President Bush is Pro-Life in Name Only

CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE ^ | 1-16-05 | Kevin Jeanfreau

[Cicero]

Exactly. Roe v. Wade can be overturned. There is increasing sentiment against mandated abortion. The 2002 and 2004 elections were very encouraging for pro-lifers.

But nothing will be done anytime soon UNLESS Bush appoints some good judges. If he succeeds in doing that, we could see the end of Roe v. Wade in fairly short order.

That won't end the fight. But it would be a huge step back from the Culture of Death.

[cpforlife.org]

Welcome to the Pro-Life Ping List!

Also, please take time to visit my websites:

CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE at:
http://www.CpForLife.org’

NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL at:
http://www.CpForLife.org/Memorial

Knights For Life at
http://www.KnightsForLife.org

Thanks,

Kevin

[TOUGH STOUGH]

It may be that president Bush could do more, however I wouldn't go as far as this article. If he had done what the article suggests, he would have been excoriated and there would have been impeachment hearings.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Agreed.

[cpforlife.org]

I'd be happy to take you off the list but you're not on it.

[Smartass]

MOST OF US here on FR are G.W. Bush supporters...to the the very end.
I believe the point cpforlife.org is trying get across
is some movement to end abortion MURDER on demand.
Forty five to fifty million MURDERED fetuses are simply
not acceptable in a civilized society.

If MURDER is to be accepted as the norm, then lets open
our prisons to every person that committed that crime.
If a convicted MURDER is spending time behind bars...
then, so should a pregnant woman and the doctors that
committed the crime of abortion.
The only abortion that should be acceptable is for incest/rape.
A fetus should have as much right to life as you or I.
Moreover, a fetus should have the same rights as a
MURDER victim!
PRO-LIFE is not about Presdient Bush, nor you or I. It's
denying that right to an unborn person.
THAT's WHAT PRO-LIFE IS ALL ABOUT.

[Coleus]

Actually the Republicans (congress) can use Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution and limit the scope of the SCOTUS.

And they will not use their power in this issue since they will need a spine.

Miguel Estrada worked for Clinton in the Solicitor General's office and used the RICO law against a Catholic Pro-life man who ran a pro-life agency.

Actions speak louder that words, and so far, the president's actions in the 3rd Circuit in NJ is abysmal where he appointed 6 pro abortion judges, 1 of whom a democrat to the federal bench. I just hope and pray he does not do the same with SCOTUS appointments.

[Lexinom]

Good riddance. I am SICK AND TIRED of having people like you be the representative sample of the average Washingtonian. For twenty years I have this pro-abort crap shoveled down my throat by the Seattle Times, the broadcast media, loud and outspoken left-wing kooks, and I AM SICK OF IT! HOW MANY BABIES DO YOU HAVE TO KILL BEFORE YOUR BLOODLUST IS SATISFIED?

[Coleus]

Please consider this to be a formal abuse report, and act accordingly.
>>>>

what a squealer.

and they did act accordingly, ha ha, and didn't pull the thread and put in the bloggers section.

[cpforlife.org]

You quote Scripture on your home page, and when someone holds a politician accountable you tell them "go screw yourself"? How interesting.

You don't refute anything I've posted, you just say "go screw yourself". Have you nothing intelligent to say? Are you simply a blind sheeple sycophant, not willing to say anything less than praiseworthy of Bush?

He could have done all I've mentioned, and more but hasn't. The truth hurts and you can't deal with it.

[Coleus]

Mark in the Old South
In your dreams.

33 posted on 01/16/2005 5:23:49 PM EST by BullDog108

Time will tell, if the republican party doesn't come through with pro-life, morals and values, the very issues which got them elected then the party is in big trouble.

Incidentally, many of us were catholic team leaders for Bush and will be watching and voting in the next election. We worked hard for the abortion and family issues and want accountability.

[Lexinom]

Change is long overdue. To allow complacency to consume us is to become comfortable with policy that has taken 7 times as many lives as the Third Reich. I for one am ready to do something - anything.

How can someone glibly say "I believe a woman should have a right to choose", when that "choice" involves the taking of a life - a life she CHOSE (with the exception of 3% of rape-incest cases) to conceive implicitly. How can a person view another person as "property" to be sustained or destroyed according to convenience?

My proposed answer: Ignorance. Willing ignorance.

In 1989, a poster adorned several downtown Seattle bus stops. It was a picture of an unborn baby innocently captioned, "Enjoy Life!" The City Council ordered it taken down. Why is this?

[Lexinom]

Whoa! You guys are both my FRiends. Wherefore this acrimony, RW?

[cpforlife.org]

My point was that everyone can do more and I'm not going to hold myself up as some shining example. It wasn't/isn't about me and I regret adding that line, because it does not help.

The point is that as the capacity a person has to make a difference increases, the more they must be held accountable. The President is the one and only person, who can on his authority stay Roe v Wade. I'm not suggesting it would be easy. There would be hell to pay.

Bush is lauded as some great Pro-Life champion and I hope he can earn that accolade, but he will have to make real and substaitial sacrifices. If he does he would be one of the greatest Presidents in history.

[sinkspur]

He could have done all I've mentioned, and more but hasn't.

A President who bucks the Supreme Court is asking for impeachment, and will likely get it.

As Bush says, it will take a change of hearts and minds. Having a president impeached over a pro-life issue would set us back years.

[cpforlife.org]

Since his party is in control of both houses of Congress there is virtually no chance that he would have been impeached let alone removed for such a brave and just act as this.

Moreover, Clinton WAS impeached and he kept doing his groove thing. I guess I want President Bush to be a great and self sacrificing hero President, willing to do whatever to stop the evil carnage. I guess that's just too much to ask?

[Lexinom]

When that happens the battleground shifts to the states, of which only 9 or so would continue to maintain a policy of unfettered human abortion. The battleground shrinks, in other words.

The pro-life side has the numbers it needs in the Senate to confirm good people to the federal judiciary. It's now a matter of A) filibusters (minority rule) and B) whether majority leadership has the MOXY to do what is well within its juridical bounds: make confirmations a simple majority, in line with the Constitutional "advise and consent" principle.

[rwfromkansas]

Sir, people like you are never satisfied.

There is only so much one president can do. We have a ban on partial birth abortions, which is more than Reagan did.

[sinkspur]

Since his party is in control of both houses of Congress there is virtually no chance that he would have been impeached let alone removed for such a brave and just act as this.

Sorry. He WOULD be impeached and convicted, and the GOP would lead the way.

You are living in a fantasy land, my man. There is no stomach in either party for putting the country through a constitutional crisis, and the country would vote to keep the GOP out of power for a generation.

[Lexinom]

In the meantime, more human beings die in the name of "choice" and "convenience".

Maybe it's time for a deeper strategy discussion. Bush is right about changing hearts and minds. That can come about with simple education. How many persons' consciences would not be smitten to the core on seeing the photograph of an aborted fetus? My idea, for what it's worth, is to place such photographs as those used by CBR in conspicuous places the most visciously pro-abortion strongholds: Downtown Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. Don't let people go on in blissful ignorance whilst dwelling amidst an ongoing holocaust. It's free speech - and no one has to look.

Sure, some will get mad. Sure, people will protest children shouldn't be exposed, to which I reply, neither should children be subjected to the act depicted. The defense to the "this is offensive" complaint, is "that's the point; slaughter is offensive. What are you going to do to stop it?"