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.
Anybody who doesn't think this is a major issue for the party should ask themselves why Ronald Reagan made it a wedge issue and elevated it to national prominence in the party?
Why are they turning their backs on Reagan and the platform? They are disloyal republicans and don't have a clue about the great moral divide in this country.
Anyone who would demand that we should put party above principle sounds more like a fascist than a republican.
And he can't stand our "whining" about abortion?? Must be easier to ignore the silent SCREAMS of the murdered babies that way. I wonder if this person really has a conscience or just chooses to ignore, for whatever reason, this great evil that is perpetrated on the innocent everyday.
Eternal life, of course. Vivo Christo Rey. But, the Way and the Truth do NOT include a utopian view supported by the slaughter of the innocent.
This reminds me of the hooptie-do surrounding President Bush's Executive Order regarding funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research in August '01. If I recall, there was all manner of teeth gnashing, wails of betrayals, threats and bullying by the ardent "give me everything or else" anti-abortion forces then. It would be interesting to pull up some FR threads from that era and event to observe the forum discourse. It would look much the same as this ridiculous anti-Specter jihad, I reckon.
good post! I'm not sure what's best for the pro-life cause, keeping Specter in (for now) or not, but I do know that DC needs to hear the message here: Millions of people voted Republican for the pro-life issue. Now it's time to deliver! Let's continue to pray for W that he will appoint conservatives and be willing to stand up the liberals to get them confirmed!
Give up the "You Godless murdering heathen, you WILL vote the way I TELL you to vote or I will call you a murderer again" approach? Are you nuts? Why tamper with perfection in public relations?
(sarcasm OFF)
"As it is currently interpreted, yes. The SCOTUS has that responsibility, and excercised it."
So ALL ACTIVISM from the left that is settled law is now OK in your book? You equate undoing ACTIVISM with ACTIVISM? You are truly out of step with mainstream conservatism here.
Do you support Justices Thomas and Scalia and their views?
Dear Cold Heat,
Actually, Justice Scalia is more of a strict constructionist than Justice Thomas. Justice Scalia believes that the proper way to interpret the Constitution is by looking at the text of the document itself, and to a limited degree, what men meant by the words at the time they were written.
Justice Thomas, however, interprets the Constitution according to a natural law philosophy. He believes the underlying philosophical premise of the Constitution is tied up in natural law and natural rights.
Since the Founders largely believed in natural law and natural rights, Justices Thomas and Scalia often agree with one another. However, there are some subtle differences.
But, you appear to speak somewhat approvingly of these Justices. Do you approve of them? Would you mind if we had three or four more?
If we did, Roe would not survive.
By the way, as for borking, it is ironic that you, of all people, should mention that on this thread, of all threads, as it has largely been about whether or not Mr. Specter should become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It is Mr. Specter who borked Judge Bork.
That is an excellent reason why he ought to be prevented from ascending to the chairmanship.
sitetest
Your poll indicates that I am correct.
I have no clue as to how you can see it differently.
Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.
Not true. Read the courts opinion. States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby.
Peterson was just convicted in CA of murder of an unborn baby.
Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?
More creative math!
Love it!
"I have no clue as to how you can see it differently."
I know. Amazing, isn't it?
As for your claim that "The tinkering with Roe is underway now", care to show us where and when? And explain how that 'tinkering' isn't JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in the same way an outright repeal would be?
"States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby."
Show ONE LAW that has withstood the Roe/Wade and Doe/Bolton scrutiny in this regards.
"Peterson was just convicted in CA of murder of an unborn baby."
That was an abortion?
It is very informative that those who attack pro-lifers the most on this forum are also the most vulgar.
Dear tpaine,
You need to read what I wrote before responding to it.
States may permit the prosecution of folks OTHER THAN THE MOTHER who harm unborn children.
What I said was, "Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion."
I will expand, if you did not catch my meaning, "Roe permits no real restrictions on induced abortions procured by the mother."
What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."
In fact, in approving the most mild regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, etc.), Justice O'Connor has pointed out that any regulation that had the effect of actually denying a woman of any abortion at any time during pregnancy would not pass Roe's scrutiny.
sitetest
They are, have been and are doing so.
The legislature has gone fatter by restricting Partial Birth abortions. The president has mandated through EO a fetal rights provision.
Why is it, that you keep asking questions with obvious answers?
One can only surmise at this point, that you are flame baiting.
But I could be wrong........Am I?
Dear Cold Heat,
Indeed, I erred. It should read, "Thus, 60% don't essentially agree with Roe. Less than 40% essentially agree with Roe."
22% who believe that abortion should be banned added to the 38% who believe that abortion should be more restricted. Neither category is accommodated by Roe.
sitetest
fatter = further.
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.