[Dominic Harr]

Then, with all due respect, you are no different ideologically than the social cons you deride - it is a litmus test with you, the same as it is with the pro-lifers.

I vote for pro-life candidates regularly. I voted for GW twice.

They *won't* vote for pro-choice candidates.

Don't you see a problem here?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I am pro-choice. If you're going to suggest a candidate that will actively move to outlaw abortion, I am not on board ... I want my politicians to stay out of abortion.

-snip-

I vote for pro-life candidates regularly. I voted for GW twice.

I'm having a real hard time following this logic.

Does this mean you vote for pro-lifers who, in your opinion, don't really mean it? What am I missing?

What will you think of your two votes for W if JP Stevens or Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg drop dead tomorrow and W nominates Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen to replace them, giving anti-Roe forces a 5-4 SC advantage?

I'm serious - I really don't get it. Help me understand. Is it more important to you to elect Republican candidates (for their, supposedly, fiscal conservative policies and governance), or is it more important to ensure that the killing of babies in the U.S. continues unabated by defeating the social cons?