Pro-Life Leader Says Newspaper Misleads Catholic Voters on Pro-Abortion Pols

[Gene_Church]

Catholic Republican women obtain abortions just like all other women who may be poor, or Democrat. They just don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood or any other low income medical clinic. The Republican party “platform” is for show only. No one takes it seriously except for some posters on these forums. Bush has done nothing in 8 years. And please don’t mention Partial birth abortions. Most women do NOT have them. Republicans have done nothing in this area, and will continue to do so in the future.

Perhaps, but this does not change that the other alternative is far more evil. That is, choosing to give in.

 

[Biggie]

I agree with you on Democratic politicians who support abortion, but I don’t think we should give Republican politicians a free pass. We need to make sure they will do something and not simply say something. We need to hold them accountable.

Here here! Agreed!

 

[Ender]

I agree with you on Democratic politicians who support abortion, but I don’t think we should give Republican politicians a free pass. We need to make sure they will do something and not simply say something. We need to hold them accountable.

What, exactly, would you have them do? What would you have had the president do that he has not done?

Ender

 

[Dale_M]

What, exactly, would you have them do? What would you have had the president do that he has not done?

The state legislature of South Dakota managed to pass a law which effectively restricts abortion, forcing closure of the only abortion clinic in the state.

The US Congress was able to pass a law against partial birth abortion.

I would like to see similar laws, or at least a concerted effort to get them passed.

 

[Bella3502]

No clue what bearing the first two sentences have on any logical argument. Republican politicians are the only public voice against abortion rights on a national level. The Democratic Party has effectively silenced its members (remember Casey?). No one can doubt that as of now one party represents abortion interests and the other does not. Naral, Planned Parenthood and the rest are pretty sure who to support. Don’t see alot of confusion there. The opposition ought to be just as clear how to counter them or there will be mounting pressure on the Republican Party to remove right to life from the platform. As for partial birth abortions, born alive homicides, hey, it’s your slippery slope, not mine.

Statements like this one make me laugh. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s statements like this one that only make me want to continue to expose the hypocrisy every chance I get.

 

[Ender]

The state legislature of South Dakota managed to pass a law which effectively restricts abortion, forcing closure of the only abortion clinic in the state.

The US Congress was able to pass a law against partial birth abortion.

I would like to see similar laws, or at least a concerted effort to get them passed.

Would that be the Republican party of South Dakota and a Republican congress under a Republican president? Are you unaware that the first time the partial birth abortion ban was passed by (a Republican) congress it was vetoed by the Democrat president? Given that the Democrats now control both the House and the Senate you can’t seriously believe there is any way for any bill to be passed that limits abortion.

There has certainly not been a lot of progress toward ending abortion in this country but let’s at least acknowledge that what little progress has occurred has been the result of Republican initiatives prevailing over Democrat objections. You should also know that the South Dakota law does not restrict abortions. Given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the unrestricted right to an abortion is constitutionally protected no state has the authority to restrict them. What the SD law did was to require abortionists to inform the mother that an abortion terminated the life of a human being.

Ender

 

[Dale_M]

Would that be the Republican party of South Dakota and a Republican congress under a Republican president? Are you unaware that the first time the partial birth abortion ban was passed by (a Republican) congress it was vetoed by the Democrat president?

Yes, and during the first six years of the Bush Administration, when the President didn’t issue a single veto and when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate… what did they do? I think not enough.

There has certainly not been a lot of progress toward ending abortion in this country but let’s at least acknowledge that what little progress has occurred has been the result of Republican initiatives prevailing over Democrat objections.

Gladly.

You should also know that the South Dakota law does not restrict abortions.

I am aware of that. But the effect of the law was to restrict abortion because abortion providers were loathe to comply. It was an imaginative strategy which worked.

 

[Ender]

Yes, and during the first six years of the Bush Administration, when the President didn’t issue a single veto and when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate… what did they do? I think not enough.

“Not enough” is not very specific. What do you think they could have done that they didn’t? Keep in mind that even though the Democrats were in the minority they still had a filibuster-proof veto in the senate so no bill affecting abortion could possibly have gotten through congress without Democrat approval.

Ender

 

[Dale_M]

“Not enough” is not very specific. What do you think they could have done that they didn’t?

Off-hand, I don’t know. Perhaps more creative minds than myself can suggest something. But surely more than be done than simply shrugging their shoulders. If not, why bother to pay attention to a politician’s view on abortion?

Keep in mind that even though the Democrats were in the minority they still had a filibuster-proof veto in the senate so no bill affecting abortion could possibly have gotten through congress without Democrat approval.

Do you mean the Democrats could have filibustered and the Republicans would have had to resort to the “nuclear option”? I guess that really would have tested Republican commitment to being pro-life.

 

[Biggie]

There has certainly not been a lot of progress toward ending abortion in this country but let’s at least acknowledge that what little progress has occurred has been the result of Republican initiatives prevailing over Democrat objections.
Ender

I am with you completely on this. The abortion crowd has no confusion over who to support, and Naral isn’t voting Republican. The only national public voices opposing abortion are Republican. I can’t remember the last time I heard a Democrat even speak out on the matter although I have heard some identified as “pro-life”.

