PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

We believe that abortion is infanticide, and that a holocaust of infants is taking place. We do not believe that there is any other issue on Earth that compares with abortion in moral import. And therefore, there is no policy or combination of policies you Republicans can offer, including perfect tax policies, tort reform, and every other thing that is near and dear to Republican hearts, that matters a damn if abortion is overlooked and allowed to slide by.

We know that this issue has to be settled in the Supreme Court, nowhere else. And we know that the opportunity to put new justices on the court comes once in a decade, maybe, and that the current opportunity to alter the complexion of the court is not going to come again for a generation. Therefore, the real possibility exists that abortion can finally be seriously curtailed, soon, by the Supreme Court changing Roe v. Wade or eliminating it...IF, and ONLY IF, we can get pro-life judges on that court.

To do that, we have trusted the Republicans for years. We just came out and voted for you again this time, in unprecedented numbers, because we are not stupid and we know what is at stake. Not just evangelicals either. The religious CATHOLIC vote went Republican in 2004, and they didn't do it because of trade policy or even gay marriage. Their issue is abortion.

So, if the Republicans allow Senator Specter to get the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and he blocks pro-life nominees, or if the Republicans do not use the nuclear option to override Democrat filibusters of pro-life nominees, THIS TIME there is no place for Republicans to hide. WE KNOW that you have the power, now, because WE just voted to give it to you. We understand that you can block Specter. And we understand the nuclear option.

And therefore, we most certainly will understand that if you allow the pro-life judges to be blocked, that it will be your political CHOICE to have done so. You CAN put pro-life judges on the bench, if you expend a lot of political capital. This will offend some people - a lot of people. And that is the price you HAVE to pay to get our votes next time. You have to be willing to bet the whole house to end infanticide.

If not, we will not vote for you. We won't go running to vote for the Democrats: they're pro-abortion. We won't go out and form a third party: we're not stupid and know that won't work. We'll just stay home, just like we did in 2000. Except that in 2000 it was out of frustration and neglect, and the lack of belief that anything will change. There was no organized campaign to keep the pro-life vote home in 2000.

This time, it's different. We understand the system, and we know that you have the power. And we demand that you use the power straight down the line to fill the high court and the appellate courts with judges who will protect the lives of babies. Period. This is not negotiable. At all. This is why we voted for you. You have nothing with which to bargain with us, and if you screw us, we will stay organized and we will stay home purposely to destroy the Republican party. Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us.

This means, in effect, that all of those things YOU care most about: taxation, immigration, trade and business policy, deregulation - all of those core issues that come as an economic package, are held hostage to our issue: babies. If you will not protect the babies, we will stay home and let the Democrats destroy everything that YOU believe in.

This is called "Chicken". It is called a "Mexican Standoff". And since we are fired up by the certitude that we are doing God's work in defending babies, we cannot be bought, and you cannot win so much as an election for dog catcher in this country without us.

Therefore, the solution is simple and obvious: give us what we voted for you to do. Give us pro-life judges. Use all of your power to do it. Sweep Specter out of the way: is he worth losing all the rest of your agenda? - because we really will stay home and throw the country to the Democrats if you're no better than they are on abortion, just to punish YOU for having betrayed us. When the filibusters come, and they will come, use the nuclear option to override them. That will poison the Senate, yes. So what? We are talking about babies here. And with our votes, militantly mobilized because we are winning, alongside of yours, in 2006 and 2008 and beyond, even if the Senate is poisoned, you will be able to replace it with a more Republican one.

That there is even a debate going on as to what to do with Specter is alarming, but we have had our hearts broken before, so we'll sit and pray and trust President Bush and Senator Frist and the Republicans to do the right thing.

Screw us, though, and we will turn on you and your whole agenda will go down the drain with the blood of the babies you wouldn't put your power on the line to save.

The easy solution, the win-win solution, is to BE as pro-life as you campaigned as being. Just do it.

I apologize for the length of this post. But it needed to be said. The Republicans do not seem to get it. They need to understand that we are more committed to saving babies than we are to the fortunes of the Republican Party. That Specter is still in play demonstrates that too many of them do not take this seriously.

Rather than test us, what you guys should do is simply cave, now, and give us what we want. Do that, and you wont hear from us again - there will be no creeping theocracy in America - because this is about the only religious issue that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals AGREE on.

"Let me ask you this - do you think that it's not realistically possible to expect a Republican Congress to even introduce a resolution proposing a Human Life Amendment and to have a debate and an up or down vote on the resolution?"

