Voting For The Pro-Life Party?

[CollegeCatholic]

I was listening to EWTN and I was really frustrated by one of the talk shows this morning. The guest speaker said that it’s not just a matter of whether a candidate is pro-life or not, it’s also a matter of what party will push the pro-life agenda best. As far as I can tell, this is a load of puts a bunch of random symbols together.

If a candidate has a rock solid pro-life voting record, why does it matter whether or not that person will give the majority to either the Republicans or Democrats? It seems to me like this statement is simply a pro-Republican sentiment cloaked by a seeming desire to protect the unborn. I don’t buy it at all, especially as a devout Catholic independent. Am I wrong here?

 

[Rach620]

It DOES matter which party will push the pro-life platform best, not just the person.

We’re operating in a two-party system, and the only viable choices are Republicans and Democrats. The way American government works, the majority rules–it would be very very difficult for an independent, though 100% pro-life, elected official to get anything meaningful done.

That said, elected officials are important not only for what they themselves will do, but for what their parties will bring to the political process. Many people don’t understand this aspect of US politics. The person you elect matters, but what matters just as much, if not more, is that many others like him are elected.

The majority in Congress sets the agenda for legislation which will be brought up for debate. So even if a pro-life Democrat is elected from a particular precinct, he could give the majority of the House or Senate to the Democrats, and you can be sure that his individual pro-life views, as staunch as they might be, would be quite overshadowed by those of his Democratic colleagues in setting the Congressional agenda. Bills like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and parental notification regulations would never make it to the floor for debate if Nancy Pelosi were Speaker of the House.

Also exceedingly important is that we keep in mind that the President appoints justices to the Supreme Court and the Senate confirms them. It appears likely that before the 2008 election, at least according to one of my profs, that there will be another vacancy on the Court. So not only is it important to have a pro-life president who will appoint a good justice to the Court, but also a majority in the Senate who will confirm the appointment.

That all said–this question is coming less than a week before an incredibly important midterm election. Perhaps in a ‘less important’ election (as if one existed…) the idea of voting for the 100% pro-life/independent candidate would be okay. Sometimes it’s acceptable to distance yourself from the process in that way and just make your views known. But in such a vital election as this one–a Democratic takeover would turn Bush into a lame duck in the blink of an eye–I don’t think it’s the wisest way to use your vote.

 

[CollegeCatholic]

As an independent, I do not feel obliged to vote for independent politicians. On the contrary, I only vote for candidates who actually have potential of winning a seat. With that said, could you please make more clear this idea of the majority party saying what can be debated or not? I apologize for my ignorance on the matter as I’m a ministry/religion major (aka I haven’t taken Gov’t in a while), but my understanding, based on what you have said, is that you were implying that if I were to vote for a pro-life Democrat, it could concievably freeze his pro-life vote by not allowing life issues to be debated on the floor since the Democratic platform is pro-death. Is this the case and could you please reference me to an idiots guide to this idea, if you have the opportunity?

 

[mary_bobo]

It DOES matter which party will push the pro-life platform best, not just the person.

We’re operating in a two-party system, and the only viable choices are Republicans and Democrats. The way American government works, the majority rules–it would be very very difficult for an independent, though 100% pro-life, elected official to get anything meaningful done.

That said, elected officials are important not only for what they themselves will do, but for what their parties will bring to the political process. Many people don’t understand this aspect of US politics. The person you elect matters, but what matters just as much, if not more, is that many others like him are elected.

The majority in Congress sets the agenda for legislation which will be brought up for debate. So even if a pro-life Democrat is elected from a particular precinct, he could give the majority of the House or Senate to the Democrats, and you can be sure that his individual pro-life views, as staunch as they might be, would be quite overshadowed by those of his Democratic colleagues in setting the Congressional agenda. Bills like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and parental notification regulations would never make it to the floor for debate if Nancy Pelosi were Speaker of the House.

Also exceedingly important is that we keep in mind that the President appoints justices to the Supreme Court and the Senate confirms them. It appears likely that before the 2008 election, at least according to one of my profs, that there will be another vacancy on the Court. So not only is it important to have a pro-life president who will appoint a good justice to the Court, but also a majority in the Senate who will confirm the appointment.

