John Kerry Thinking on Abortion Same as Supreme Court on Allowing Slavery

One-on-One Sen. John Kerry Shares Thoughts on Abortion, Entertainment Industry, Biggest Speech of His Life ABCNEWS.com July 22, 2004— Sen. John Kerry sat down for a wide-ranging interview with ABC News anchor Peter Jennings in Detroit today.

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate discussed his views on abortion, sex and violence in the entertainment industry, and his upcoming acceptance speech at Democratic National Convention. The following are excerpts from the interview.

Peter Jennings: You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?

Sen. Kerry: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process is a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in.

Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that.

Jennings: Could you explain again to me what do you mean when you say "life begins at conception"?

Kerry: Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I, you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard.

Jennings: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?

Kerry: No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins.

Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is, no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe v. Wade.

Jennings: Can you imagine yourself ever campaigning against abortion?

Kerry: Well, I don't think — let me tell you very clearly that being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And I have very strong feelings that we should talk about abortion in a very realistic way in this country. It is a very complicated, incredibly important moral issue that people have to face, also. And if you talk to any woman, as I have, who has faced that choice or who's been raped or who's suffered incest or who's faced that kind of choice, there are huge moral implications.

I think leadership needs to honor that, those moral implications, appropriately, and I think we need to adhere to the standard that Bill Clinton, in fact, so adeptly framed, that abortion should be rare, but legal and safe. And that's the standard that I apply. But I think we should talk more about alternatives to abortion.

Jennings: If I were really skeptical, Senator, I would say that when you use the phrase "life begins at conception," you're attempting to speak to those people for whom that is a slogan, making them totally opposed to abortion.

Kerry: Not in the least. It's a belief that is a belief of mine. It's consistent with everything I've always said over 35 years of public life. It is not a new statement, but it is consistent with my personal belief system about who chooses and what happens. I do believe we should talk about alternatives to abortion. I think we should talk about adoption. I think we should talk about, I think it is responsible to talk about abstinence, but I also believe you should talk about proper education of people — sex education.

You need to have proper knowledge about use of condoms to avoid AIDS. You need to be smart about these things. So what we need to do is have an honest dialogue and not succumb to the cynicism that sort of reduces these things to simplicity. It's not simple. It's a very complicated, highly emotional, very searing decision. I don't want the government making that decision for people, and that is a bedrock belief. But it doesn't change what I believe about how life goes on.

Hollywood and Violence

Jennings: They also say, of course, that you can know a man by his friends. President Bush says that you're kowtowing to Hollywood. And you described the people who were with you in Radio City Music Hall [at a fund-raiser] the other night as the heart and soul of America. Both President Clinton and Vice President [Al] Gore had called in their time on Hollywood for less violence and less sex. Do you feel a need to do the same thing?

Kerry: Yes, I think there should be less violence and less sex. And when I talked about the heart and soul, I'm talking about the artistic expression. I'm talking about sort of the, I mean, I believe in the arts. I think that there's a great expression in it, and there's always this struggle. You know, does life imitate art or art imitate life? Which comes first? It's a little of both.

I do think we have a responsibility, as leaders, to stand up. I think there were people at that, at that concert we had in New York who stepped over the line. I've said that. They don't speak for me. They speak for themselves. I will stand up and struggle, as others have, to try to get that right balance between violence, and sex, and things.

Jennings: Do you think there is too much violence and too much sex in American entertainment, and would you, should you, now be using your moral leadership on your Hollywood friends or with your Hollywood friends in order to reduce it?

Kerry: In the appropriate ways, at the appropriate times, absolutely. Do I think there is too much? Yes. And I think it has an impact, frankly, on how America is viewed in the world. I think part of our struggle with those of other religions who object to American culture needs to be thoughtful and sensitive to some of what we export abroad.

I think the president can play a role in helping to try to get that balanced, but I've never been in favor, and I'm not now, of an overreach by the government that has a chilling effect on the First Amendment or that seeks to have a kind of censorship of some kind. That's not who we are as Americans, and I'm not going down that road.

Make-or-Break Speech?

Jennings: How do you know when you're "cooking on all cylinders" in the middle of a given speech?

Kerry: Well, I'm not sure that in a convention hall you always do know because there's such a distinction between what people see on television and what happens in the hall. It's very different from being in a rally or being in a small-town meeting, and I've never, you know, given a keynote, so we'll see.

Jennings: But when you're really good, in your own mind, what's it like for you?