IT IS NOT REMOTELY POSSIBLE, PERIOD

"Is it really too early to even start a legislative duologue on the issue of abortion?"

Legislation is in the house RIGHT NOW that if enacted into law would have the same effect as a Human Life Amendment and only needs a simple majority to pass.

From http://www.cpforlife.org/id128

Introduction to and explanation of:

The Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003

The Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003[1] - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion-related case.

It was introduced in the U.S. House on April 1, 2003 and currently has only 3 cosponsors.

FaxNotes May 2003[2] gives a short description of this proposed legislation and Jan 2004 FaxNotes[3] states, "If legal protection of the right to life is to be restored in the United States it will take a majority of Members of the U.S. House and Senate who will exercise their powers under the U.S. Constitution to withdraw jurisdiction from the Courts over these matters," which is assumed to be an allusion to the Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003.

The Republican National Coalition for Life appears to be the only pro-life organization that is aware of H. R. 1546. This proposed legislation was also introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. in 1999 and 2002, yet pro-life organizations remain unaware, or opposed to the bill.

Jurisdiction removal from federal district Courts removes appellate jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme court. H. R. 1546 fails to remove U.S. Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over State Supreme Courts, (see George W. Bush, Et Al., Petitioners V Albert Gore, Jr., Et Al.) and wouldn't prevent a State law from being nullified on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which appears to be the only flaw in the present version of bill. (U.S. Constitution, Article III, §1 and §2, permits Congress to strip ALL appellate jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Nevertheless, the bill is a major step in restoring Federalism as described in Federalist No. 39 and comports with the incremental strategy accepted by most pro-life organizations. Additionally, the concept of the bill could be incorporated into a Right To Life Amendment for the U.S. Constitution, returning the issue to the States as it was prior to Roe v. Wade.

American Life League News, 10/31/03[4], states, "Now that President Bush has promised to sign the partial birth abortion bill into law, the court challenge will not be far behind." How right that turned out to be - "less than one hour after the president signed the legislation, a federal judge in Nebraska - U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, appointed in 1992 by Mr. Bush's father - issued a limited temporary restraining order against the law."[5] PPFA & Planned Parenthood of Golden Gate filed a lawsuit in a San Francisco federal court Oct. 31, and The National Abortion Federation filed a suit in New York on the same grounds. In both cases, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and imposed a temporary injunction on the ban. Had the Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 been the law of the land, the lawless federal courts would have had to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. They could no more hear the case than a Tennessee traffic court could hear a case involving a Cuban speedster in Havana. PPFA, Planned Parenthood, and The National Abortion Federation would experience the unmitigated horror of having their precious lawsuit aborted by a federal judge.

Once pro-lifers experience the Constitutional power that Congress has over the federal courts - "politicians who only want to focus on one manner of murder so that they could claim enough pro-life credentials to guarantee re-election" - will no longer be able to hide behind the long flowing robes of federal judges, like the small child who hides behind the long dress of his mother when frightened. Subsequent legislation to silence the U.S. Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts, will no longer be met with the frightened exclamation by the politician who states, "but what about the Courts!" The heat of the electoral spotlight will be focused exactly where it needs to be: The 'pro-life' politician, not the unaccountable pro-murder judge.

Population Connection, formerly Zero Population Growth, in the Fall 2003 edition of "The Reporter"[6], called the existence of H. R. 1546, "frightening," and went on to state that the bill had no chance of becoming law. With abortionists opposing the bill and pro-lifers doing nothing to support it, their prediction will prove to be 100% correct.

It has been stated that H. R. 1546 needs to be explained in an article. A question/answer format with Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (TX), or Dr. Herbert W. Titus, Senior Legal Advisor to The Liberty Committee[7], of which Dr. Paul is chairman, may be suitable for Celebrate Life Magazine[8], FaxNotes, and other Pro-Life groups.

[1] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.01546:

[2] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2004/jan04/04-01-21.html

[3] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2003/may03/03-05-15.shtml

[4] http://www.all.org/news/031031.htm

[5] http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031108-111532-9290r.htm

[6] http://www.populationconnection.org/Communications/Reporter/Fall2003/clinics.pdf

[7] http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/index.html

[8] http://www.all.org/celebrate_life

With much thanks to Professor Remedy.

Sorry, but the facts do NOT bear that out; you may say it as much as you want to, but Evangelicals did not vote in any larger numbers than they did in 2000.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

The Values-Vote Myth

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.