Posted on 04/12/2012 9:01:29 PM PDT by STARWISE
National Right to Life and two other major pro-family groups have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, saying that on the issues of abortion and marriage, he stands with them.
National Right to Life's endorsement Thursday (April 12) came two days after Romney's leading challenger for the Republican nomination -- Rick Santorum -- dropped out, making Romney the presumptive nominee. Also endorsing Romney were the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life women for political office, and the National Organization for Marriage, which has led the charge nationwide in protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
In its endorsement, National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:
-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."
-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.
"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."
The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.
"Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama's extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now -- and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old."
The National Organization for Marriage, which played key roles in preventing gay "marriage" from being legalized in California and Maine, said Romney was an early signer of the organization's pledge, which meant he was committing to:
-- support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
-- appoint Supreme Court justices and an attorney general "who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution."
-- "vigorously" defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court.
-- establish a presidential commission on religious liberty.
-- advance legislation to allow District of Columbia citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Gay "marriage" currently is legal in D.C.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the group was "proud" to endorse Romney.
"President Obama," Brown said, "has declared our nation's marriage laws to be unconstitutional and not only has refused to defend them, his administration is actively working to repeal them in the courts. He's come out against state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And he has appointed leaders of the same-sex 'marriage' movement as national co-chairs of his reelection campaign.
Incredibly, Obama still apparently claims to personally support traditional marriage. With friends like President Obama, the institution of marriage doesn't need enemies."
Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.
Don't imply they're doing it out of stupidity. They're doing the same thing by endorsing Steve Welch for Senate in Pennsylvania, a man who donated to Joe Sestak and admitted he voted for Obama. The GOP is becoming the official party of the vanity millionaire candiates. I'm sure party members get a lot of nice perks and like to kiss these liberal millionaires' butts to keep the cash flowing.
What, exactly, have YOU done?
Other than pass judgment on the groups who actually are relevant to the cause and actually are effective?
“I think”...”I feel”......but never any regard for facts.
A little humility would serve you well."
Would you be more specific, please? In what way have I been arrogant? Asking sincerely.
A pledge.
Not terribly convincing.
If Romney's track record of honesty remains consistent, that pledge will mean precisely as much as the one Obama gave to Bart "Stupid" Stupak.
Your argument has devolved into the common, liberal hodgepodge of insults and horror at anyone making judgments.
So why are you passing judgment on me?
The problem is none of that explains why they’re pushing Romney on us. Fiscal policy is set by Congress and it’s likely that any Republican president will sign the Ryan budget or whatever budget Republicans come up with. Not to mention the idea that Republicans are working so hard to find a guy to solve the debt crisis doesn’t wash when they spent the 2000s driving the debt up. Not to mention Newt is as strong a budget hawk as any, but he was the candidate they tried to destroy harder than anyone. Ah, but, he’s also a tax-cutting hawk, which Romney is not, and the Rockefeller/Romney Republicans have always loved to raise taxes. I think it’s all smaller and pettier than that.
We’ve already seen the reporting showing Republicans are “softening their stance” on gay marriage because they see younger voters are heavily for it. The amount of closeted or gay-friendly people in the Republican party is also probably far higher than anyone’s estimated so far, probably driven mostly by Republican women who aren’t bothered by homosexuality at all, like Coulter and Noonan, and to a lesser extent by the alleged closet case “libertarians” like Drudge. Romney is the man who created gay marriage so he is obviously their pick.
The party is also all about bringing as much money into the party as possible and, rightly so, see Romney as the guy who brings the big financial backing with them. Broadening their voter base and bringing in money is much more important than standing up for their values. The base, of course, feels exactly the opposite.
As Michael Reagan has said, there are two wings of the party and there always have been. The Rockefeller wing is the one pushing Romney. They’re socially liberal, okay with raising taxes, and prefer to appease their enemies rather than stand up to them. The Tea Party successes of 2010 probably terrified them. Romney is their big chance to take the party back.
Our choices are never limited when we have rightiousness and morality on our side. Our nation’s Founders referred to their ‘Sacred Honor’ in relation to good honest government. I believe that means doing what is right and honorable even when it may not be the most comfortable path politically for an individual, or for the nation as a whole.
Jesus was right. The truth will set us free.
Lol. Agreed, but at the time, Carter was seen as a better representation of Christian principles to evangelical groups because Reagan was divorced! Now we all know it’s a farce to think Carter was more religious...he’s an anti-semite and hardly a decent man!
Are these people totally ignorant of Governor Etch-a-Sketch’s history??
He doesn't stand for ANYTHING except "it's my turn to be president".
Did Romney sign the pledge on his Etch-a-Sketch?
He might as well have -- his word is worthless the moment he decides it's politically advantageous to flip-flop again.
|
National Right to Life State Affiliates
|
CONTACT INFORMATION National Right to Life Committee |
|
National Right to Life State Affiliates
|
CONTACT INFORMATION National Right to Life Committee |
You have launched an attack against the NRLC and against my post, yet you can’t take any critique of your own posts?
Take up fishing or knitting or some other hobby if you can’t take the heat in the kitchen.
Amen.
This applies in Catholicism, and I assume also
to the non-progressive Christian denominations:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“This may come as a revelation to political pragmatists, but Catholics may not choose any evil. None — period.
There is a principle in Moral Theology — the principle of double effect — which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil.
*snip*
We are speaking of politics. Like economics, politics was classically part of the science of ethics. The Greeks approached it this way, and their tradition was continued by the Scholastic thinkers.
Politics is the art and science of governing a society. It is a “normative” science inasmuch as it seeks to govern society well and rightly . Normative sciences, such as logic and aesthetics, seek to establish the right way of doing things.1 We can contrast these with the “descriptive sciences,” which study the way things actually are.
An illustration will help:
The normative science of ethics tells us how people ought to act, while the descriptive sciences of behavioral psychology or criminology study how people do act — and that is often badly!
Since politics is a subdivision of ethics, its principles must fit coherently with the entirety of right behavior.
All this established, we can answer our above questions very simply: It is a moral evil to support a candidate whose platform runs contrary to the natural law.
Conversely, it is a moral good to support one who works to uphold the natural law. For Catholics, to do the latter is, in part, to advance the social reign of Our Lord.”
Rest
http://catholicism.org/lesser-of-two-evils.html
DITTO~! Whoever knows with ANY certainty what’s coming even tomorrow?
(See my previous post before this)
Our choices indicate what our beliefs are.
Is Sarah now a RINO for supporting Mitt?
I don’t think she is.
But many here must now conclude she is.
Your problem, not mine.
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.