Kerry: I don't think you think of it that way. I think what I think of is we're communicating. There's a connection here. I don't think of it as good as bad, I just think, you know, people are hearing what I'm saying, and I feel as if I'm finding the right way to frame my hopes and my vision for the country in a way that people really understand.

Jennings: Jesse Jackson said, said this morning, "You need some shoutin' to do." Do you think that's reasonable advice?

Kerry: I think you have to remember that you're talking to a television set as much as you're talking to hall, and you have to be very careful.

Jennings: What does that mean, be very careful?

Kerry: You have to talk to people who have never listened to you before who are tuning in on television, and that is different from speaking at a rally. I just think you have to talk and think about how you really communicate to people, talk to people in a very personal way.

Jennings: Is it true [the speech at the Democratic National Convention] is the make-or-break speech?

Kerry: Not at all. No, I don't. I think that's an unrealistic assessment of what happens in these things. Is it an important speech? Yes. A make or break? Absolutely not.

Jennings: And in this crucial speech, what's in your heart?

Kerry: A better America, a stronger America that is honest about its challenges, that is willing to talk the truth to everybody, pull people together, get over this partisanship and see an optimistic, positive future for all of us, which I believe in. I think we can be stronger in the world.

I believe the values that I fought for, for 35 years, from the time I put on a uniform for our country, have been damaged in the past months. And I think we can do a better job of restoring our alliances, America's relationship in the world, and we can make America stronger by doing that.

1 posted on 08/02/2004 10:56:17 PM PDT by cpforlife.org

To: cpforlife.org

I am personally opposed to slavery, but I don't wear my religion on my sleeve.

2 posted on 08/02/2004 10:58:15 PM PDT by VisualizeSmallerGovernment (Question Liberal Authority)

To: cpforlife.org

Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights.

Kerry just can't help but lie every time he opens his mouth. If he believed viability were the standard then why did he vote against the partial birth abortion ban? Again, by his "standard" just stated regarding viability he believes in murder.

3 posted on 08/02/2004 11:03:15 PM PDT by highlander_UW (" Just bear in mind that there is no Botox for the soul.". - Sam Smith)

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

In 1965 LIFE Magazine published this issue: LIFE Before Birth. It explained in scientific terms for the lay reader that life begins at conception. This is not a matter of opinion it is a scientific fact. The magazine is available as an exact reprint at http://victorywon.com/books.htm

The Roe v Wade decision claimed that it could not determine when life begins, which of course is a steaming pile of Barbara Streisand.

"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that."
--Robert H. Bork Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion:

4 posted on 08/02/2004 11:05:08 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

To: cpforlife.org

Jennings: "So, this extends all the way to having the head of the baby visible, and using a forceps to sever the spinal cord?"

Kerry: "Well of course - I stand on my voting record in Congress."

Jennings: "That sounds an awful lot like what happened to Nick Pearl and Mr. Johnson."

Kerry: "Except, but,.. you know - the doctor doesn't wear a hood over their head - just those little paper masks over their nose and mouth."

5 posted on 08/02/2004 11:05:48 PM PDT by geopyg (Peace..................through decisive and ultimate VICTORY. (Democracy, whiskey, sexy))

6 posted on 08/02/2004 11:06:12 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

Could you write a response to this, PLEASE.

7 posted on 08/02/2004 11:08:33 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

http://www.lifesite.net

"Your Life, Family, and Culture Outpost"

8 posted on 08/02/2004 11:12:31 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

To: cpforlife.org

=== The Roe v Wade decision claimed that it could not determine when life begins, which of course is a steaming pile of Barbara Streisand.

Oh dear ...

(Great post!)

9 posted on 08/02/2004 11:53:13 PM PDT by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)

To: cpforlife.org

in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past

If we are going to use that as a standard, gay marriage is out. As far as I know, in the past, marriage has always been strictly between a man and a woman. There are historical precidents for polygamous marriage (many)and even brother/sister marriage (ancient Egypt, Hawaii), but not same sex marriage.

10 posted on 08/03/2004 3:55:28 AM PDT by knuthom

To: cpforlife.org

Donohue also took Kerry to task for his statement that "being pro-choice is not pro-abortion." Donohue retorted, "But why isn't it? Voters need to know exactly what it is about abortion that Kerry doesn't like. What's holding back his enthusiasm? In other words, why isn't he pro-abortion? And what is it that is being aborted? A human life that is not a person? Does even Kerry believe this to be true?"
God bless William Donohue.

11 posted on 08/03/2004 5:42:54 AM PDT by eastsider

To: cpforlife.org

Jennings: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?

This is a little person.

Kerry: No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins.

