Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

False Ad Claims John McCain Not Pro-Life on Abortion
LifeNews.com ^ | September 17, 2008 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 09/17/2008 2:45:44 PM PDT by julieee

Washington, DC -- A so-called Catholic group that supports Barack Obama is running a new television ad in battleground states claiming Sen. John McCain is not pro-life on abortion. The ad doesn't mention any abortion-related votes but claims McCain voted against supporting pregnant women and supports troops in Iraq.

(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; ad; ads; catholicvote; demlies; electionads; false; johnmccain; mccainpalin; religiousleft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: Ann Archy

I know. I wonder, seriously, about the mental stability of a pro-life person who supports Obama, who has promised us as his “first priority” the passage of FOCA — the “Freedom of Choice Act” -— the most draconian and coercive abortion legislation ever proposed in the United States.


21 posted on 09/17/2008 4:48:14 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Mark Twain, 1866)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I am also Catholic. And everything that comes from the Pope should tell these Catholics they are wrong. One of the top stories on here was Father Nelhaus I believe that’s his name said even the economy does not come before saving children from abortion. We have 50 million children dead and still counting. That is so horrible and yet we have Catholics who will set aside their passion for pro-life for what? President Obama? Obama is the MOST liberal pro-choice candidate ever and for them to be pro-life Catholics and support him is co-operating with evil. They need some counseling with a good pro-life priest or read encyclicals of Pope John Paul 2 or now Pope Benedict. Without proper counseling even Christians can make bad decisions. Obama is wrong on a lot of issues but Abortion is evil and there have been so many children lost to this country,where is the sorrow? Isaiah 5-20 Woe to those that call evil good and good evil. Obama is too pro-choice in all instances and he doesn’t believe it to be evil. From the Saddlebrook debate I don’t think he really understands evil or where it comes from. Black liberation theology is more about blacks than Jesus,that was what Obama’s church for 20 years was all about. I believe there was also a story where Rev. Wright was on the board of one of the city hospitals where there were many black children aborted. Even Martin Luther King’s niece speaks of the evil of abortion and the 14 million dead black children,she understands it because she experienced it. If our pro-life brothers and sisters can’t see where McCain is better than Obama something is not right. I will pray for them. Nora


22 posted on 09/17/2008 4:59:43 PM PDT by red irish (Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: julieee

His SCOTUS appointments will be Pro Life. Take that you leftist pukes!

LLS


23 posted on 09/17/2008 5:17:41 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (GOD, Country, Family... except when it comes to dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Then they are self delusional. They, if they are true believers, are putting their immortal souls at risk.

The only way abortions will be reduced is through the courts. The courts have to strike down the bastardized legal argument of Roe vs. Wade. There will be at least two and possibly more appointments to the SCOTUS in the next four years. Barry will undoubtedly fill those vacancies with pro-abort activist judges.

You should simply look them in the eye and tell them that you will pray for their soul.

24 posted on 09/17/2008 9:20:37 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

“first candidate in the ‘07-’08 cycle”

It just goes to show to what lengths a candidate will go to attract the votes of religious conservatives during this election cycle.

In 1999, McCain expressed (to the SF Chronicle) that “certainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

But even if he were to have changed his mind, McCain knows that we will have to wait for a very, very long time to overturn Roe. And during that time, many preborn children will be murdered. So while being against Roe is an admirable position, it is not evidence of being pro-life.

Here’s why. The Roe decision acknowledged that if the personhood of the preborn were ever to be established by law, state level abortion bans would stand. Congress can declare the personhood of the preborn immediately. At least one such bill exists in the House:

HR2597 Sanctity of life act (Ron Paul and 5 co-sponsors)


Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .

Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

Makes federal court decisions not binding precedent on the courts of any state or their subdivisions, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or their subdivisions.

Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.


In the Senate, S.3111 (Life at Conception Act by Roger Wicker and 12 co-sponsors) is similar:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s3111/text

Why is John McCain not a co-sponsor of this bill?? Why has he never introduced or co-sponsored such a bill in his 25+ years in Congress?


25 posted on 09/17/2008 10:17:50 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

“His SCOTUS appointments will be Pro Life”

Do you know that for sure? Does he have a pro-life litmus test? How about a personhood litmus test?


26 posted on 09/17/2008 10:20:18 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt
John McCain is not pro-life.

Welcome to FR, trollie.

John McCain is infinitely more pro-life than Barry O who favors allowing infants born alive during abortion procedures to be left for dead.

Anyone who won't vote for McCain because he's not perfectly pro-life is an idiot. Barry O will put enough pro-abort judges on our courts to ensure that babies continue to be murdered on a whim for the next 50 years.
27 posted on 09/17/2008 10:23:01 PM PDT by Antoninus (McCain/Palin -- The winning ticket!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I am not defending this line of argument. Far from it. I am just laying it out so you can see that there are Catholic prolifers --- longtime, active, abortion-hating baby-loving prolifers ---who are for Obama.

