Republican voters??

[fix]

Actually, Harry Reid the current Senate Majority Leader is openly and staunchly pro-life.

You are joking, right? How do you define pro life?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Actually, Harry Reid the current Senate Majority Leader is openly and staunchly pro-life. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 8 more that score very high on most pro-life legislative checklists and have done so for a long time.

This just brings up another problem with the politicizing of the issue. Pro life organizations also become ‘pragmatic’ and ultimately find themselves putting partisan politics ahead of proported agenda.

Notice this article from yesterday’s The Hill:

thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-lash-out-at-activist-group-on-abortion-issue-2007-10-17.html

I didn’t explain myself apparently…I really meant none of the Democrat presidential candidates were pro-life.

The NRLC campaigned against the s-chip children’s health care bill, arguing that a certain provision would potentially lead to euthanasia - but Dems, responding to 10 staunchly pro-life members of the Dem caucus, killed that provision.

In the absense of the provision, the NRLC seems to have no particular reason for its objection, but still continues to do so. Other pro-life groups, like Catholics United, have agressively supported the bill, even running ads:

catholics-united.org/schip-ads

But I guess somewhere along the way the NRLC changed the R from “Right” to “Republican”.

Folks like Reid have shown that a Dem can not only be pro-life, but rise to a leadership position, but it doesn’t really help them politically because too many people are just like the NRLC. Somewhere along the line they got their priorities switched. For all the talk, I bet a lot of them will stick with the GOP even if the nominee has an extensive pro-abortion background.

 

[estesbob]

Ah, the 'ol right wing smear. Harry Reid has always been clear, he supports abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. No, this is not in keeping with Catholic teachings, however it is in line with about 80% of the stated positions for the GOP caucas.

Reid voted for the ban (he has voted for bans 3 times actually), and issued an official statement supporting the courts upholding the ban.

.

Seems a lot like lot like John Kerry. So he voted for before it before he was against it? Typical left-wing reaction., BTW, a direct quote from somebody is “smearing” him.

I note that you hold Democrats to much lower standard for pro-life credentials than you do Republicans. What is Reids stand on forced abortion and slavery in Saipan? Do you think maybe he could have spent some time addressing these alleged violations instead of writing letters to Rush Limbaugh?

 

[estesbob]

You are joking, right? How do you define pro life?

It is impossible to be pro-life and be in Democrat leadership.

Reid has a higher rating from Planned Parenthood than he does from the National Right to Life Committee. He has a 57 rating out of a hundred from Planned Parenthood and only at 50 rating out of a hundred from the national right to life committee.

To say this man is staunchly pro-life is a joke. However in the Democrat party anyone who does not support taxpayer-funded abortions until the moment the child’s head fully exits the womb is considered to be a anti-choice fanatic

 

[mozart-250]

Reid has a higher rating from Planned Parenthood than he does from the National Right to Life Committee. He has a 57 rating out of a hundred from Planned Parenthood and only at 50 rating out of a hundred from the national right to life committee.

Reid gets a 100 pro choice rating from NARAL.

 

[estesbob]

Reid gets a 100 pro choice rating from NARAL.

You are not allowed in Democrat Leadersip unless you are rabidly pro-abortion. Gore. Clinotn, Durbin and Edwads, for instance, were all pro-life until they got in a postion to move into congressional ledership or decided to run for president–at which point they dropped their oppostion to killing children and embraced abortion with a fervor.

 

[SoCalRC]

Seems a lot like lot like John Kerry. So he voted for before it before he was against it? Typical left-wing reaction., BTW, a direct quote from somebody is “smearing” him.

I note that you hold Democrats to much lower standard for pro-life credentials than you do Republicans. What is Reids stand on forced abortion and slavery in Saipan? Do you think maybe he could have spent some time addressing these alleged violations instead of writing letters to Rush Limbaugh?

Is it fundemtally impossible for you to be honest? Reid spoke negatively about Alito. He objected Alito’s nomination to the court for stated reasons. The man had a history of lying to congress and padding his resume with hate group references. Also, he has some very peculiar ideas about presidential powers.

The comparison he made was to Sandra Day O’Connor. Just in case anyone is confused, O’Connor was nominated to the court by Ronald Reagan.

O’Connor is also a poster child for the difference between caring more about pro-life and caring more about partisan politics. Despite all the hair pulling and chest thumping by self-described pro lifers, O’Connor’s pragmatic approach is probably the most effective movement we have had in secular law.

In Casey, where conservatives felt betrayed, O’Connor’s opinion actually opened the door to restrictions on first trimester abortions. All the state measures that you boast so loudly about now rest on a foundation she created. Prior to Casey States were presumed to be powerless to regulate first trimester abortions at all.

Compare that to the toothless, counter productive, opinion Alito joined on the partial birth abortion ban. Remember, the court not only reaffirmed Roe, it took extraordinary steps to insure that not a single abortion would be stopped by the law.

Catholics for Life in Arizona (O’Connor’s home state) made an interesting observation shortly after the decision. With O’Connor on the court, the ban would have failed to be upheld, but Congress would have had clear instructions on how to pass a constitutional version that would, in fact, stop abortions.

Now, let’s get to your ‘aha’ moments:

Quotes: Here is a question for you. Who made the following statement about the Partial Abortion Ban (on video BTW)?:

“Of course we are selling it as red meat. We have to. But everyone here knows it is a slice of balony we are using to bait the knuckle draggers in the base…”

Funny how the so called conservative pundits and press gave that one a pass.

Saipan: You seemingly still don’t get that one. Reid joined Frank Murkowski (R BTW) in voting for reform in the Senate. I don’t care what your political affiliation is, if you support and profit forced abortions, you don’t belong in Congress

The point was that no one is held to the same stadards for abortion, since the who issue has been corrupted by partisan politics. NARAL is just as corrupt as the NRLC look at the ratings then look at the legislative records. Both are more concerned with preserving the political power of ‘their’ caucas than actually endorsing and promoting their supposed values.

Look at the case at hand, you are screaming about an ambigious quote while ignoring that Reid was instrumental in getting the ban through the Senate in the first place and has made every official act one of support. If you care about pro life, it seems you would want to make progress with whatever political party is in power - and all indications are that the Republicans are setting up a perfect storm to be in the cold for quite awhile.

Burning bridges with the folks most sympathetic to your cause just seems short sighted and stupid. Unless, of course, you care more about the political outcome than the moral principles. Which, frankly, I think is the case for far too many Catholics. They have more faith in earthly political power than God.

 

[estesbob]

Is it fundemtally impossible for you to be honest? Reid spoke negatively about Alito. .

"I would only say that this isn’t the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there."

Harry Reid commenting on the USC upholding the partial birth abortion ban.

No dishonesty here. He was referring to the upholding of partial-birth abortion ban. He made the above comment in response to a qwstion asking him for his reaction to the Supreme Court decision. As shown elsewhere in this thread to describe him as staunchly pro-life is about as dishonest as one can get.

As everyone here is aware you have a double standard. Republicans cannot be considered pro-life under any circumstances even when they get high rating this from pro-life organizations and consistently vote to support life, Democrats ,on the other hand , are expected to nothing more than occasionally mouth they personally oppose it. If I am incorrect about this can you direct us t the posts where you’ve leveled the same degree of venom towards a Democrat as you have Republicans?

I, BTW, quit reading you rant after you call me dishonest. I made a mistake responding to you in the first place as after calling me a liar you merely cut and pasted your standard “Republicans are evil rant”. Do you realize very few people take you seriously anymore?

Meanwhile the children continue to die.

 

[SoCalRC]

"I would only say that this isn’t the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there."

Harry Reid commenting on the USC upholding the partial birth abortion ban.

No, Reid commented on the DECISION. See the quote.

Let’s try this another way. Why, exactly, does objecting to a decision that:

A) Reaffirms Roe.
B) Provides a blueprint for bypassing the ban
and C) Argues that not one abortion will be stopped

Make one “pro abortion”?

It seems to me that “pro life”, using your own definition, would involve supporting things that reduce abortions, not strengthen the legal precedent that permits them.

Regarding honesty. Feel free to report me to the moderators. But I do feel two particular forms of dishonesty are occuring.

First, for example, note your reference to John Kerry. Kerry was labelled a “flip flopper” for changing his position on the war in Iraq. Ignoring, for a moment, that about 40% of Americans have since followed suit and that adjusting one’s ideas to match demonstrable reality is normally called coherent thought, how on earth would this possibly relate to the situation at hand?

