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.
Scalia is good, but Thomas is totally consistant. Thomas is more like Bork than Bork is.
"The only thing the death-mongers have left is lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. But even money fails, at some point."
That and the courts... which is what they are in danger of losing and hence this thread and the vitriol that accompanies it.
Many libertarian-types oppose ending abortion because they might have to be held responsible for all of their illegitimate offspring.
This is the Hefner-Porno cultural mindset that brought us sex without consequences. Porn and abortion go hand in hand. Pornography fuels the flame of abortion... unwanted women... unwanted children. This is why often on FR, these libertarian-types will defend both to the death. They have a personal interest at stake (and before somebody crys foul, I've read the posts).
Longevity has been extended more in the last hundred years than two thousand years prior. In the last thirty years and especially the last ten years there has been several discoveries and inventions that telegraph cures for human death.
"The legislature has gone fatter (SIC) by restricting Partial Birth abortions."
I assume you meant farther. Show me where ONE of these laws has been found in conformity to Roe/Wade or Doe/Bolton. Go ahead.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"If that kind of support really existed, a constitutional amendment would be a snap."
Well, I don't think so. I've never seen any proposed amendment that doesn't appear to ban pretty much all abortions. Although I favor a complete ban on abortion, I don't believe that's in the cards anytime soon (50 year? 100 years? Second Coming?).
You're not going to get 60% to go for a total ban of abortion. I never said you would.
But you'd get 60% to go for, say, almost total ban of third trimester abortions (not permitted under Roe). You'd get way more than 60% to go for a ban of partial birth abortion with only a life of the mother exception (already rejected by the Supreme Court, holding under Roe, in the Nebraska case).
I daresay, you might get majorities to go along with requiring spousal consent (absolutely verboten under Roe).
You might also get large majorities to go along with significant restrictions, close to a ban, on second trimester abortions (definitely, absolutely forbidden under Roe).
You'd get large majorities to ban abortion for purposes of sex selection, or eye color selection, etc., probably right back to some time shortly after conception (definitely, absolutely, totally forbidden under Roe).
You'd get large majorities to ban abortion as birth control from some time shortly after conception (certainly and completely banned by Roe, in fact, use as "back up" birth control is more or less cited as a reason for holding Roe).
These questions have been polled on at one time or other, and they have have received majority support.
What Roe covers is not held by the majority of Americans.
But heck, let's try it out!
Let's hold them to their promises, and get the President and Republican Senate to appoint Justices who will merely overturn Roe, and let the PEOPLE decide.
What are you guys worried about? That the people might agree more with us nutjob pro-lifers?
LOL.
sitetest
That is just wrong.
This indicates that you are willing to make the evidence fit the assertion.
This is really quite funny:-)
But, I digress.
"Extreme circumstances" was not an option given.
Dear Cold Heat,
Although the Supreme Court has not taken up the federal partial birth abortion ban, every state partial birth abortion ban has so far been struck down by the courts, and the Supreme Court has held that Roe did not permit Nebraska's ban of partial birth abortions.
As so far interpreted by the courts, Roe does not permit a ban of partial birth abortions.
Yet, very large majorities of the American people favor such a ban.
Looks like very large majorities of the American people don't agree with what Roe mandates.
sitetest
Eternal life, of course.
So you are in favor of living eternal/forever in the flesh here on Earth -- not in a spirit world sans physical body -- but here on Earth in your physical body?
Dear Cold Heat,
"Natural law my butt."
What are you talking about? Do you know anything about Justice Thomas.
Anyway, do you like Justices Scalia and Thomas? Would you accept three or four more?
sitetest
Good points.
Dear Cold Heat,
I can add them together if both groups hold for results that violate Roe, and I am merely trying to make the point that Roe must be overturned.
I haven't once held that most Americans would accept a complete ban on abortion.
I have held that most Americans disagree with the results of Roe, which mandates just about unrestricted abortion on demand.
sitetest
Sure, the appeals courts are brimming over with challenges. These challenges are normal and have yet to work their way though.
That brings us back to the Supreme Court.
You know, that any judge who has uttered in public any opinion about Roe, will not get through the Congress. So, forgetaboutit!
We need judges! Not friggin activists.
Drop the pretenses and just say that you want advocate activists on the court.
That is what you want, but it will not happen.
Spector is right about that. It might be the only thing he is right about.
Absolutely!
You equate Social Security, Medicare and the Income tax with abortion? How can you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously by Christian conservatives on this thread?
Dear Cold Heat,
"'Would you accept three or four more?'
"Absolutely!"
Well, then the sum of your posts is just about self-contradicting.
You have argued strenuously against overturning Roe.
Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.
And you would "absolutely" accept three or four more.
Your posts, in sum, are irrational.
Nice chatting.
sitetest
The problem resides in the lack of the exception clause regarding rape, incest and health.
It is the health clause that needs court limitations, and I believe that can be done without violating Roe.
The Nebraska case is a good example of this. Without the clause, it is deemed unconstitutional, but if the health portion was clarified and restricted, it might well be possible to pass all of these restrictions.
I think the majority would approve as well.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"Anytime anything is banned in the US, it is still generally available for life saving procedures."
Not quite.
Organ stealing is (for now) banned. Even if you need to steal someone's organ to save your own life.
In the meanwhile, in various polls, large majorities have answered that they would endorse specific restrictions on abortions that would be impermissible under Roe.
Roe's gotta go!
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.