That all said–this question is coming less than a week before an incredibly important midterm election. Perhaps in a ‘less important’ election (as if one existed…) the idea of voting for the 100% pro-life/independent candidate would be okay. Sometimes it’s acceptable to distance yourself from the process in that way and just make your views known. But in such a vital election as this one–a Democratic takeover would turn Bush into a lame duck in the blink of an eye–I don’t think it’s the wisest way to use your vote.

To add a point, the Democratic Party (I don’t see much democratic about it) has been taken over by its far left wing, the pro-death, anti-military, etc., etc., which makes it very hard for a pro-life Dem to have any power at all. Beyond that, the leader of each party appoints chairs of the various committees and some of the ones mentioned if the Dems take the House are really scarey. In fact, the thought of Nancy Pelosi as third in line for succession to the presidency scares the dickens out of me.

Under Bush, we have made some strides, albeit baby steps, to get back to rational thinking on the abortion issue. It will all come to a halt if the Dems take over. There are some pro-life Dems in the Congress, but I don’t see any of them in leadership positions. Their party has shunned them.

Finally, while I wish we were not at war, I do not have my head in the sand and think if we just don’t think about Islamic terrorists they will go away. I do not, for the life of me, understand why some folks on this forum cannot seem to grasp the idea that these folks want us DEAD. They are cunning and they are patient and I am afraid it is just a matter of time until they hit us again. I shutter to think what would happen if the Dems take over.

 

[Rach620]

Could you please make more clear this idea of the majority party saying what can be debated or not? I apologize for my ignorance on the matter as I’m a ministry/religion major (aka I haven’t taken Gov’t in a while), but my understanding, based on what you have said, is that you were implying that if I were to vote for a pro-life Democrat, it could concievably freeze his pro-life vote by not allowing life issues to be debated on the floor since the Democratic platform is pro-death. Is this the case and could you please reference me to an idiots guide to this idea, if you have the opportunity?

CollegeCatholic-

Because the Democratic Party’s platform supports a woman’s “right to choose,” among other pro-death things as you said, any pro-life Democrat will not have the necessary support of his colleagues to get any pro-life issues pushed through the legislature.

You can find a short “how a bill becomes a law” description here. The gist of it is that before a bill may be brought to the floor of either house for debate, it must pass through a committee (and sometimes subcommittee) of 6-50 members who will scrutinize and debate the bill, and vote on whether or not it should be sent to the floor for consideration by the full body. The bill will then be voted on, and the identical bill must be passed through both houses before it is presented to the President for his signature or veto.

Now the issue here is that the majority party has an immense amount of power throughout this whole process. Not only do the Speaker of the House and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate come from the majority party, but the individual committee chairs–who determine the agenda for which bills will be debated in their committees–also come from the majority party.

This website explains a lot about the committee part of the legislative process, if you want to read it all, but I’ll provide a few important excerpts. (I’m a Theology & Political Science major and it’s really one of my goals to teach other Catholics how to ‘work within the system’ to bring about a culture of life. So here goes…)

Perhaps the most important phase of the legislative process is the action by committees. The committees provide the most intensive consideration to a proposed measure as well as the forum where the public is given their opportunity to be heard. A tremendous volume of work, often overlooked by the public, is done by the Members in this phase.

Membership on the various committees is divided between the two major political parties. The proportion of the Members of the minority party to the Members of the majority party is determined by the majority party…

You can see how this is important–if a piece of pro-life legislation has to pass through a Democratically controlled committee before it reaches the floor for debate, it will more than likely die before the full chamber gets to hear a word of it.

A vote of committee members is taken to determine whether the full committee will report the bill favorably, adversely, or without recommendation. If the committee votes to report the bill favorably to the House, it may report the bill without amendments or may introduce and report a “clean bill”.

So say a piece of legislation survives this far–now all it has to do is survive the Rules committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House and basically controlled by the majority party, and get placed on the agenda for debate in the full chamber.

You can see how difficult it would be for pro-life legislation to actually become law in a Democratically controlled Congress! So even though a pro-life Democrat might side with Republicans when voting on life issues, the simple fact that he is a registered Democratic Representative or Senator can tip the scale, giving the DNC majority rule.

If I didn’t explain this well enough, let me know, and I’ll try to dig up other resources for you. I’m working off those sites and my running knowledge of American politics here, so some of my specifics of the minutiae might be foggy. Hope it helped though!

 

[CollegeCatholic]

Thanks for all that info. I’m confused as to how any Pro-Life organization could give endoresements to Democrats if they have so little hope of making any difference.

Finally, while I wish we were not at war, I do not have my head in the sand and think if we just don’t think about Islamic terrorists they will go away. I do not, for the life of me, understand why some folks on this forum cannot seem to grasp the idea that these folks want us DEAD. They are cunning and they are patient and I am afraid it is just a matter of time until they hit us again. I shutter to think what would happen if the Dems take over.

I hope that you would be shuttering about what is going on right now. The situation is irrelevant when it comes to unethical means of handling it. Misleading (lying) to the public, rewriting laws to avoid checks and balances, seemingly ignoring most (if not all) the criteria for Just War, ignoring human rights (indefinite detainment without charges or possibility of defense?), etc. all add up to a terrible handling of the situation. It’s a very sad day when a huge chunk of our intelligence community quit when they were entirely ignored. I’ll take a weak plan over an unethical plan ANY day. If survival is dependent upon ignoring ethics, I choose death. It seems too easy to forget that almost all of our early Church died as martyrs, what are we so afraid of?

 

[mary_bobo]

Thanks for all that info. I’m confused as to how any Pro-Life organization could give endoresements to Democrats if they have so little hope of making any difference.

I hope that you would be shuttering about what is going on right now. The situation is irrelevant when it comes to unethical means of handling it. Misleading (lying) to the public, rewriting laws to avoid checks and balances, seemingly ignoring most (if not all) the criteria for Just War, ignoring human rights (indefinite detainment without charges or possibility of defense?), etc. all add up to a terrible handling of the situation. It’s a very sad day when a huge chunk of our intelligence community quit when they were entirely ignored. I’ll take a weak plan over an unethical plan ANY day. If survival is dependent upon ignoring ethics, I choose death. It seems too easy to forget that almost all of our early Church died as martyrs, what are we so afraid of?

How would you handle the problem of the radical Ismalists? You have made some serious charges, can you back all of them up?

 

[nydas]

How would you handle the problem of the radical Ismalists? You have made some serious charges, can you back all of them up?

Maybe its just me, but decimating an innocent country and creating countless more terrorists just dosent seem like the way to go about it.

Check this story out:

cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/04/terrorism.detainees.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

“A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency’s closely guarded interrogation techniques.”

First of all, hes suspeted to be one. So hes not quilty.

Closely guarded interrogation techniques you say? Stop beating around the bush and just say it. There TORTURING them!

 

[mary_bobo]

Maybe its just me, but decimating an innocent country and creating countless more terrorists just dosent seem like the way to go about it.

Check this story out:

cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/04/terrorism.detainees.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

“A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency’s closely guarded interrogation techniques.”

First of all, hes suspeted to be one. So hes not quilty.

Closely guarded interrogation techniques you say? Stop beating around the bush and just say it. There TORTURING them!

You have told us what you would not do, I presume, but that does not answer the question I asked.

 

[nydas]

You have told us what you would not do, I presume, but that does not answer the question I asked.

I dont know what i would do. Manily because i dont have even 1/100th of the information the president has. But i know i would not have started a war with an innocent nation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet we attacked them anyway. The real culprits were in Afganastan. Yet our president decided to ignore the real culprits and put most of our resources into Iraq.

Iraq has not stoped terrorism. It has, in fact, done the exact opposite. More people hate the US now then ever before.

 

[Coder]

It DOES matter which party…

Yes, both considerations are a factor. The protection of human life and especially the unborn, is the the most important consideration in any election. If people don’t even understand human life, how can we expect to make true progress in other areas?

 

[nydas]

Yes, both considerations are a factor. The protection of human life and especially the unborn, is the the most important consideration in any election. If people don’t even understand human life, how can we expect to make true progress in other areas?

You guys keep saying you need someone in office for the protection of human life, well tell me this: How is starting a war, which has killed more innocent people then the evil dictator we “liberated” them from, protection of human life? You say we need to vote for republicans because they are pro-life, right? Even if the republicans ban abortion (which will NEVER happen, wake up people) so what? This country is getting worse and worse everyday.

