Posted on 06/21/2005 1:35:35 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Are Republicans bidding farewell to pro-life supporters?
If they are, then many Catholics will be bidding farewell to the Republican Party.
More Catholics voted for Republicans in the last election than ever before — and they did it even despite Catholic voters’ opposition to the Iraq war. Abortion was the biggest reason why.
A Gallup Poll conducted just before the November elections found that 19% of likely voters say the abortion issue directs which candidates they are willing to support. A big majority of those voters chose President Bush — so much so that Gallup said it gave the president a 7% advantage among all voters, and the presidency.
In the Democratic Party’s platform, conventions and party leadership, any opposition to abortion is strictly forbidden. Pro-lifers have largely given up on them, and hoped the Republican Party’s official pro-life stance would make it a more natural home for them.
But the GOP is starting to look less like home.
When Democrats controlled the Senate, President Clinton’s judicial appointees sailed through despite their out-of-the-mainstream support for abortion. With little objection from the GOP, America got Supreme Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the federal judges who routinely overturn the pro-life measures states manage to enact.
But with Republicans in charge, Democrats wouldn’t allow the most reliably pro-life appointees to even get a vote — and Republicans were too afraid to give them the vote the constitution guarantees them. Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler wrote to U.S. senators Jan. 6, urging them to resist pressure to impose a pro-abortion litmus test on federal judicial nominees. Cardinal Keeler, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, objected to the judiciary’s virtual “Catholics need not apply” policy. To no avail.
America’s pro-life majority elected a Republican president and Republican Senate. Will these people be able to successfully seat a pro-life Supreme Court justice for us in return? That remains to be seen. But the GOP doesn’t seem as willing to fight as hard for pro-lifers as pro-lifers fought for them.
Look at what happened in the House.
The Republican-controlled body voted to spend money from American taxpayers’ paychecks to pay for unethical research that isn’t promising enough to attract private investors. Embryonic stem-cell research has been hyped as cure-all miracle research. But a review of the facts reveals it for what it is: the creation of human beings for the sake of science experiments that have so far produced only tumors in patients.
Adult stem-cell research, on the other hand, has produced amazing treatments for medical conditions. But no one is asking for taxpayer money to spend on it. Pharmaceutical companies are more than happy to invest in it themselves, because it works.
Formerly pro-life members of Congress are using pro-abortion arguments to explain their betrayal. They say these children are unwanted anyway, or that they aren’t fully human — even after being visited on Capitol Hill by “unwanted” embryos slated for death who were adopted, allowed to grow up, and now walk, talk, play and, some day, will vote.
If pro-lifers are starting to feel out of place in the Republican Party, the feeling might grow in 2008.
The party’s dream candidates for President — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar — are not pro-life.
Some party watchers say not to lose hope.
“I don’t think there is anything happening in the party per se on this issue. We are a pro-life party and will remain so,” Republican campaign strategist Bill Dal Col, who managed Steve Forbes’ 2000 presidential campaign, told the Washington Times.
The answer, says Steve Ertelt of Lifesite, is for pro-life advocates to work overtime to make sure the party knows what pro-lifers expect.
There is a long list of possible pro-life Republican presidential candidates, he said, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist; pro-life Senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; and former Virginia Governor George Allen.
A pro-abortion Republican can’t win the next presidential election. The religious supporters that the GOP counts on won’t vote for the opponent, certainly — they simply won’t vote at all.
As Americans, our House and Senate leaders should support pro-life positions because if they vote the wrong way, they’ll end human beings’ lives.
As politicians, they should support pro-life positions because, if they vote the wrong way, they’ll end their political careers.
I don't think that's even possible.
Not to mention, the federal government has no right to tell states they can't allow abortion, just as they have no right to tell them they have to allow it.
This is not, and if I have anything to say about it NEVER WILL BE a dictatorship—even if I agree with the dictator. That means that we must put up with many, many people we disagree with and still work with them. It's called FREEDOM.
lotsa stuff ticks me off about W these days...
but I have to agree, he is the most prolife president we have had...
not just with babies either.
he's that way with our enemies in the 'religion of pieces' too.
way too prolife in letting illegals come here as well.
Having said that, YOU are NO SHILL for pointing it out.
Ronald Reagan, was the governor of California who I REMEMBER signed into law the most liberal abortion on demand legislation in this nation's history. It is part of what made him popular as a governor, and gave him the national notoriety to become candidate for president years later.
Folks say, "well he repented of signing that later".
To which I say, "had he not signed it, he would have very likely NEVER risen to ascendency in his party."
Reagan became more prolife, to get elected. And as far as I remember did nothing to mitigate the abortion crisis.
Bush has at least attempted to do something on a whole host of issues, starting with late term abortions.
Thanks for pointing out W is the 'most prolife president' we have ever had in our lifetimes. It's true.
Its called a lack of cahonas.. Ditch Frist as Majority leader and put Mitch McConnell in his place, make heavy use of recess appointments, nuclear option (modified one to prevent any filibusters), and stay on the offensive through 06..
Where do you get the idea that George Allen is not prolife?
His voting record is solid prolife.
The GOP has already proven itself extremely weak on pro-Life issues what with their handling of the Terri Shiavo travesty.
Well since Specter supported Santorum, Santorum was probably a bit uncomfortable stabbing him in the back. Wouldn't you be a bit uncomfortable with that? You should be.
"When the National GOP STOPS supporting liberal Republicans, then they will have a legitimate reason for not being criticized....THERE ARE NO EXCUSES NOW for the GOP's failure to shape social policy at home...."
Ditto THAT!
what is happening with the GOP base is the thought they had a 1936 or 1964 mandate with the 2004 election results.
So thing that were tolerated in the past arent tolerated by the base today. A sure way to end up in the minority in 2006
I see no evidence from this article that the GOP is abandoning its pro-life position. There have laways been some pro-abortion GOPers.
GOPs fault for what on the pro-life issue.
while there is a pro-life plank in the platform, not every memeber had to or is required to abide by it.
Bullseye!
Please read THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.
I have news for you. Toomey would have lost PA.
In order for Toomey to have won, approximately 200,000 to 300,000 Kerry voters would have had to split their tickets. It would never have happened.
In fact i bet Toomey would have trailed Bush by 1-2 points
McCain, you mean the guy that scuttled the nomination of two conservative judges? That guy?
No, McCain is NOT pro-life.
Welcome to FR.
Most people who are pro-life did not. Most people who are pro-life are conservative on other issues (guns, taxes, affirmative action etc.) or see the GOP as the best chance to uphold our constituion despite the views of a particular candidate.
Many, however, are not. They grew up in homes where the Democratic Party was revered. Abortion, maybe more than anything, cause them to change their view,hence these people have to hold their nose to vote R.
Further there are still many pro-lifers who vote D. Most of these are black.
God Save the Republic.
My guess is you don't know what you're talking about.
How was RR pro-life?
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.