My voting life preceeds legalized abortion and after thirty-five years in the party waiting for the Democrats to return to their roots, I gave up.

Many Republicans are lukewarm at best, but what has their voting public been? The new leader of the Democrat Party, who as a state legislator virtually single-handedly held up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, lead the Catholic vote by as much as 11 points until this week. If pro-life voters aren’t steadfast and clear and if even the Catholic vote doesn’t send a clear message, who can finger point at a pro-life Republican because nothing has changed?

 

[Ender]

Off-hand, I don’t know.

This is part of the problem: you want something done but you have no idea what that could be. If you understood the situation you would have a better appreciation of what needs to be done to resolve the problem.

But surely more than be done than simply shrugging their shoulders. If not, why bother to pay attention to a politician’s view on abortion?

If there was only one anti-abortion politician in the Senate would you complain that he was ineffective in failing to outlaw abortions? Would you ignore his pro-life stance when he came up for election because he was ineffective? Is his effectiveness how you measure the worth of his position? Either there are sufficient anti-abortion politicians in congress to do something significant about abortion or there aren’t.

Your position amounts to surrender. You cannot possibly believe that abortion will ever be outlawed by discarding those politicians who oppose it simply because they have so far been too few to be “effective.”

Do you mean the Democrats could have filibustered and the Republicans would have had to resort to the “nuclear option”? I guess that really would have tested Republican commitment to being pro-life.

There is no nuclear option. What you refer to would have been applicable only to the Senate’s advise and consent role, not to its normal legislative function. There is no way to cut off debate with fewer than 60 votes. Period.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If pro-life voters aren’t steadfast and clear and if even the Catholic vote doesn’t send a clear message, who can finger point at a pro-life Republican because nothing has changed?

Ah, there it is.

Catholics will split their votes between the two parties pretty much along the lines of everyone else, and if even Catholics won’t abandon a politician because he supports abortion then he has very little incentive to change his position.

Catholics, and the bishops who have left them comfortably confused about this, have a lot to answer for.

Ender

 

[Biggie]

Catholics, and the bishops who have left them comfortably confused about this, have a lot to answer for.

Ender

It strengthens me just to hear someone else say it. The confused Catholic vote is a source of scandal at the expense of innocent lives. In this predominantly Catholic area, we are loaded with Catholic office holders on the city and county level. You can sit next to one any given Sunday. They will answer Right to Life questionaires correctly, identify themselves as pro-life with a Democratic Party affiliation. But ask one how he makes his morality square with his party’s platform, or with Democratic activities bottling up Right to Life bills in committee on the state level, or with promoting national candidates who support abortion (we’ve had visits from Gore and the Clintons during various recent election cycles, introduced by some of these) and you get nonsense in return.

 

[Biggie]

Statements like this one make me laugh. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s statements like this one that only make me want to continue to expose the hypocrisy every chance I get.

Please enlighten me. Direct me to one pro-life Democrat on the national level who is speaking out in a public forum against abortion.

 

[rpp]

Political parties and political candidates are forbidden topic on this forum. I am afraid that the continued reference to these on this thread will get this thread deleted.

By the way, the newspaper that published that scandalous and false commentary on how Catholics are to vote have published a “letter to the editor” from the bishop of Trenton. In that letter the good bishop highlighted the more egregious errors in the article and pointed out how the author apparently intentionally twisted what the Church teaches and what the USCCB had stated.

 

[Dale_M]

There is no nuclear option. What you refer to would have been applicable only to the Senate’s advise and consent role, not to its normal legislative function. There is no way to cut off debate with fewer than 60 votes.

I was wrong, on that then. I checked the records and you are correct about the numbers.

 

[maggiemay2u]

How are you going to vote for an American party that bans abortion when both support its legalisation and fund it? It’s a bit much to expect people to vote Republican just because they’re very slightly less pro-abortion but the rest of their policies are horrific (not that the Democrats are much better)

Do you have any specific voting data to substantiate your assertion? Pretty damning stuff if true, pretty despicable if not, pretty scandalous, either way.

 

[maggiemay2u]

QUOTE=Bella3502;4015256]Statements like this one make me laugh. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s statements like this one that only make me want to continue to expose the hypocrisy every chance I get.

What hypocrisy? If Republicans didn’t more often than not vote pro-life, why would the liberals be so vociferous about them trying to restrict a woman’s right to choose?

http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/scorecard/Scorecardexplaination.html

Welcome

humanevents.com

 

[Biggie]

Political parties and political candidates are forbidden topic on this forum. I am afraid that the continued reference to these on this thread will get this thread deleted.

Vis-a-vi abortion someone ought to reconsider or find a place for it. It is necessary to discuss politics frankly in order to address what has produced the holocaust. There are very few places where our voices can be heard on the matter, and if not in a Catholic forum then where?

 

[Dale_M]

There are very few places where our voices can be heard on the matter, and if not in a Catholic forum then where?

Agreed. Perhaps once we get past the US elections in November the policy will change.