An assessment of the role of Roe in the 2008 presidential election

Let's say a masked gunman is testily aiming an automatic weapon at two helpless hostages — an able-bodied man, and a trembling toddler. "Please, I beg of you," the grown-up implores, hands held high in the air, "if you must mow somebody down, by all means, make it him. I ardently hope that neither one of us has to die, but if push comes to shove, well, frankly . . ."

Now, what kind of person would take such a stance? What kind of a country would? And yet, with the 34th anniversary of the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision upon us, that is approximately the attitude being urged upon those Americans still concerned about the survival of our democratic republic at all — not by liberals, mind you, but by some of conservatism's leading spokespersons. I'll explain.

Any regular listener to Alan Colmes' counterpart in his various media incarnations is by now well acquainted with what might be termed the Hannity Doctrine: the contention that the war on terror must be admitted as superceding all other political priorities. One need not disagree that liberty is to be vigorously defended to disagree with the right-to-life-related conclusion this popular talk show host and others are drawing about it: that the attacks on our country by radical Islamists changed not only what Americans ought to be concerned about, but somehow, the very essence of what our nation is and has always been. Is Sean really saying this? He is, if we think through the implications of his 2008 presidential race philosophy.

What does it mean to say that conservatives ought to support any candidate of any party, with any voting record on other issues, as long as s/he is strong on national defense? It means that the primacy of the right to life over the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been submerged and ignored — not by foreign enemies, but by America's own defenders. Ours is the land defined by the Declaration, and that inspired historical landmark recognizes that everyone is "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights," in a certain undeniable order. Yet, with all due respect to Jefferson and his confreres, do we really need the guidance of political genius to tell us that the right to live in freedom hinges upon the right to live in the first place, and not the other way around?

The most basic of our founding documents appeals to what it divine and immutable, then, in accord with what is natural and reasonable. That is why it is called a "declaration," and not a "thesis," or an "editorial." For this reason neither Osama bin Laden, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor a multitude of misled voters, nor a gaggle of oligarchs in black robes, nor Sean Hannity himself, can change what American principle objectively is. Despite what the manipulators of our political process try to tell us, national security is not the rival of national identity. The two are partners, with one of them (hint: not the one Mr. Hannity alleges) necessarily claiming a surpassing degree of logical, moral, political, and spiritual importance. Does one burn down one's own house, in an attempt to thwart a potential arsonist? Divest one's self of all assets to become safe from a feared robbery attempt? Then why on earth would we accept the notion that we must deprioritize defending the right to life if we wish to begin effectively defending the right to liberty; that we must voluntarily quit being Americans ourselves, in order to keep radical Islam from abolishing Americanism?

Sean says, to his credit, that he is still pro-life, despite his willingness to back politicians who don't "agree" with him on the "domestic issues." (Abortion is a worldwide phenomenon claiming logarithmically higher numbers of victims than terrorism ever has, so why it is considered to be something contained within our particular coastlines, I have never understood.) All he can possibly mean by this, however, is that he has not stopped to think through to the conclusion of his own commentary. To claim that the cause of overturning Roe has to move to the back of the bus, now that the war on terror has officially begun, is to say that those of us who have already had a chance to see the sun and feel the free breeze on our faces have more of a claim to continue doing so than those waiting in the womb have to take their turn at all. It is to say that the protection of our own interests is of greater urgency than the protection of theirs.

This is not a "pro-life" position, howsoever modified. This is nothing but the core pro-choice contention in its vilest, most prejudicial form. Grown-ups of all ages know indubitably that it is their special privilege to prioritize the weaker among us — either literally, as many members of our military and other security forces do on a daily basis, or sacrificially, as every parent, and teacher, and mentor, and civil servant (etc.) does in a whole plethora of ways. At least, that is what grown-up Americans have always believed and done.

For the record, it must be noted that Sean Hannity is far from the only one pushing this new and illegitimate "conservative" system of "single-issue" voting. Just the other day, for instance, Roger Hedgecock was admonishing Rush's audience to wake up and smell the post-9/11 coffee. Sean just happens to be the highest profile member of this mentality. How many more people he and others will be able to convince remains to be seen. It may prove enough, arguably, to sweep a RINO team into the White House in two years' time. If that happens, it will be a black, black day; I for one would rather see America martyred than see her commit the suicide of moral cowardice. But if we pull together in insistence not only on the right to liberty but also on the right to life which undergirds it, refusing the erzatz political "necessity" of pitting the one against the other, we may not finally have to witness either of those unspeakable outcomes. In the last analysis, then, the war on terror has only made the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade even more urgent — certainly, not less so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helen M. Valois is a homemaker and mom currently residing in the northwoods of Wisconsin. She has a Master's Degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville, and is a member of the MI (Militia Immaculatae) movement founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe. Her articles and book reviews have appeared in a number of publications since that time.

Is Abortion An Election Issue?
by Rev. Dr. James I. Lamb, LFL Executive Director

“I could never vote for anyone who favors the destruction of innocent life in the womb,” Sam stated bluntly. Fred replied, “I’m opposed to abortion as much as you are, Sam, but there are other issues you know.”

Sincere and well meaning Christians who oppose abortion too often speak of it as if it were on a par with tax cuts, Medicare, or Social Security. There are many “Freds” out there. Maybe you know a “Fred.” Maybe you are a “Fred”! You want to be fair-minded, and you do not want to be labeled a “one issue” voter.

If you really think about it, abortion is more than an “election issue.”

God speaks to some of the political issues of our day but in a way that gives the Christian plenty of “wiggle” room. For example, God speaks about taxes. He tells us to give to “Caesar” what is his. However, He does not talk about tax structures or the IRS. Therefore, Christians may debate about how much they think “Caesar” should be taking or about how he should be taking it.

God speaks about salvation but not about how to save the Social Security system. Therefore, Christians may debate about the pros and cons of privatization.

God speaks about caring for the elderly but not about Medicare. Therefore, Christians may debate about the best way to help the elderly pay for prescriptions.

God speaks differently, however, about destroying innocent human life, and there is no “wiggle” room. He says: “You shall not murder.”

We must not forget what abortion is. All the rhetoric surrounding abortion has deceptively blinded us to the truth. We hear it described as a “right,” a “choice,” or a “medical procedure.” It becomes too easy – even for the Christian – to see abortion as just another one of those “election issues.”

Think about it! What is a candidate who supports abortion rights really supporting? Abortion is not on a par with a woman’s right to equal employment and equal pay.

Let’s be honest.

The candidate who supports abortion rights supports a woman’s right to have her innocent child murdered. Abortion is not just an “election issue.” Abortion is a grave sin. Abortion assaults God’s Word of truth about the sanctity of human life and, therefore, assaults the Word Himself Who became flesh that we might have life. Abortion is a sin against God Who is the Author and Redeemer of life. Abortion is not an “election issue.” Because abortion destroys human life, it is a spiritual issue.

Not only does abortion kill a child, it forever wounds a woman. Although she may at first feel a sense of relief that her “problem” has been solved, eventually the reality of this unnatural choice sinks in. When it does, the guilt and shame can be devastating. This awful reality can bring the same devastation to fathers, grandparents, and siblings. Abortion is not an “election issue.” Because abortion can destroy relationships within families as well as between God and an individual, it is a spiritual issue.

Therefore . . .

. . . a Christian cannot debate the pros and cons of abortion any more than he can debate the pros and cons of rape or stealing or adultery. Abortion cannot be a “right” for, in God’s sight, it is a fundamental wrong.

It is such a fundamental wrong that, when it comes to voting, a candidate’s stance on the issues is irrelevant if he or she favors abortion. A vote is not a passive act. The voter participates in promoting the agenda of the candidate in an intentional action. A candidate who favors abortion should be disqualified from receiving a Christian’s vote.

Regardless of what our government deems legal, when it comes to abortion, “We must obey God rather than man.” Those who have been called in grace and adopted as God’s children through the merits of Jesus Christ should not sanction the destruction of preborn children.

A vote for a pro-abortion candidate implicates the voter in the destruction of children created by God and for whom Jesus died.

Christians must certainly use caution when it comes to political involvement. A congregation has no business preaching about tax credits or campaign finance reform and advising its members where they should stand on these kinds of issues.

However, the Body of Christ is compelled to defend the cause of the weak and needy (Psalm 83:3-4). The Church is compelled to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” (Proverbs 31:8 NIV) and to expose the “fruitless deeds of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11 NIV). When a candidate for a government office promotes the sin of abortion, God’s people must take action to oppose this sin and defend those affected by it.

The Church is compelled not just to expose the deeds of darkness but also to be a light to those trapped by the deeds of darkness. The Church’s Gospel message of forgiveness is the only source of true hope and healing needed by those struggling with an abortion decision.

Abortion is an atrocity that takes the lives of over 3,000 children every day. Abortion is an atrocity that wounds women and destroys relationships. To be in favor of such an atrocity is symptomatic of a certain moral view of life that has broader implications as well. What kind of morality do we want in our leaders who will be making decisions about human embryo research, genetic manipulation, cloning, assisted suicide, and euthanasia? The redeemed people of God are compelled to take action in favor of a morality that reflects God’s love for life as exemplified on the cross of His Son, Jesus Christ.

There is a little “Fred” in all of us. No one wants to be a “one issue” voter. But abortion is not an “election issue.”

Abortion is a spiritual issue.

Abortion is a sin.

The Christian should not vote for the sin of abortion.

The Christian should vote for life and be a messenger of life.

Do you think he knows he's been suborned? Or do you think he's really a media conservative only?

If he's a pawn, I don't think he realizes it. As for being a media-only conservative, I can't judge that. I'm not inside his mind. I can only guess, and my guess is this: he's a sycophant.

Take Iraq, for example. He spent the entire time up until Bush made his recent speech on the strategy in Iraq defending every step of Bush's in Iraq. Then, as soon as the president makes a public pronouncement that there was a mistake, you have Sean bobbing his head saying "that was a mistake, but that's going to be fixed now".

DISCLAIMER: My opinion, for some time, has been that Bush's Iraq occupation (sorry, that's what it is and no amount of PR will change it) strategy was too weak. He should have disgraced the leaders, put Saddam in front of a US Military Tribunal (if, after all, we were the ones bringing him to justice and all WE should have been the ones to try him), shot him, crushed the insurgence, and disgraced Islam. Sound extreme? It is. But it is what is needed to get the desired result of gaining a true ally, besides Israel, in the Middle East.

BACK ON TOPIC: Sean's "opinion" followed the president's to a T. He never strayed from the party line. He doesn't really seem to think on his own. In short, Sean Hannity is a Republican, not a conservative. He has an allegiance to the party, not to an ideology.

Like I said, I don't know the man, but that is the way he strikes me. He may deny it (and he does on his show), that's his right.

Between the fact that he is a Bush apologetic (don't get me wrong, I am not looking for someone anti-Bush; it's just that hearing Bush's opinion's recanned and reheated gets very old. I already know what Bush says in public, I don't need to hear it repeated for three hours every day) he just isn't that good at running a show (if you've heard the first five minuts, you've heard it all), and he just isn't a good debater (he frequently yells people disagreeing with him down with the polemic "You're a liberal, aren't you?"; it doesn't matter. If they're wrong what counts is why) I don't care for his show.

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.