured the end of late-term abortions (at least for now) and has done much to protect the sanctity of marriage in the public sector. He also passed laws that limited - if not halted - public funding for abortions. I don’t agree with all his policies, but we can’t deny that he did some great things for the right of unborn children.

There is also reason to believe that the wars that have resulted may have happened no matter who was in office. I think sometimes we as a population take 9-11 too lightly. It was a very serious attack. Never before have so many civilians been killed on American soil. It was an historic attack, and there was no precedent for it. I think we were lucky to have a man like Bush in office who could attempt to handle such an attack on American civilians. What makes it worse is that it was not a clear-cut military attack. That could have been more easily handled. What Bush faced was a situation that none of us could possibly understand the full ramifications of. It’s easy to judge now, but I don’t think anyone could have handled that situation better. He showed a lot of wisdom, IMHO.

And Bush did fairly win the election. The electoral college was successful in this case to determine rightful election.
 
I can see you feel very strongly about this. I applaud you for having such strong convictions.

However, there have been changes in abortion policy. Bush ensured the end of late-term abortions (at least for now) and has done much to protect the sanctity of marriage in the public sector. He also passed laws that limited - if not halted - public funding for abortions. I don’t agree with all his policies, but we can’t deny that he did some great things for the right of unborn children.

There is also reason to believe that the wars that have resulted may have happened no matter who was in office. I think sometimes we as a population take 9-11 too lightly. It was a very serious attack. Never before have so many civilians been killed on American soil. It was an historic attack, and there was no precedent for it. I think we were lucky to have a man like Bush in office who could attempt to handle such an attack on American civilians. What makes it worse is that it was not a clear-cut military attack. That could have been more easily handled. What Bush faced was a situation that none of us could possibly understand the full ramifications of. It’s easy to judge now, but I don’t think anyone could have handled that situation better. He showed a lot of wisdom, IMHO.

And Bush did fairly win the election. The electoral college was successful in this case to determine rightful election.
🙂 Yes I feel very strongly about it. Because when I read the Gospel of our Lord I see Christ talking about the poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless, the prisoner, and being peacemakers more than I see Him mentioning abortion, gays and war. But these issues have unfortunately in my view taken a backseat nowadays in the Church. I attend more than one parish and I always hear abortion mentioned. It is rare for me to hear other issues. Other than recently a priest during his homily said his answer to the poor is only to simply get a job. And it dishearens me greatly. It is easy to judge now as hindsight is 24/7. So I won’t bother commenting on 911 other than to say it was not Iraq who attacked us. Peace.
 
🙂 Yes I feel very strongly about it. Because when I read the Gospel of our Lord I see Christ talking about the poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless, the prisoner, and being peacemakers more than I see Him mentioning abortion, gays and war. But these issues have unfortunately in my view taken a backseat nowadays in the Church. I attend more than one parish and I always hear abortion mentioned. It is rare for me to hear other issues. Other than recently a priest during his homily said his answer to the poor is only to simply get a job. And it dishearens me greatly. It is easy to judge now as hindsight is 24/7. So I won’t bother commenting on 911 other than to say it was not Iraq who attacked us. Peace.
Abortionists and active homosexuals are poor and sick in spirit and hungry for the truth. Killing our unborn by the millions is hardly peaceful. To me it seems like we are doing what Christ talked about. Jesus said “the poor will always be with us”. We can only do so much, people have to be willing to try to help themselves too. I’m sure, regardless what the priest said, he is still helping the poor and giving what he can.
 
Also, Obama says there is no litmus test for abortion, BUT he then says he wants a judge who supports womans rights. In Obamanese, womans rights means the right to kill unborn children indiscriminately.
 
That’s why we have elections and we had an election.
Yes, and it was all the pro-choice Catholics who kept urging the rest of us that Obama was the truly pro-life candidate, and that abortion was not an important issue. But his first actions were pro-abortion and his court nominees will continue to be so. And it’s just not the Supreme Court; by the next election, numerous Obama pro-abortion jurists will be occupying the federal appeals courts.
 
🙂 Yes I feel very strongly about it. Because when I read the Gospel of our Lord I see Christ talking about the poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless, the prisoner, and being peacemakers more than I see Him mentioning abortion, gays and war. But these issues have unfortunately in my view taken a backseat nowadays in the Church. I attend more than one parish and I always hear abortion mentioned. It is rare for me to hear other issues. Other than recently a priest during his homily said his answer to the poor is only to simply get a job. And it dishearens me greatly. It is easy to judge now as hindsight is 24/7. So I won’t bother commenting on 911 other than to say it was not Iraq who attacked us. Peace.
You certainly have a great capacity for compassion for those less fortunate. This is really refreshing!!

I can tell you’ve given this all a lot of thought. I am very sorry that you have encountered a member of the clergy that seems to not understand the struggles faced by those who are stuggling economically. This is very unfortunate. I am rather blessed to be in a parish with a community that highly values all people, and seeks to help everyone where they are most able. Such a comment in my parish would be met with very harsh reactions.