Hopefully Kerry & his campaign will swim into a condom. However, Kerry is a slippery character and may escape and become a lifeform that is called "poser".

12 posted on 08/03/2004 6:26:58 AM PDT by Major_Risktaker (I predict a easy Bush landslide.)

To: cpforlife.org

Been off-line for a few days -- preparing to leave for vacation -- but your article and personal 'request' require a response. :) Thank you for posting this! I wish it could be the headline story in every newspaper in the country. (Odds of that = 0 ... or choose any negative number, since stories claiming that Kerry is a good, conscience-driven Catholic will no doubt somehow, somewhere, find their way into print today).

The fact that Kerry would choose to nit-pick some surreal difference between 'life' and 'personhood' puts me in mind of something that Robert Bork wrote in Slouching Towards Gomorrah:

It is impossible to say that the killing of the organism at any moment after it originated is not the killing of a human being [Kerry's 'person']. Yet there are those who say just that by redefining what a human being is. Redefining what it means to be a human being will prove dangerous ... Robert Bork

Would just like to comment on a handful of excerpted Kerry-isms in this article:

(1) And I have very strong feelings that we should talk about abortion in a very realistic way in this country. It is a very complicated, incredibly important moral issue that people have to face, also. And if you talk to any woman, as I have, who has faced that choice or who's been raped or who's suffered incest or who's faced that kind of choice, there are huge moral implications … John Kerry

Kerry’s 'realism' leaves a lot to be desired.

In a 1987 survey on the reasons women chose to have an abortion conducted by the Guttmacher Institute the following results were discovered. And these results have been born out by countless subsequent surveys, with the percentages at the top of the list growing even greater, the more narcissistic we have become over the almost twenty years that have elapsed since this particular survey was taken. (The only reason I am citing the Guttmacher survey is that the Guttmacher Institute is admittedly pro-abortion, so there was no hidden agenda involved in the poll-taking):

Woman is concerned about how having a baby will affect her life: 76%
Woman can't afford a baby right now: 68%
Woman had problems with the relationship, and now doesn't want to be a single parent: 51%
Woman is unready for responsibility: 31%
Woman does not want others to know that she had sex or is pregnant: 31%
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child: 30%
Woman had all the children she wanted, or all her children are grown: 26%
Husband or partner wants the woman to have an abortion: 23%
Fetus has possible health problems: 13%
Woman has health problem: 7%
Woman’s parents want her to have an abortion: 7%
Woman was victim of rape or incest: 1%
Other: 6%

Of course all of the above results total much more than 100%, since many women apparently had more than one reason for killing their unborn child. But, if we total all of the percentages that involve the convenience of the mother, versus all of the percentages that involve Kerry’s 'rape or incest' (and we'll even give him the 'health of the woman/fetus' issue, since it appears that his handlers forgot to remind him to mention that), it looks like:

Convenience of the mother: 343%
Health/rape/incest-related issues: 21%

So Kerry's sampling of abortion reasons represents 5.7% of the total reasons given for choosing abortion (and that’s being generous, since many of the abortions claimed to have been done because the health of the mother or the fetus was threatened simply occurred because the mother herself harbored that concern because she abused drugs or alcohol during her pregnancy, not because a physician had determined a problem).

From the above survey, as well as the arguments of those pro-abortion advocates who are at least honest enough not to hide behind the health of the mother/rape/incest nonsense, abortion is almost always (90+%) chosen on the basis of the convenience of the mother.

Add to that the relatively new fact that many late term abortions are now performed in order to harvest viable human body parts for medical research and the holocaust takes on an even more wicked aspect.

So convenience … and now monetary/research gain ... most likely account for 96% or more of abortions.

Conclusion: A presidential candidate who claims to agonize over the fact that he, personally, believes that life begins at conception, but that abortions must continue to be legal … and who (as do most abortion advocates) only refers to cases of rape or incest when challenged on that issue … is practicing junk logic (i.e., lying/distorting for the sake of election).

(2) I think leadership needs to honor that, those moral implications, appropriately, and I think we need to adhere to the standard that Bill Clinton, in fact, so adeptly framed, that abortion should be rare, but legal and safe ... John Kerry

First of all, why should abortion be rare, if it is simply a choice – a medical 'procedure' that involves no real moral conflict? You can’t have it both ways. If abortion is not a moral abomination, then why seek rarity in its practice?

Secondly, the use of the terms 'moral implications' and 'standard that Bill Clinton so adeptly framed' in the same sentence ought to raise a red flag in every American's mind. If John Kerry advises us to look to Mr. Clinton for guidance on any moral ground, we may as well pack up our tent and steal away.

