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.
Indeed, this issue is a bit hot. I do not mind working with hot stuff, but it seems some posters want to make it personal. I may have lumped you in, as you so stated.
Dear tpaine,
I don't think any of your posts demonstrate that any Supreme Court decision from Roe on prevents any woman from seeking and procuring an abortion at any time during her pregnancy.
The Court has permitted a few inconveniences. But no abortions are forbidden, even a partial birth abortion at term.
But again, I thought you had given me the last word between us?
Couldn't abide by that, huh?
sitetest
"I believe that life is valuable, even when it is unwanted, even when it is physically imperfect. I believe our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the weak. And I believe our nation should set a goal: that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law. This is the ideal: a generous society that values every life.
I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy is ruled by consensus, not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded."
Source: www.georgewbush.com/News "Parental Notification Law" Jun 7, 1999
______________________________________
To bad that Bush didn't sum up this way:
'I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy [republic] is ruled by consensus [under constitutional law], not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded.'
Was my 'bumpkin' place-marker pulled because of an abuse complaint from you Graveyard? -- Get a life. I meant no disrespect to Bush.
That merely proves that Alan Keyes threads deteriorate into flame wars quickly. It certainly doesn't prove that a "militant" with an itchy trigger finger on the abuse button will get you suspended or banned.
I think the powers-that-be are a little more fair-minded than that.
Nope. I'm a big boy, I don't do the abuse thing. I just called you a jerkoff.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled half-assed assumptions.
Right.
Well, when it comes to getting people banned or suspended, I guess I'll have to defer to your expertise.
Here's my answer...go seek help from the DNC, see how far your "warning" will get you.
You folks have certainly thrown enough insults my way, but the "credibility" thing is new.
You are what you are, Howlin. Disparaging me won't give you a makeover.
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.
[The Roe decision also stopped States from prosecuting only ~early term~ abortions as murder.]
Peterson was just convicted in CA of [late term] murder of an unborn baby.
Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?
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.
Specious claim. States have always had the power to prosecute criminal acts.
Are you really this illogical?
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."
That is not true. States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.
What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."
Gee, who would have guessed..
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.
Justice O'Connors opinions can be challenged by any State. Feel free to get your State to do so.
sitetest rebuts:
"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.
That's it? You answer all my arguments above with a bit of 'semantic' bull?
Typical. -- You spout off reams of quasi-legal BS in nearly every post, but when factually challenged you cave.
Whatta joke.
sitetest relies with another qausi legal opinion:
I don't think any of your posts demonstrate that any Supreme Court decision from Roe on prevents any woman from seeking and procuring an abortion at any time during her pregnancy. The Court has permitted a few inconveniences. But no abortions are forbidden, even a partial birth abortion at term.
Do you have a point that rebuts any of mine above?
-- The fact remains.
States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.
no not venting -just commenting on your unwavering pro-life concept lacking practice.
I would suggest you are pro-whatever happens...
Some jerkoff pushed the button.
And you can take your own "half-assed assumptions" and shove them, "big boy".
Yep, I am what I am; never denied it or tried to "color it up." Never tried to blackmail anybody with my vote.
Looking at this thread, I'm happy with the people on "my side."
We may differ on how to get there. In fact, I am quite sure that we differ.
But, barring annihilation by things either controllable or uncontrollable, that goal will probably be achieved, but likely not in my lifetime.
I am an extremist, I make no bones about it or apologies.
Well, it wasn't this jerkoff.
If you want to avoid this sort of ugliness in the future, maybe bookmarking posts with one-word cheap shots (seemingly) directed at other posters is a practice you should abandon.
Unless you enjoy this.
well said sir.
Well thanks!
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.