The republicans are lying, cheating, no good peices of **** (not that the democrats are much better, but at this point they are the only hope for a better America) who threw us in a war no one wanted or needed, who has destroyed the econmoy Clinton created, and hundreds of other things.

Nothing the Bush administration has accomplished is worth what weve had to go threw the last 6 years. Absolutly nothing,

When voting, stop looking at just one issue. So what if a candidate is pro-choice. Actually look at him to see what he can offer for America. Just beccause a candidate is the only pro-life candidate, does not make them fit to run this country. Bush has made that more then clear.

Saddam is being sentenced to death, by hanging, for the killing of 1500 innocent people. Bush has caused the death of, at a minimum, 60,000 innocent people. So why are we not throwing a rope around Bushs neck also?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The republicans are lying, cheating, no good peices of **** (not that the democrats are much better, but at this point they are the only hope for a better America) who threw us in a war no one wanted or needed, who has destroyed the econmoy Clinton created, and hundreds of other things.

Nothing the Bush administration has accomplished is worth what weve had to go threw the last 6 years. Absolutly nothing,

When voting, stop looking at just one issue. So what if a candidate is pro-choice. Actually look at him to see what he can offer for America. Just beccause a candidate is the only pro-life candidate, does not make them fit to run this country. Bush has made that more then clear.

Saddam is being sentenced to death, by hanging, for the killing of 1500 innocent people. Bush has caused the death of, at a minimum, 60,000 innocent people. So why are we not throwing a rope around Bushs neck also?

-Saddam certainly murdered more than the 1500 he was convicted of murdering in THIS trial for THIS ONE incident. Bush murdered none. If you are a pacifist and consider all killing the same, then okay, that’s your point of view. But if not, it is disingenuous to compare deliberate murders with casualties in war.

-Clinton’s economy (surpassed now) was due to the Reagan tax cuts. (As is the case with the Bush tax cuts.) Everybody who knows anything about economics knows that. Other than measures like tax cuts and reducing regulation of business formation, there is actually very little a president can do to affect the general economy, whose ups and downs are determined by the business cycle and the Federal Reserve’s actions related to it.

-But regardless, even if the Bush economy is to be regarded as terrible, human life trumps all issues. You say you think both parties are pieces of (some expletive or other). But you say the Democrats are the “only hope for America”. The majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq war, almost none speak of a fast pullout and none has a plan for resolution, so that can’t be it. Your presidential favorite for 2008 still supports the war, you know. She just thinks she would be a better strategist. Since she hasn’t shared her plan, perhaps we can conclude that it would be bombing innocent civilians from 30,000 feet like her husband did in Kosovo. (So indiscriminate that he actually hit the Chinese embassy) So getting back out of Iraq can’t be the source of your “hope for America.” Neither party has done much of anything for the unfortunate in society in thirty years other than the Earned Income Credit (and that was Reagan’s). So that can’t be it. So the only issues you have left to hope for with your Democrat Party are abortion and the destruction of human fetuses to harvest their cells for human consumption. Those things (well, and gay marriage) are the only real issues that divide the president we have and the one you want. So, admit it, pardner, that’s where your heart is.

 

[mikev]

You guys keep saying you need someone in office for the protection of human life, well tell me this: How is starting a war, which has killed more innocent people then the evil dictator we “liberated” them from, protection of human life?

Are you serious? That dictator killed incredibly more people than were killed in the war. As brutal as he was to his own people, at least they could run for the hills, many of them did.

Where can a fetus run? Supporting pro-life candidates is absolutely protecting human life. It isn’t the only consideration when voting, but it’s at, or certainly near, the top.

 

[CollegeCatholic]

The war is terrible. The Republican platform sucks. Unfortunately, the Democratic platform sucks more. Notice that the non-negotiables all fall against the Democrats: Abortion, Embryonic Stem-Cell Reasearch/Cloning, and Gay Marriage.

It’s unfortunate but we must choose the lesser of evils. Democrats are definately more progressive when it comes to social justice issues related to poverty, immigration, etc. but unfortunately, the fact is that fundamentally, a hungry baby is always prefferable over a dead baby. That’s not to say we shouldn’t do as much as we can to end unjust armed conflict, poverty, etc.