I know some folks like this. This election has brought out the real lunatic fringe element in some people--that sick, Pat Buchananesque desire to destroy the world rather than settle for an imperfect candidate like McCain.

To be honest, I would have been in that boat had the GOP nominated Rudy or Romney. I would have sat things out and generally stayed out of presidential politics all together for the next four years.

But McCain has a major pro-life track record that is hard to deny. Folks who do deny it are simply delusional and perhaps not the pro-lifers they think they are, or at least putting something else (pride?) before the cause.

In all honesty, I have heard people slamming Fr. Pavone of all people because he supports McCain. When stuff like that happens, I have to assume these attacks are rooted in the diabolical somewhere.
28 posted on 09/17/2008 10:32:50 PM PDT by Antoninus (McCain/Palin -- The winning ticket!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt
HE said that he would appoint Judges like Scalia and Roberts... and I KNOW that you understand that phrase. Yes... McCain and Palin will be Pro Life 100%... no doubt... each has a professional record of being pro life and both have done things in private that prove it. I cannot believe that you even wasted time asking.

BTW, Palin said last night that she and McCain have an agreement... that she will NOT rubber stamp his agenda... and she says he is coming around on ANWAR and other things. Sarah will not allow him to appoint anything BUT Pro Life Justices... or she will go public against him... and he has agreed to her autonomy. These are mavericks not just campaign slogans. I cannot wait for them to clean up the the sewage in DC!

LLS

29 posted on 09/18/2008 4:12:35 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (GOD, Country, Family... except when it comes to dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: red irish

Keep praying.


30 posted on 09/18/2008 6:47:39 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Put not thy trust in princes, in men in whom there is no salvation." Psalm 146:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Understand that I am not defending the view of my pro-Obama (or, much more accurately, anti-McCain) Catholic prolife friends; IO am engaged in an ongoing argument with them.

But just to get their perspective, let me insert here what one of them argued back:

Republican Dwight Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States in 1953. Eisenhower said at the time that he wanted a "conservative" justice and that Warren "represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court." Warren, however, turned out to be one of the most liberal-activist chief justices in the history of the United States.

The Warren Court found a "right of privacy" lurking somewhere in the emanations and shadows of the Constitution, in a 1965 case called Griswold v. Connecticut, upon which the ghastly Roe v. Wade abortion case was later based. It also ruled on several cases that outlawed religion in local public life, ostensibly in order not to offend the First Amendment.

Another Eisenhower appointee, William Brennan, was also a tremendously influential Supreme Court justice, who consistently imposed his own radical political views upon families, communities, and states, rather than being restrained by the limits of the Constitution.

Republican President Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to the Supreme Court: in 1973, he wrote the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which nullified all state antiabortion laws in a single stroke and led to the unrestrained murder of tens of millions of babies.

Republican President Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the court in 1975: one of the most liberal justices ever to sit on that institution.

Republican super-hero Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1981 and 1988 respectively. Both voted to strike down state restrictions on abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and state anti-sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas). Both have gone on record favoring the use of international law to interpret our Constitution.

Republican President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990. Souter was touted as a "home run for conservatism" by his home-state Republican senator, John Sununu of New Hampshire. Once approved, Souter flipped, voting against abortion restrictions, against state laws prohibiting sodomy, and against private property.

By 1992, at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees. Yet, the court continued its destructive pattern of trampling on property rights, disrespecting the right to life, expanding state power, disregarding family and local autonomy, and (in general) imposing unconstitutional rulings. There was little attempt to restrain the unconstitutional excesses of the president or Congress.

If John McCain is elected president, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he likely nominate? Would he break the pattern of past Republican presidents and nominate judges who respect the Constitution?

McCain's campaign website says that "Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will serve as the model for John McCain's judicial nominees." But what kind of model do they provide?

Roberts said during his confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis [Latin for 'stand by a decision']." Alito said he would approach the issue of Roe the way he would "every legal issue I approach as a judge, and that is to approach it with an open mind." An open mind is not an admirable quality when life is at stake.

Nor has McCain himself been consistent on the issue of Roe. In 1999, he told the San Francisco Chronicle that "certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." That statement, of course, contradicts what he has said on other occasions, as well as what he has done by voting to approve two virulently pro-Roe justices, Ginsburg and Breyer.

In light of this record, how realistic is it to expect that John McCain would appoint conservatives to the bench?

31 posted on 09/18/2008 7:00:50 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Put not thy trust in princes, in men in whom there is no salvation." Psalm 146:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

“Welcome to FR, trollie.”

This “trollie” has been involved in conservative causes (pro-life, pro-gun, property rights etc), financially and in person, for years. Nice try at a put-down, though.

“John McCain is infinitely more pro-life than Barry O ...”