Reid has always supported restrictions on abortion and has consistantly voted the stated criteria. If this is ‘flip flopping’, how can we begin to describe many of the GOP presidential hopefuls? Selective application of a principle means that the principle is not truly held dear, but is merely being applied for malice.

Which leads to the second form of dishonesty. Have you not loudly professed that you are not even reading much of what I say? Have you not encouraged others to follow suit?

Yet, you recently professed that what I have said could be characterized as the normal “pro abortion” ‘lies’ you are used to.

In a functioning human brain, one of these must be false. If you are not reading something you cannot pretend to be qualified to comment. So one of these positions was a deception of malice. You either mislead about what you were reading and responding to, for the purposes of diminishing and directly insulting, or you knowingly made hateful characterizations of my position.

This is not a new technique. I see it in the poltical propoganda that passes for political discourse all the time. But as I previously noted, it is not Christian behavior.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I am now going to join those who quit responding to
SoCalRC.
Thanks Estesbob, for hanging in there.

 

[estesbob]

I am now going to join those who quit responding to
SoCalRC.
Thanks Estesbob, for hanging in there.

It took me a long time to reach tha point and occassionally I make the mistake of reading one and responding

 

[Ender]

{Gonzales v. Carhart}
A) Reaffirms Roe.
B) Provides a blueprint for bypassing the ban
C) Argues that not one abortion will be stopped

It seems to me that “pro life”, using your own definition, would involve supporting things that reduce abortions, not strengthen the legal precedent that permits them.

I reject your claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the partial birth abortion case reaffirms Roe and strengthens its legal precedent.

Ginsburg in her dissent wrote this about the majority decision: “Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of ‘the essential holding of Roe,’ are merely ‘assume[d]’ for the moment … rather than ‘retained’ or ‘reaffirmed.’”

If an unhappy Ginsburg specifically disagrees with your characterization then it’s probably time to drop this particular charge. The ruling didn’t do all we would like but it clearly did more than the pro-abortionists wanted and while it may be a small step it is certainly movement in the right direction. Other cases will wind up in the court and eventually the web of conflicting rulings will have to be resolved.

This is why the Supreme Court is so vital and why loss of the presidency to a Democrat could be so damaging. The oldest members are liberals; the replacement of even one of them with another Alito or Roberts might very well see the end of Roe. It certainly is unlikely with another Ginsburg.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

I reject your claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the partial birth abortion case reaffirms Roe and strengthens its legal precedent.

Ginsburg in her dissent wrote this about the majority decision: “Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of ‘the essential holding of Roe,’ are merely ‘assume[d]’ for the moment … rather than ‘retained’ or ‘reaffirmed.’”

If an unhappy Ginsburg specifically disagrees with your characterization then it’s probably time to drop this particular charge. The ruling didn’t do all we would like but it clearly did more than the pro-abortionists wanted and while it may be a small step it is certainly movement in the right direction. Other cases will wind up in the court and eventually the web of conflicting rulings will have to be resolved.

This is why the Supreme Court is so vital and why loss of the presidency to a Democrat could be so damaging. The oldest members are liberals; the replacement of even one of them with another Alito or Roberts might very well see the end of Roe. It certainly is unlikely with another Ginsburg.

Ender

The only people who dont think casey was a huge victory for Pro-life are those who claim that it doesnt matter which party is in power.

 

[SoCalRC]

I reject your claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the partial birth abortion case reaffirms Roe and strengthens its legal precedent.

Ginsburg in her dissent wrote this about the majority decision: “Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of ‘the essential holding of Roe,’ are merely ‘assume[d]’ for the moment … rather than ‘retained’ or ‘reaffirmed.’”

FWIW, Roe and Casey are two different things. The principle substance of the dissent was that the court gave lip service to Casey, but then weakened the principle of maternal health rights.

To understand why I believe that Roe was reaffirmed, look at the brief concurring opinion. Justices Scalia and Thomas concurred with the majority as an interpretation of law, but felt compelled to point out that they disagreed to the extend that they did not fell Roe, which the majority upheld, is constitutional.

They also made the intriguing comment that they might not have upheld the ban had the constitutional issue of the Commerce Clause been raised.

Of course people can disagree on what legal precedents mean, but my litmus test is simple:

Has or will the ban stop a single abortion? The Supreme Court, Congress, and even right wing groups like Focus on the Family say no.

Does the opinion create any new precedents which allow for further regulation of abortion? If so, what are they and what would be an example of a law whose chances constitutionality would be effected?

If it doesn’t stop abortions, and doesn’t lead to stopping abortions, what, other than the name, is remotely pro-life about it?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Are we straying from topic?

 

[SoCalRC]

The only people who dont think casey was a huge victory for Pro-life are those who claim that it doesnt matter which party is in power.

Really? Parental notification laws, waiting periods, and even Missouri’s new attempted clinic standards laws, all cite the precendts laid out in Casey.

The superficial problem is double standards. You are ready to declare a ban that does nothing a ‘success’, presumably on the grounds that it sets some sort of usable precedent. But the actual creation of a usable precedent is a failure because it did not achieve direct and immediate success…

This relates nicely to the concept of “engaging”. I would contend that a number of you have failed to engage me at all. You spout the same tired right wing jibberish, retread the same character assassination gibberish, and resort to new jerk calls of liberal when flustered.

But aside from questioning the effectiveness of ‘pragmatic’ voting and sole dependance on secular law as a solution to a societal problem, what non Catholic principles have I endorsed?

What moral principle have I not backed up with Scripture or quotes from the Church?

Yet you act as if I am making an assault on morality and faith. The most reasonable explanation for this is, I am. I am attacking what you truly hold dear.

For me, the answer is simple. We can see it in Christ’s messages about tearing families apart. If you put anything, absolutely anything, above your duty to God, then your priorties are wrong and any sense of self rightousness is hollow.

 

[Ender]

To understand why I believe that Roe was reaffirmed, look at the brief concurring opinion. Justices Scalia and Thomas concurred with the majority as an interpretation of law, but felt compelled to point out that they disagreed to the extend that they did not fell Roe, which the majority upheld, is constitutional.

Roe, Casey, et al were not reaffirmed, regardless of why you believe it; Ginsburg specifically addressed that point. Scalia and Thomas didn’t disagree with anything, they used their concurring statement to reiterate their position that abortion law *“has no basis in the Constitution.” *The majority opinion simply didn’t address the constitutionality of prior abortion cases therefore there can be no doubt that earlier cases were not reaffirmed - which was the cause of Ginsburg’s lament.

Of course people can disagree on what legal precedents mean, but my litmus test is simple: …
Does the opinion create any new precedents which allow for further regulation of abortion?

My litmus test is even simpler: is an argument true? On this single point, your argument fails the test.

Ender

 

[Ender]

{Alito} had a history of lying to congress and padding his resume with hate group references.

This is an appalling charge. I watched a great deal of those hearings and know what this refers to and know there isn’t even a shred of truth in these accusations. If you watched the hearings and followed the analysis yourself then you know your charges are untrue. If you don’t know the truth yourself then you have been deliberately misled and you should know better than to repeat such slander.

One of the ironies that came out of Kennedy’s charge that Alito was a member of a hate group was the revelation that, not only was Alito not involved with a group opposing the rights of minorities, but Kennedy not only had been a member of such a group (that excluded women) but continued to be a member at the time of the hearings.

What remains of this vicious charge is that Alito continues to be slandered while Kennedy’s behavior is ignored.

Ender

 

[markr777]

Has true Catholics there is only one party at this time we can vote for. Unfortunately to many Catholics have aborted life for promises of money by the democrats. If all Catholics united and voted for the republicans it would force the democrats to rethink the positions they have taken about moral and social issues. Until we has Catholics unite and let the parties know what we expect from them nothing will change. I am not fond of either party however the republicans have a pro-life platform and we are a people of life.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Majority of Catholics vote Republican, myself included. But since the many contradictions within the Repub Party and their promotion of a blanket amnesty and citizenship for as many as 30+ million illegals cooled many of us to that Party.

After the bill was defeated because of the flood of phone calls and e-mails protesting that bill some Republicans went ahead and insulted the American people for their opposition.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went before “La Raza” after the bill was defeated and publicly called those that opposed the bill “bigots.” Out of context, he said, “…the BIGOTS have won.”

These are Americans who want their borders secured and immigration controlled by law and want to preserve a national culture. And Sen. Lindsey Graham called us “BIGOTS.”

I hope the good people of South Carolina remember this when Lindsey Graham runs for reelection.

It is defections like this that have turned off many, many Republican loyalists. And, lest I forget, this War is also an issue.