Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
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.
And the overriding 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.
The problem is that FR is by no means representative of the country at large. If it were, Peroutka probably would be the president-elect.
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."
Generally available 39
Available, but under stricter limits 38
Should not be permitted 22
Don't know/No answer 1
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=814 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).
Only "Generally available" is a ROE option.
If you have to ask a stupid irrational question, you will get what you asked for.
I am not going to answer that question.
Not because I don't have a appropriate answer, but because the question is nothing but flame baiting, non-germain and ridiculous.
As are most all your statements.
We have no common ground here. Your positioning is indefensible without diving into the rhetorical mosh pit.
The typical liberal Republican strawman.
Liberal Republicans never change hearts and minds. The reality is that they teach others their compromising ways that only serve to continue the practice of abortion.
True... but FR was what was being discussed in this exchange, not the country at large.
Have any of your clients ever actually won an election?
Dear narses,
Great post.
Let's repeat it for those who might have missed it the first time:
* * *
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."
Generally available 39
Available, but under stricter limits 38
Should not be permitted 22
Don't know/No answer 1
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=814 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).
Only "Generally available" is a ROE option.
* * *
Looks like 60% of the population, in this poll, prefer greater restrictions or a ban on abortion.
Unfortunately, Roe prevents and stricter limits on abortion at all.
Looks like Roe is getting in the way of 60% of the people of the United States!
Imagine that! ;-)
sitetest
I think those who serve the abortion mega-business are the nutjobs.
Your posts are irrational.
Try to focus.
Dear Cold Heat,
"This is why Roe evolved and why it will remain as settled law."
Please explain how Roe "evolved."
That may be difficult, as your assertion that Roe "evolved" is fictional.
The laws of most states outlawed abortions in the vast majority of cases in January, 1973. A number of states in the 1960s and early 1970s had liberalized their abortion laws, but by 1973, that movement was petering out.
Roe didn't "evolve." Roe was created ex nihilio and imposed on the nation.
Roe invalidated every single restriction on abortion in every single state of the United States.
Even now, the courts have permitted only the slightest of impositions on the license to abortion on demand.
The courts have permitted, in some cases, that minors may be required to notify their parents that they are to procure an abortion.
The courts have permitted, in limited cases, short waiting periods.
The courts have permitted, in limited cases, required informed consent.
That's about it.
The courts, so far, have not even permitted a ban on infanticide, labled "partial birth abortion."
Currently, the legal regime for abortion is the most extreme of virtually any in the Western world. Go look up the abortion laws in European countries. We trash them, and deservedly so, for many things. But in Britain, late term abortions are generally banned, and they are contemplating moving the cut off point to earlier in pregnancy. In Germany, women are required to undergo significant counseling before acquiring the credential required to have an abortion.
Our abortion laws (or lack thereof) are the most extreme in the Western world. And that is because of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. As long as these stand, we can't even outlaw infanticide.
Conversely, reversing Roe is not the same as decreeing via judicial fiat that abortion is to be banned in all circumstances.
Reversing Roe returns us to the status quo ante bellum.
Reversing Roe permits the issue to once again be hashed out in the political process.
Are you against permitting abortion to be subject to regulation through state and federal laws, passed by state legislatures and the Congress? If you do oppose permitting abortion to be the subject of legislation, how does that make you different from Kate Michaelman?
Why are you (and Kate Michaelman) so afraid of the political process? Perhaps you fear that the people may approve of significant restrictions on abortion?
sitetest
How many of your clients support abortion?
Unlike DU and the Democrats in general, failure to conform on this issue isn't cause for expulsion. The reason you see pro-choice Republicans here debating is because the pro-life founder of this site allows them to do so freely, without fear of reprisals.
Interesting that you'd cite that as an example of how pro-life intolerance alienates fellow Republicans.
"Your positioning is indefensible"
Since you are the one name calling, I find your attitude odd. Since you are the one here expressing support for the Impeached Ex President's views on abortion, I find it even more odd that you call me names and refuse to answer my civil question.
BUT, if I'm out of line, I'd like to know where.
Therefore:
Sitetest,
More than once, when I have been out of line, you have been honest enough to say so. I invite your critique of my exchange with Cold Heat. I agree, in advance, to accept your analysis as definitive. You have no direct obligation to get involved here, but I'd appriciate it, if you choose to.
I'm sure all of Europe is much further down the road to hell than we are. Whereas we allow abortions, they probably mandate it! Well for sure, they subsidize it with taxpayer dollars.
America is always 20 - 30 years behind Europe in moral decline.
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2003. N=814 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).
Only "Generally available" is a ROE option.
* * *
Looks like 60% of the population, in this poll, prefer greater restrictions or a ban on abortion.
I know you aren't going to like me pointing this out, but you could also interpret that to say that 77% of the population supports legalized abortion, while only 22% think it should be illegal.
See post 1392. I look forward to your response.
:-) Must be the public school math.
I suggest you rework that problem. If you put the parsed (in favor but) question together with (in favor), it is 39+38=77 to 22% against.
I hope I clarified that.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"And only 'Should not be permitted' is a pro-life option."
That is at one end of the continuum.
On the other hand, even "stricter limits" are not permitted under Roe. The fact is that 60% or more of the people support abortion laws which are more restrictive than Roe v. Wade permits.
The Supreme Court ruled even that Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban was unconstitutional because it violated Roe.
Overturning Roe does not get us to a universal ban on abortions.
It merely returns the question to the realm of politics, to legislatures, to voters, to hash out what the laws will be. That is where the question belongs.
sitetest
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.