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.
"Stuff it Street!"
Pithy. Very Pithy. - O'Reilly
We now have a judicial created right to privacy that was done by the case in Texas.We have the courts telling our defense dept what rights terrorists have under our Constitution.(as if anyone ever saw that one coming)
There are many issues and Roe is but one!
Just one.
Screw the litmus test for abortion and get some judges who understand what is NOT in the Constitution.
Not what they can make of it.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"Organ stealing has always been a crime - abortion is legal."
Not very good reasoning, that.
Up until 1973, abortion in most places was illegal. In fact, the goal of the folks who took Roe to the Supreme Court were hoping that they would get some exceptions in Texas' then-current abortion law. Norma McCovey (Jane Roe) claimed to have been raped, and abortion was not permitted under Texas law, even for rape.
Go read on "model abortion laws" priot to 1973. The "liberal" side of the argument back then was to permit abortions under the exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, and extreme health needs of the mother (Not, "I wanna go to the prom and I don't wanna look fat.").
The Supremes came back with that and a whole lot, WHOLE LOT more.
"Again, if these large majorities really exist why not propose a specific amendment to overturn Roe V Wade? The amendment doesn't have to ban all abortions - it can just be specifically targeted at Roe V Wade. Why go through all of this work, uncertainty and disappointment if you indeed do have these large majorities?"
What, you're proposing we write an amendment that says, "We can ban PBA, we can ban third-trimester, we can ban this that and the other thing."
LOL!!
People complain about cluttering up the Constitution with the FMA!
Why not just overturn Roe and return the question to the people?
What are you afraid of? That the people might actually accept, in fact, demand significant restrictions on abortion?
sitetest
Dear JeffAtlanta,
You may be right, because the left has done a very good job of persuading people that Roe does not mandate abortion on demand in all three trimesters.
Nonetheless, when asked, large majorities support a ban on PBA. That's been declared against Roe by the Supreme Court.
So, it seems, regardless of what people BELIEVE about Roe, the facts of Roe prevent restrictions that the people support.
sitetest
"Preach on and start your own party if you want."
Oh yeah, well "Atlanta on to you!" Whatever the heck that means...
Start addressing issues rather than usernames.
Well at least you do attempt to answer objections unlike LukewarmHeat.
Dear Cold Heat,
Supreme Court Justices are not bound by precedent. Lower court judges are, but not the Supremes.
Roe is not a "law." It is a judicial decision that has an effect on law. The Supreme Court, at any time, may overturn Roe. To state otherwise is to show real lack of knowledge about how things work in the United States.
sitetest
Good we agree on judges, we just disagree on whether they will overturn Roe v. Wade or not. We're on the same side. What a pointless, wasted conversation.
JA: Mostly "Should not be permitted". Those you listed are called "extreme circumstances", not merely "stricter limits". Stricter limits means parental notification, partial birth and third trimester abortions.
I suspect several people on this very thread who agree with that "3 exceptions rule" would disagree with your categorization of them as backing the "should not be permitted" answer in that poll. I may be wrong, but based on reading much of this thread "should not be permitted" is considered extreme, and does not include the 3 exceptions.
Dear tpaine,
"States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby."
So long as it doesn't prevent a woman from procuring an abortion.
A distinction without a difference. The ultimate fig leaf of semantics.
I thought I had the last word between us? At least that's what you said several hundred posts ago.
sitetest
LOL!
Nevermind! LOL!
I gotta go......LOL!
You show a remarkable level of childishness in your posts.
Again, we agree:-)
"I am pro-life, but I'll not ram it down someone else's throat."
I would suggest IF you are truly pro-life & a truly Republican that the life & liberty of an innocent would be a paramount inalienable right -a right that may require a ramming down someone else's throat.
Some things non negotiable and require pursuit regardless of probabilty of success...
Lead, follow or get out of the way...
I find your argument shallow, your hyperbole disgusting and your attitude even worse.
But who cares.........
You have the right to be vocal, but just don't get in my face with it.
I take things like that personally.
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.