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.
Of course, man is given free will and God will never tamper with that. We are free to reject Him however justice demands that there are consequences for doing so.
I think of it this way. Say you have a small child, you tell that child "don't play in the street". We articulate the rule to the child for their own health and safety however if we are not going to keep the child on a leash every second she is outside there is the possibility she will disobey your rule. If she runs out in the street bad things can and likely will happen, this was the reason for the rule in the first place. Of course attentive parents will do everything in their power to ensure nothing tragic happens.
God has given us the scriptures, the Holy Spirit and His Church. He became incarnate man to pay for our errors and spoke to men directly to further guide us to the Truth. Nonetheless man still plays in the street.
It's not a perfect analogy, too simple, but we can start there. As I said, start with the encyclical I linked.
You asserted, "Errr, in 1967, abortion was not a legal option ..." You are incorrect. Abortion has always been available as a medical option to save a woman's life if the continuing pregnancy threatens her survival, though 'abortion' in many cases meant only terminating the pregnancy (via c-section or induced labor), not the guarantee of a dead once-alive child in the womb. THAT guarantee is what is so heinous about our current abortion on demand ... the liberty and pursuit of happiness for the woman has been raised above the primary RIGHT TO LIFE of the ALREADY ALIVE unborn.
I didn't need to watch a video to know that abortion is wrong.
Did you?
narses, Apes is calling me names and telling lies about me. Are you going to defend me, or is it okay for people on your side to tell lies?
You know, I think I like your attitude.
"That works out to perhaps around 20% - 25% of women"
So you believe that 1 in 4 women has had an abortion and yet most of society wants to make abortion illegal.
That's quite possible, but it seems like if 1 out of every 8 people has had an abortion that there are quite a few more that support their ability to make that choice. Either way now that Republicans control the house, senate, presidency and most of the supreme court they ought to be passing the bill any minute now.
Wait...why havent they? Oh thats right, their political careers are on the line and they don't really have the convictions to actually go through with it. They know it would mobilize way too many people who have grown up with a woman's right to have an abortion and their butts would be out the door the next election cycle.
Like I said...you folks are so predictable.
Officially O&O!
Wrong. There is no "law" anywhere legalizing abortion. There is only judicial ruling. We used to govern ourselves.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
I didn't say that most folks believe that they want to change abortion laws. Most folks honestly believe that the law does not provide for abortion on demand. Most folks think that there are already meaningful legal restrictions on abortion.
Most folks don't realize that most abortions aren't for rape, incest, life of the mother. When folks hear the statistic - 96% of abortions are NOT for rape, or incest, or the life of the mother, they're shocked.
But when the question is asked, would you restrict legal abortion to rape, incest, life of the mother, the biggies, you get pretty sizable majorities saying, "Yes."
If you phrase it as saying, "Would you ban 96% of abortions?" or if you say, "Would you generally ban abortion?" you get lots of nos.
That's because most folks don't realize that abortion is used primarily to take care of personal problems, not as a reaction to the extremes of rape, etc.
sitetest
It is a political issue when they use taxpayer dollars for it.
"You know, I think I like your attitude."
I'm a real problem child. ;-)
"It's not a perfect analogy, too simple, but we can start there."
That is a fairly good analogy. Now is it man's role to enforce God's will on earth? If so how does one know what God's will really is? Is it simply the bible? If so, then who do we trust as the true interpreters of God's will and how will the enforcement take place?
He asked if the Stamp Act was the reason and the old man replied that he hadn't seen any stamps and that as far as he knew none were ever used. The interviewer asked if the tax on tea was the reason. The old man said he never drank any tea and that the boys had thrown it all in Boston Harbor. The writer then named several authors who wrote on the principles of liberty and the old man said he'd never heard of them. He said the only books they had were hymn books, almanacs, and the Bible.
The writer then asked: " Well, then, what was the matter?"
" Young man, what we meant in going for them Redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn't mean that we should."
BTW, because the serial killing is effecting MY NATION, it is my business too. Reducing the serial killing by returning to sanity and giving the support and cherishing the little ones are entitled to is a far better road than depending upon serial killing of alive but unborn children. Don't you agree?
The post in question wasn't referring to such a situation.
"No offense, but abortion is not the same as gulags, extermination camps, et al."
Why not ?
Dead is dead.
Oops! If I'd seen your irrational spittle in #546 I wouldn't have addressed yo at all.
Dear Clorinox,
I assume you meant this post for me.
"That's quite possible, but it seems like if 1 out of every 8 people has had an abortion that there are quite a few more that support their ability to make that choice."
Yes, indeed. About a third of the population supports a much broader abortion license than the one I described.
As to changing the law, unfortunately, it can't really be done through the usual means. Seven jackasses ruled, in 1973, that the nation's laws against abortion were all unconstitutional, and that was that!
It may surprise you, but if Roe were overturned, and the state versions of the black-robed jackasses in Washington did not intervene (the state courts), abortion would be very much more restricted, instantly.
Sixteen states still have near-total abortion bans on the books that were never repealed. Another 11 or so have laws on the books that say, should Roe be reversed, anti-abortion laws would immediately go into effect. That's over half the states right there.
Forty states have heavy restrictions on post-viability abortions (which, of course, inch closer and closer toward conception as technology improves).
But none of these laws may have effect because of Roe v. Wade.
As for changing the court, well, Kennedy was elevated to the court and started out as pro-life. He changed. Souter was suspected to be pro-life. We were wrong. In fact, in Casey, both seemed to suggest that Roe was wrongly decided! But that it was too late to overturn Roe, because the abortion license was too firmly planted in the nation's way of life.
I doubt that if Roe were argued today, you could get a majority of the Supreme Court to decide as it did in 1973.
As for passing a constitutional amendment, that's a very tough road to hoe, even if most people support it. It requires a bit more than, say, a 2/3 majority sentiment in the country. As well, not everyone who thinks Roe ought to be overturned, and the question returned to the states, and abortion should be severely restricted, would agree that federal action is appropriate. Although I disagree, ultimately, with that analysis, nonetheless, traditionally this sort of legislation has been properly the province of the individual states.
As for Congress taking the question away from the federal courts, that's a nice idea in theory, but politicians are timid to do what has seldom been done.
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.