I think our fundamental difference comes from how we define the role of government. I personally believe that charity is a job for the churches, not the government. I believe that the government exists to protect its people, uphold their rights from internal and external people who would unjustly deprive them of those rights or take advantage of those weaker than them, and to provide basic protections from natural disaster. Since these are things that I value, I tend to vote for candidates who uphold these principles. Since I feel social betterment is for churches and private charities, policies supported by candidates aren’t as important. I do feel that the current government is failing in its duty to look out for “the least of these” by allowing people to explot, murder, and maim their children. Because I feel this is government’s main job (not a peripheral) until that issue is addressed, I cannot vote for any other candidate than a prolife one, in good conscience.

I can see that you have a great amount of compassion and love for those who are struggling, and you see that the church (at least inyour area) has failed in their mission. This is very unfortunate, and angering for me as well as I believe that the church’s main job is to help the less fortunate. I understand your belief that since the church has failed, it’s the government’s job now to force people to help those around them. You have a very good point in that belief, but I don’t think the church is too late, or that we can’t take care of our own. I also don’t think the government is doing a good job of helping people. At least, not the same way that a church could.

As for 911, I think the issue here is that Iraq indeed did not attack us. Neither did Afghanistan. No country attacked us, a private group did. This is what makes the issue all the more difficult to deal with. However, the reasons for the attack on these nations was that they were allowing these groups in their borders without policing their activity, or in the case of Iraq, there was no cooperation with international statue and crimes against humanity. It was viewed as a protection for American people (who had already been attacked) to try and quash those groups who would murder innocent civilians. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think the situation was handled as best as it could have been with the information that was available.

Have you ever looked into any of the wonderful christian/catholic charities that exist? There are some great organizations to give to who are in need of prayers, time, or fianancial help from people who care as deeply as you do. I also think that if you really believe that the government should play a role in charity, you don’t have to sacrifice prolife causes for that (as most of these candidates typically support abortion). You could vote for them to follow your belief in social programs, but also financially support crisis pregnancy centers, or other prolife causes so that justice can truly prevail for all people from conception to natural death, and even seek to bring about major change in the legal system so that all people are protected.
 
You certainly have a great capacity for compassion for those less fortunate. This is really refreshing!!

I can tell you’ve given this all a lot of thought. I am very sorry that you have encountered a member of the clergy that seems to not understand the struggles faced by those who are stuggling economically. This is very unfortunate. I am rather blessed to be in a parish with a community that highly values all people, and seeks to help everyone where they are most able. Such a comment in my parish would be met with very harsh reactions.

I think our fundamental difference comes from how we define the role of government. I personally believe that charity is a job for the churches, not the government. I believe that the government exists to protect its people, uphold their rights from internal and external people who would unjustly deprive them of those rights or take advantage of those weaker than them, and to provide basic protections from natural disaster. Since these are things that I value, I tend to vote for candidates who uphold these principles. Since I feel social betterment is for churches and private charities, policies supported by candidates aren’t as important. I do feel that the current government is failing in its duty to look out for “the least of these” by allowing people to explot, murder, and maim their children. Because I feel this is government’s main job (not a peripheral) until that issue is addressed, I cannot vote for any other candidate than a prolife one, in good conscience.

I can see that you have a great amount of compassion and love for those who are struggling, and you see that the church (at least inyour area) has failed in their mission. This is very unfortunate, and angering for me as well as I believe that the church’s main job is to help the less fortunate. I understand your belief that since the church has failed, it’s the government’s job now to force people to help those around them. You have a very good point in that belief, but I don’t think the church is too late, or that we can’t take care of our own. I also don’t think the government is doing a good job of helping people. At least, not the same way that a church could.

As for 911, I think the issue here is that Iraq indeed did not attack us. Neither did Afghanistan. No country attacked us, a private group did. This is what makes the issue all the more difficult to deal with. However, the reasons for the attack on these nations was that they were allowing these groups in their borders without policing their activity, or in the case of Iraq, there was no cooperation with international statue and crimes against humanity. It was viewed as a protection for American people (who had already been attacked) to try and quash those groups who would murder innocent civilians. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think the situation was handled as best as it could have been with the information that was available.

Have you ever looked into any of the wonderful christian/catholic charities that exist? There are some great organizations to give to who are in need of prayers, time, or fianancial help from people who care as deeply as you do. I also think that if you really believe that the government should play a role in charity, you don’t have to sacrifice prolife causes for that (as most of these candidates typically support abortion). You could vote for them to follow your belief in social programs, but also financially support crisis pregnancy centers, or other prolife causes so that justice can truly prevail for all people from conception to natural death, and even seek to bring about major change in the legal system so that all people are protected.
Whitacre Girl, Thank you for your post. You’re right we just have a different idea on the role of govt. But I appreciate all of your comments and I do understand where you are coming from and I do respect your views as well. God bless you my friend and peace be with you.
 
Whitacre Girl, Thank you for your post. You’re right we just have a different idea on the role of govt. But I appreciate all of your comments and I do understand where you are coming from and I do respect your views as well. God bless you my friend and peace be with you.
And also with you! 👍
 
Please get your facts right. The court did not CHOOSE Bush. But thank God he WON the election.

As to the OP, Obama can claim that he will have no litmus test, but its simply an empty statement as the only people he will consider will be pro-abortion jurists, rendering his comment meaningless.
While somewhat true of all politicians, I think it is even more true of Obama that you judge his actions and not his words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top