You say there is not a unified approach but your not making clear why you believe that. If abortion is legal there isn’t there only so far pro life organizations can go, some people will always make the choice of abortion because they are misguidedly pro choice, which goes back the priority of enacting restrictions against abortion at the state level and soon at the national level.
You can follow up research into the statistics if you are interested but the fact remains, state level abortion restrictions work in reducing work. And the fact that abortion restrictions have suddenly increased, shows something is changing on the ground.
Politicians will say anything to get them elected. If the constituents don’t want abortions, then chances are their representatives in Congress won’t either. There are a lot of pro-choice Republicans and a few pro-life Democrats, despite the party platforms.
I just did. My comments still stand. I could care less if it irks you.
Name a pro life Democrat in terms of abortion and embryonic stem cell research who has a track record voting against both? There are a few pro choice Republicans, but the vast majority of Republicans are pro life and that shows in the abortion restriction bills, estimated 80 passed in 2011, very little support, if any from Democrats.
It appears the ONLY people who claim there is no difference between the parties in trying to stop abortion are those democrat catholics desperately trying to rationalize their support of evil
There were 64 House Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment, risking their political futures in doing so. Too bad the Tea Party voted most of them out. In my district, the Democrat was more pro-life than the Republican, but the Republican won anyway.
Abortion aside, what about the other non-negotiables that the Dems believe in?
The majority of whom caved and voted for the Bill without the Stupak Amendment. The health care vote put to death once and for all the myth of the pro-life Democrat conngressman.
They demanded an executive order from the President in order to do so. I wouldn’t undermine their pro-life efforts. And a few of the Democrats opposed the bill which wouldn’t have passed without the Stupak supporters.
They caved-they voted for a bill that funds abortion, the paid the price.
They demanded an executive order from the President in order to do so. I wouldn’t undermine their pro-life efforts. And a few of the Democrats opposed the bill which wouldn’t have passed without the Stupak supporters.
They caved-they voted for a bill that funds abortion, the paid the price.
In Granite City IL, they don’t have to advertise. Their van sits in the parking lot of the abortuary.
There is also Birthright. Their posters are all over the highways. There is a Birthright office right around the corner from PP.
That executive order is not worth the paper it was printed on. The President knew that, and Stupak and Co. did, too. An act of monumental cowardice.
First sentence ok. Second sentence not okay. In the second sentence you’re saying that if you do not subjectively believe your action will stop an evil then you are excused from trying to stop it. Besides being a rich source for rationalization to excuse to participate in evil oneself by failing to oppose it or even by supporting an avowed evildoer, this analysis ignores the fact that there is such a thing as objective evil and objective good. What I, myself, think about whether my opposition to evil will be effective or not is entirely irrelevant to my moral obligation to oppose it by whatever means are available to me. We could say that about voting at all. What does one vote matter in the overall scheme of things? One vote almost never decides any election. But it’s the moral obligation that counts, not the “effectiveness” of one vote in bringing about this or that.
The Stupak Amendment itself was a fraud. It purported to prohibit Obamacare spending on abortion. But spending wasn’t the crux of it. The real power in Obamacare is the power to make insurers insure whatever the odious Kathleen Sebelius ordered them to cover, and to make employers buy it. The USCCB is all upset that Catholic organizations are now being obligated to provide coverage for chemical abortions, and rightly so. The Stupak Amendment would not have prevented that. The USCCB, one assumes, would have supported Obamacare with the Stupak Amendment, but it would have changed nothing to remedy their newly-discovered problem had it been part of the law.
What sort of proof do you have to back up THAT statement?