Conclusion: This Presidential candidate is -- as are so many in the democrat party -- seeking to define as heroes and icons men to whom character and integrity are considered weaknesses, and unnecessary roadblocks toward agenda-realization. He is practicing the art of dismissing the importance of virtue so as to raise to heroic standards those with a similar agenda (i.e., lying/distorting for the sake of election).

(3) Jennings: ... you described the people who were with you in Radio City Music Hall [at a fund-raiser] the other night as the heart and soul of America.

Kerry: And when I talked about the heart and soul, I'm talking about the artistic expression.

This presidential candidate now claims that he gauges the heart and soul of America by her artistic expression. I can't help but wonder how President Bush would gauge his country's heart and soul. Somehow I suspect that artistic expression (as valuable as that may be) would be much further down on his list of heart/soul components. Of somewhat higher priority might be faith, honesty, courage, allegiance, work-ethic, personal responsibility ...

Methinks this was just a (feeble, by any same measure) attempt to extricate himself from a comment that he did not believe would be heard by the general public. If it is, then Mr. Kerry is two-faced, at best. If it is not, then Mr. Kerry has a much different definition than did our Founders (and most here on this forum) of what defines this country’s greatness.

(4) Jennings: Do you think there is too much violence and too much sex in American entertainment, and would you, should you, now be using your moral leadership on your Hollywood friends or with your Hollywood friends in order to reduce it?

Kerry: Yes. And I think it has an impact, frankly, on how America is viewed in the world. I think part of our struggle with those of other religions who object to American culture needs to be thoughtful and sensitive to some of what we export abroad.

Notice there is no reference whatsoever to the negative impact that gratuitous sex and violence on television may have on viewers (both adults and children, but children in particular). Mr. Kerry, instead, is concerned with the effect that such garbage has on 'how America is viewed in the world'. (We should no doubt be concerned with French and German opinion here?)

Even more repulsive is his reference to the fact that we must concern ourselves with 'our struggle with those of other religions who object to American culture'. To what 'other religions' do you suppose he is referring? And is he insinuating that the predominant religion in this country (namely Christianity) is not offended by the garbage that comes out of Hollywood?

The fundamental Christian church in this country has been battling the Hollywood elite for decades – offering its own alternative programming, testifying on Capitol Hill regarding the negative effects of much of modern television content, supporting the production of God- and family-centered movies, supporting boycotts of sponsors of offensive programming, etc. And Mr. Kerry's powerful vocal/financial Hollywood supporters (of the Whoopi Goldberg, Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore ilk) have not only attempted to stand in the way of Christian attempts to limit their insidious effect on our society – they have also sought to ridicule, degrade and destroy those who criticize their proselytizing depravity.

According to Mr. Kerry, we are instead supposed to concern ourselves with 'other religions who object to American culture'.

Peter Jennings should have nailed him down by asking him who those 'other religions' are, and just what it is about 'American culture' that offends them. I consider myself fairly well-informed, and the only 'other religion' that appears to be significantly 'offended' by America has no interest in our television/Hollywood productions. And the offenses have more to do with the fact that we do not practice their particular religion, and that we embrace liberty and enjoy prosperity.

Conclusion: This Presidential candidate -- as do so many in the democrat party – places no value on the genuine concerns of the mainstream citizens of this country. His allegiance is focused on global interests and global agendas.

One final comment: The hypocrisy of the elitists in the democrat party is rampant. But I believe it assumes its most malevolent form in their feigned concern for the children.

They consistently use that sickening mantra in order to realize a socialist/globalist agenda – invoking children’s welfare in every argument from nationalized healthcare, to pseudo-environmental concerns, to their attack on the tobacco/fast food industries, to their disdain for SUVs, to the need for massive increases in entitlement/government empowerment programs, to the need for large settlements in class action lawsuits …

And yet, simply examining the political stances of their presidential and vice presidential candidates, it is so obvious that children are actually nothing more than disposable entities to them. Both of them have consistently supported legislation (in the areas of abortion, taxation, healthcare and education especially) that are anything but child- and family-friendly.

John Edwards, in particular, made his entire fortune on the backs of pregnant women and disabled children. The large majority of his cases involved cerebral palsy births. He regularly employed the testimony of left-field, junk 'scientists' in order to win large settlements against gynecologists and obstetricians who had the misfortune of delivering c-p babies. And the results of his predatory legal maneuverings have been that: (1) many more women opted for much more dangerous and life-threatening Caesarian section births in order to prevent the possibility of cerebral palsy (even though a connection between normal birth-canal births and c-p has never been proved, other than through his own junk science 'experts'), (2) a significant number of North Carolina gynecologists and obstetricians have given up their practices because of the resulting increase in malpractice insurance premiums, causing a drastic shortage of qualified doctors and (3) the cost of giving birth in North Carolina has increased dramatically.

