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.
I don't see what you see. You are correct about that.
The first "volley" was fired exactly eight responses into the thread.
You took umbrage with my post.
Telling...
Don't worry about it, hindsight is 20/20. You'll see soon enough. :-}
Really? Will SCOTUS overturn Petersons conviction for murdering his unborn son?
Does the Constituion constrain states from expanding individual rights?
When SCOTUS upheld the non personhood of black folk in Dred Scott, were they correct and within their power to do so?
Ya know, this could become a issue for their plate.
If the death penalty is imposed as a result, it might, and I say might, be something they may look at.
They will certainly have plenty of time however. He would not be executed for more than twenty years or so.
You can never go wrong defending life and defending America amigo.
Certainly things happen faster now then before now, but I would be surprised to see anything but tinkering.
I shall be watching intently however.
Of course not. No English words are in the Bible.
But harag the Hebrew word is in the Bible, and it appears many times in different forms. One is specifically "murders".
In fact to further "harag" your argument here is one instance:
8 He sits in ambush in the villages; in hiding places he murders the innocent. His eyes stealthily watch for the hapless,
9 he lurks in secret like a lion in his covert; he lurks that he may seize the poor, he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.
10 The hapless is crushed, sinks down, and falls by his might.
11 He thinks in his heart, "God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it."
12 Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thy hand; forget not the afflicted.
Ironically, the verse I happened upon is fitting for this thread.
You answered not a single question I posed Jeff. How come?
The debate on abortion in the public square is mostly spam. That does not excuse each of us from reaching our own considered judgment, without being put off by the nutjobs on either side. I have had the same view on abortion since I was in college, when I was quite vocal about it. It should be legal in the first trimester, illegal in the third, and I'm not sure about the second. It should not be a matter for the courts to decide. It is a matter within certain limits, about which intelligent people of good will can disagree. We should not demonize each other within those limits, as being morally flawed cretins, one way or the other.
That is how I see it and call it.
States can expand the rights of the fetus, up to and until such time as Sandra Day O'Connor tells us that it intrudes on the Constitutional rights of the mother to abort. States characterizing killing of the fetus as murder without the consent of the mother is legally inapposite to this issue, even if otherwise apposite up to a point. Maybe SCOTUS will tell us that since a fetus is not human, killing it cannot be characterized as murder (because murder is only applicable to one who cannot be legally aborted) as a Constitutional matter. But if so, it will require other legal tools than pernumbra rights of privacy. It will require SCOTUS to tell us what the Constitution dictates are the essential definitional elements of the crime of murder.
I suppose it could be said to be a unsanctioned killing since permissions would have been needed for killings that did not meet the proper killing etiquette of the time, (if there was any).
But I thought "murder" was a bit of a stretch. As it comes from English law.
Its the reason why the next appointment will be a bllod bat and why Bush needs to appoint a rock solid justice who will abide the Constituion and avoid the penumbra like the plague it is.
And they most certainly are not looking forward to it.
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.