Abortion and Political Realignment (Why Democrates will turn Pro-Life - Self Preservation)

The American Thinker ^ | Jan 6, 2004 | Richard A. Baehr

[MHGinTN]

Consider, if you will, what will occur should Roe be set aside or overturned and the issue of laws governing abortion be returned to the individual states. States like Mass and other high abortion stat states will eventually abort their influence in national elections ... and the national map will become more and more red! This is why liberal leftists of the dnc do their damndest to protect Roe as a federal dictate, to spread the serial killing effect more broadly, lessening the impact and extending the empowerment for liberal chaos.

[AZLiberty]

I just made it up, based on the article. I can't guarantee it's original, but you're welcome to it.

I played with "God" or "nature" in place of evolution. To avoid messing with people who think God or evolution are controversial, I recommend it with "nature", as in:

Abortion is nature's way of limiting the number of people who believe in abortion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[RobbyS]

There is no evidence that homosexuality is inherited.

[cincysux]

Thanks, it's a great line

[votelife]

Good article; though I'm not sure if's it's true to the extent the author seems to think it. For instance, I've heard that Christians get divorced as much as non Christians, pretty much...


action alert: FReepers need to understand the importance of the Supreme Court. The justices are getting OLD. The Senate is very important, and getting Bush reelected is more important.

Here's a letter I sent W last year.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[gobucks]

It's the courts, today, that are seen as the "front line" in these battles. But, I'm sensing this battle is already lost. I did think for awhile Bush was similar to Reagan. But, the proof will be after the election as you state. And I'm thinking getting one or two Bork-like folks seated just isn't going to happen. My guess: Kennedy will replace Rhenquist ... and that'll be all she wrote. Bush has been too politically clever so far, and he'll nominate in a politically clever manner.

In the end, it's going to be grassroots, us, or Rome's fate for us.