Worst of all, this man who claims to focus so much of his attention on making things better for the children steadfastly refused to take on the cases of c-p children who were much beyond the newborn age, and who were already living with the burden of cerebral palsy. Why? Because the settlements (and therefore his 30+% fee) in those cases would have been significantly lower.

I remember, as a child and young adult, that the ideological/philosophical differences between candidates for major office were often stark. But they were there. They were out in the open. And the differences in political ideology were honestly debated.

A very disturbing thing has been occurring in modern American leadership in all three branches of government, probably most strongly since the Clinton/Bush presidential contest in '92. The leftist candidates and office-holders no longer want the voting public to know and comprehend their ideology … because it is obscene. They cloak it in glib, altruistic rhetoric that bears no resemblance to the truth. They have elevated lying about their leadership intentions, and the purposeful character destruction of their opponents, and their opponents' programs and beliefs, to a malevolent art form.

Their rhetoric on abortion, and any aspect of governance related to the well-being of children, is probably the most evil example of their characterless, conscience-less hidden agenda. The fact that they choose to prey on (what is left of) parents' natural protective instincts for children (as is evidenced by their drumbeat use of the 'it's for the children' mantra) in order to put in place an agenda that shows little reverence for either one, is probably the unkindest cut of all.

Unless the America public awakens from its apathetic stupor and is willing to take the time, and expend the effort, to ferret out the truth rather than swallowing the rhetoric, we are destined to live under leadership that governs very differently than it promises to ... leadership that values global elitist agendas and ideologies much moreso than the very lives and liberties of the people they have been elected to lead. And it is we who will have neglected – even abandoned -- our children by leaving them such a bleak inheritance.

~ joanie

13 posted on 08/03/2004 8:45:48 AM PDT by joanie-f (To disagree with three-fourths of the American public is one of the first requisites of sanity.)

According to Mr. Kerry, we are instead supposed to concern ourselves with 'other religions who object to American culture'.

Awesome commentary Joanie!

14 posted on 08/03/2004 10:22:19 AM PDT by aodell

Outstanding!

I will PING my Pro-Life List to your commentary.

Thanks and God bless.

15 posted on 08/03/2004 12:59:43 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

PING to an awesome commentary by our own joanie-f. (Post #13)

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

16 posted on 08/03/2004 1:06:41 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

Hi-ya Askel!

I'm glad you liked it.

How are you doing? We don't see you on the Pro-Life threads nearly enough!

Kevin

17 posted on 08/03/2004 1:34:37 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (am I) A part of the cure, or am I part of the disease, singing…You are, you are)

To: cpforlife.org

THANKS FOR THE PING!

First. In accordance with "Planned Murderhood," a fetus is not yet a living being and may be, by choice...aborted. If that be the case, then why are the courts charging a person for double murder, when a pregnant woman is killed or murdered, and the fetus dies too.

Second. If all the Supreme Court Justices were to personally see, first hand, a few "partial birth," abortions, Roe v. Wade would be in the trash bin...forever.

18 posted on 08/03/2004 6:28:40 PM PDT by Smartass ( BUSH & CHENEY IN 2004 - Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.)

To: cpforlife.org

"Donohue charges that Kerry is using the "tortured logic" around abortion in a vain attepmt to appeal to Catholics. But warns Donohue, "practicing Catholics know that a baby is a person, and persons have rights, beginning with the right to be born." "

Amen

19 posted on 08/03/2004 7:58:49 PM PDT by Smartass ( BUSH & CHENEY IN 2004 - Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.)

To: cpforlife.org

... "practicing Catholics know that a baby is a person, and persons have rights, beginning with the right to be born." Actually, the demoncrats would reply that it is up to the woman--whose body is her sovereign right to control--who establishes the right to be born. It is better to start with the right to live once alive, since even ol' Feckless has admitted that there is a life following conception. Sadly, far too many practicing Catholics have been miss-educated to believe characterization of 'person' is a gray area to be manipulated and negotiated as po9litical expediency calls for. 'NO UNBORN CHILD HAS AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO CONTINUE ALIVE' if the democrat decides otherwise. And practicing Catholics endorse that evil nonsense at every election cycle because they have not been educated to discern the evil they support with their votes.

20 posted on 08/03/2004 9:03:46 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794