By infinitely, do you mean that the number of unborn babies aborted during a McCain administration will be zero? If not, then “infinitely more pro-life” is not the correct way to describe McCain’s position. Past, present and future murdered preborn babies have not, are not and will not find protection from campaign slogans which do not reflect the Senator’s past statements as well as past and current legislative record on the issue. Laws, law enforcement and prosecution of abortionists will protect babies. McCain was on record as supporting Roe vs. Wade. Now he has changed his mind (though his wife recently claims that he hasn’t) but he still won’t add his name as a co-sponsor to a Senate bill which will give the pre-born protection.

“Anyone who won’t vote for McCain because he’s not perfectly pro-life is an idiot. Barry O will put enough pro-abort judges on our courts to ensure that babies continue to be murdered on a whim for the next 50 years.”

I’m not supporting McCain because he isn’t pro-life AT ALL. If you’re supporting him simply because he says that he is pro-life, or because his campaign or the media says that he is pro-life, that says a lot about your level of wisdom and discernment. Have you even bothered to look at the list of (alleged) conservative SCOTUS judges nominated by Republicans in the last 40 years, such as:

Harry Blackmun (Nixon) - authored Roe vs. Wade
John Paul Stevens (Ford) - liberal
Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan) - voted to strike down state abortion restrictions and anti-sodomy laws
Anthony Kennedy (Reagan) - similar to O’Connor
David Souter (GHW Bush) - sided with conservatives for a couple of years, considered a “home run for conservatism”, then decided he was a liberal.
Roberts (GW Bush) - ?
Alito (GW Bush) - ?

Even if there were a Republican Senate starting in 2009, this record does not bode well for the future. Of course, McCain will most likely NOT have a Republican Senate, so the idea that he will be nominating original intent, strict constructionist, pro-life justices is absolute fantasy.


32 posted on 09/18/2008 2:49:51 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

If Ronald Reagan came back from the dead and signed up as a Freeper he would get called a troll every time he posted on a serious topic for at least a year.


33 posted on 09/18/2008 2:53:28 PM PDT by Pan_Yan (All gray areas are fabrications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Great post - I didn’t read it until after I had submitted my follow-up to another response. It looks as though we have posted similar information.

In hindsight, these presidential contests and the threats of liberal SCOTUS justices take on the appearance of a big charade, don’t they?


34 posted on 09/18/2008 2:53:30 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

“McCain and Palin will be Pro Life 100%... no doubt... each has a professional record of being pro life and both have done things in private that prove it. I cannot believe that you even wasted time asking.”

I didn’t ask. My previous response to another poster describes why a vote for McCain is not a pro-life vote.

I watched the Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson and was 99.9% underwhelmed by what I heard from her. I expected her to say that she was pro-life and believed that government had a role to play in protecting the unborn. Instead she talked about a very nebulous “culture of life”, adoption and (implied) government support for mothers. She completely side-stepped any discussion of pro-life legislation, of enforcement, of judges, of state vs. federal jurisdiction & responsibilities etc. She also stated that she believes in the “health & life of the mother” exception - something which most of the pro-life community is opposed to, and which could likely be used to justify the majority of abortions.

“BTW, Palin said last night that she and McCain have an agreement”

Is this agreement verbal or written? By “pro-life justices” does she mean judges who would support personhood for the preborn? If McCain is truly pro-life, why is it that she needs to keep him from appointing pro-abortion justices???????


35 posted on 09/18/2008 3:17:44 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

“But McCain has a major pro-life track record that is hard to deny.”

I’m willing to be convinced. Please post evidence.


36 posted on 09/18/2008 3:18:53 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt
John McCain is not pro-life.

Barack Hussein Obama is not pro-life.

A vote for either is a vote for continuation of the abortion holocaust.

Oh my goodness. You hit the nail on the head.

The fact that Obama is pro-choice does not make McCain pro-life.

It is not an either/or proposition.

From The US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research: *pops*

We must help those who are suffering, but we may not use a good end to justify an evil means.

37 posted on 09/18/2008 4:07:40 PM PDT by mountainbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt
Mind you, I've contributed to, have volunteered to work for, and plan to vote for, McCain-Palin.

Not, honestly, because I expect them to better-than-the-average Republican Administration (it' the Repubs, as we know, who have been appointing imperious, tyrannical, rogue pro-abortion USSC judges for decades), but because I honestly think Obama-Biden would be excruciatingly worse on every count.

38 posted on 09/18/2008 4:46:42 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that show us what we truly are. " -- J.K.Rowling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

Let’s not be disingenuous. McCain did an about-face on that 1999 statement the next day.


39 posted on 09/18/2008 5:02:43 PM PDT by Norman Bates (Freepmail me to be part of the McCain List!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: julieee

From the article:

Catholics United is a 527 special interest group that is airing a new television ad in Pennsylvania and Ohio that challenges his pro-life views.

I’ll check on this group. Betcha they aren’t Catholic!


40 posted on 09/18/2008 7:45:00 PM PDT by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson