PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[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.

[JeffAtlanta]

Yes they have a pro-life segment, largely due to the need to get votes in the South.

Many of those are really republicans that have had to run as democrats on the local level due to traditional. This is true in many southern states. These people represent areas that vote democratic on the local level but republican on the national level.

Mike Snow from Georgia is on your list. He is an example of this. He lost his reelection bid however to a republican challenger. I wonder how many others on the list are no longer in office.

Regardless, none of these low level pro-life democrats are going to be helpful to the pro-life movement since they vote for democratic leadership and have no say in SCOTUS confirmations.

[ladyinred]

Do you feel that your attitude will win people to your side?

[Cold Heat]

Yes, it is the same here in Arkansas.

[Artist]

Looking at this thread, I'm happy with the people on "my side."

Just remember who your side's really at war with:

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

"Thank you for remaining civil and sticking to the issues. I mean that seriously - I know this can be a very emotional debate. :-)"

I try. Once in a while, I succeed.

Well, the problem is that we are likely to have one or two or more Justices to replace in the next two years. Our dear friend, Arlen the Scot, has informed us that perhaps Chief Justice Rehnquist is worse off than originally intimated.

To replace them with pro-aborts will be to lock in Roe for another 20 or more years. That's another 25 - 30 million dead. But heck, who's counting? ;-)

But if I recall, more Dems are up in 2006 than Reps. I think it isn't until 2008 that we have more than them up for re-election.

"The best solution is for Bush to avoid the abortion issue completely and only appoint strict constitutionalists."

I'm not suggesting that President Bush apply a public litmus test. I'm fine with true strict constructionists. A strict constructionist (Scalia, Thomas) would vote to overturn Roe in a heartbeat.

But I don't think that the Republicans will take any hit at all when Roe is overturned, even if it happened next week. Here's why. The lamestream media will scream like stuck pigs when it happens. I expect Kate Michaelman will have a stroke.

And many Americans will initially be upset.

Then a few days will pass, and folks will start to learn about the horror of the decision. In Utah, most abortions will be illegal! In New York, virtually no abortions will be illegal! In most of the United States, most late-term abortions will be illegal!

And the WashPost and the NYT will cry real tears of terror and horror. How terrible that women will be prevented from having 30-week old babies torn from their wombs!

And the average American will say, wait a minute, I don't have a problem with these results. I don't have a problem with most abortions being illegal in Utah, and with women not being able to procure third trimester abortions.

And folks will realize that overturning Roe only meant that abortions would be more restricted, not banned, and that the laws would differ from place to place, based on the will of the people of each state, as expressed through their legislatures..

Within a few weeks, the whole thing will redound to the benefit of the Republicans, and to the harm of the Dems.

In any event, JeffAtlanta, if we wind up with one or more additional pro-aborts on the court, then the President will not have kept his promise.

And those of us who came to this party for the cause of the unborn will have been wasting our time.

For me, I have voted Republican in every election since 1978. That was a time when the Republicans were less conservative, and the Democrats were less liberal than today. I registered Democrat all the way back then, but because of the cause of life, I never voted Dem, because over time, the party became increasingly anti-life (as well as increasingly liberal in every other way). Eventually I re-registered, after Sam Nunn declared that he was becoming a pro-abort as he considered a run for the presidency.

If we get pro-aborts to the Court out of President Bush, then folks like me are political orphans. I don't know what we'll do.

But you'll find, ultimately, that those of us who vote first and foremost on the issue of life represent about 10% or so of the population. If we are made political orphans, it changes the political landscape quite dramatically.


sitetest

[JeffAtlanta]

The choice is simple, either remain and act as a pro-life party, or not. If not, forget the Hispanic vote, forget the Catholic vote and assume that the evangelical vote will return to not voting.

The hispanic vote overwhelmingly votes democratic now. The only hispanic vote that the republicans can rely on is the cuban vote. Obviously the abortion issue just isn't that great of a factor with Hispanics.

Evangelicals are very risky to rely on anyway since they are almost impossible to please. They almost cost us the election in 2000 since the stayed home in mass over Bush's DUI. If they're not going to be so demanding, they need to be reliable. The RNC would be better off to stop catering to the evangelicals and court the conservative urban voters that they scare off.

Catholics are very unreliable as well. Why don't do the republicans do better in urban areas in the northeast where Catholicism is strongest?

[Amelia]

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?

I'm not equating them morally, but they are all issues with significant conservative constituencies.

What some tend to forget is that not although there are many Christian conservatives, not all conservatives are Christians, and not all Christians are conservatives.

[cgk]

I can't honestly give an opinion on what polls state people believe. It isn't because they go against or in favor of what I believe... as you stated... I see that often polls are flawed because they don't explicitly cover all sides of an issue. It is either A or B... and often C is the appropriate choice.

I would be quite hopeful if a combined 62% of people had a problem with abortion as it stands under Roe v. Wade.

[Artist]

Well, sometimes your side's enemy is visible in my last post, and sometimes not. If not, click the link.

[Cold Heat]

Only half the Evangelicals vote repub, if they decide to vote at all.

We did do much better with Hispanic's. You can toss the overwhelming stuff. We did not get a majority, but we almost got even for a change.

The new immigrant population is much more conservative and have moved the numbers. They nearly overwhelmed the Chicano's and East coasters.

It surprised me a bit, after reading all the doom and gloom on the immigration threads.

[ladyinred]

I think most merely take offense at the arguably childish "do it my way or I'll take my ball & go home" attitude expressed in the article this thread is based on.

That is how I feel. I am very much pro life, and downright anti abortion , but I am upset by this attitude I see here. I belong to a local pro life group who helps women in crisis pregnancy, and have been of the opinion abortion was murder since I first heard it existed.

But I do feel that not voting unless a party does everything my way will only hurt my cause, not help it. More liberals elected to office will be the result of this action, and therefore, even more abortions.

[sitetest]

Dear Amelia,

To a certain degree, that question is really for the President to answer.

I didn't vote for him to try hard. I voted for him to succeed.

I will hold him accountable for his successes and failures, and the rest of the party, as well,

It may be that folks try very hard, but fail.

In that case, Amelia, no hard feelings with anyone, but they aren't getting it done. Not with the first majority-status President in 16 years, not with expanded majorities in the House and the Senate, and a relatively easy mid-term coming up.

I'm not trying to "punish" anyone. I'm not saying, "Oh, you terrible people, you didn't get Roe overturned! You evildoers!"

I'm saying, "Hey guys, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you tried real hard, but you didn't get it done. And the goal is vitally important to me."

And then I have to figure out who I can now work with to get it done. And lots of other pro-lifers will be thinking the same way as me.

But I agree, appointing really and truly strict constructionists may very well effect what we wish.


sitetest

[Howlin]

I belong to a local pro life group who helps women in crisis pregnancy, and have been of the opinion abortion was murder since I first heard it existed.

The vast majority of pro-life people that you and I know and work with are just like you are; the ones on these threads are a small minority. Unfortunately, they give the rest a bad name.

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

If the party cannot now keep its word, I would feel morally obligated to look more closely at individual candidates.

Previously, I was willing to vote for a modestly pro-abort Republican over a modestly pro-life Democrat, because, frankly, without a majority in a legislative body, you can't get anything done.

But if the Republicans can't deliver with a Republican President and increased majorities in the House and Senate, then helping the Republicans, institutionally, doesn't really help the cause of life.

I would not be able to morally vote for a pro-abort Republican, especially if his Democrat opponent were even mildly less pro-abort.

Instead of being a straight-ticket Republican, I'd vote for candidates on an individual basis.

In Maryland, many politicians in the more conservative parts of the state (like where I live) are pro-life Democrats.

The last Speaker of the House of Delegates was a pro-life Democrat (although I believe the current speaker is pro-abort).


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear JeffAtlanta,

"Regardless, none of these low level pro-life democrats are going to be helpful to the pro-life movement since they vote for democratic leadership and have no say in SCOTUS confirmations."

Bitter experience has taught us here in Maryland that that isn't true. Folks who win at the local level are the folks that will move up to the big leagues.

In Maryland, folks who started out at the local level include Barbara Mikulski, Steny Hoyer, William Donald Schaeffer, Parris Glendening, to name a few.

The local level is the "farm team." That is why since 1978, I have not even voted for a single Democrat for state, county, or municipal office.


sitetest

[JeffAtlanta]

We did do much better with Hispanic's. You can toss the overwhelming stuff. We did not get a majority, but we almost got even for a change.

Not really. The hispanic numbers of 44% were based off of erroneous exit polls. The real number is around 38% or 39% which would be up 3 or 4 points from 2000.

Without the cuban and texas hispanic vote, the number would have been in the 20s or teens. Since cubans vote republican due to the RNCs cuban policy, hispanics taking their votes elsewhere is hardly a threat.

Here is a link from Michelle Malkin's site. link This is just an example, as many have questioned the mathematical possiblities of a 44% number.

[sitetest]

Dear tpaine,

"Do you have a point that rebuts any of mine above?"

Uh..., you haven't yet made a point, tpaine. The Supreme Court has held that Roe and its subsequent related cases do not permit the federal or state governments to prevent any woman from procuring an abortion at any time during pregnancy.

If you wish to make a point, please point out to me where the Supreme Court has upheld any law that prevents women from procuring abortions during pregnancy.

If, by the "opinion," you mean Roe, you should know that between it and the accompanying decision, Doe, that although Roe theoretically permits regulation in the third trimester, 1) Doe (and subsequent related cases) holds that a woman may procure a third trimester abortion nonetheless, for pretty much any reason, so long as it is called a "health" reason, and 2) subsequent Supreme Court cases further interpreting Roe have not permitted any state at all, or the federal govt, to prevent women from terminating pregnancies at any time during pregnancy. Thus, although the language of Roe talks about regulation in the third trimester, it doesn't rise to the level of window dressing, as the words are, for the past 31 years, without effect.

Distinctions without differences.

If you object to my use of the shorthand, "Roe" to mean the body of decisions by the Supreme Court starting with Roe vs. Wade, running through the last 30+ years, just say so.

But frankly, if the Supreme Court were to, let's say, strike down Doe vs. Bolton, and strike down Casey, and strike down the Nebraska decision, and actually permit, let's say, the states to more or less ban third trimester abortions, as an example, then it would be fairly thought to have gutted "Roe."

Now, practically speaking, I'm not sure that you're going to find anyone who is willing to strike down so much of the case law that has built up around Roe who is not also going to overturn the seminal decision, especially as the Justices who have voted in the majority in the subsequent decisions have done so because they have reasoned (along with the entirety of the pro-abort universe, ranging from NOW to NARAL to People for the American Way) that to do otherwise would be to fatally undermine the original decision.

So, you couldn't abide by your word about giving me the last word, huh?


sitetest

[Amelia]

I didn't vote for him to try hard. I voted for him to succeed.

But seriously, what can he do, other than appointing strict constructionist judges? Can the law be changed until RvW is overturned?

[sitetest]

Dear Amelia,

What can I do?

I don't know.

But maybe it would be good for American politics if a bunch of us pro-life "nutjobs" went and infiltrated the Dems. Maybe a bunch of the Dem pro-aborts would come over to the Republicans, and maybe the ensuing chaos might shake things up a bit.

Maybe that might be a good thing. I don't know.

Remember, too, that the thriving Whig Party of the early 19th Century eventually found its demise, in part because it couldn't take up the cause of abolition. Another stupid, ineffectual little third party whose first presidential nominee didn't do that great and whose second presidential nominee was some senatorial loser from Illinois, made an attempt at cracking the big leagues, but I'm sure they went nowhere...

;-)


sitetest

[JeffAtlanta]

Bitter experience has taught us here in Maryland that that isn't true. Folks who win at the local level are the folks that will move up to the big leagues.

Most of those pro-life democrats will have to change their position to get any state-wide or national support from the demcratic voters. This is what Al Gore did. A low leve pro-life state or county official isn't going to help the cause at all.

Unless he is in a red state, he will simply have to change his position to move up. Even in a red state, he is likely to be beaten by a pro-life republican anyway (i.e. Mike Snow - Georgia) so there is no net gain.