www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Are Republican politicians really Pro-Life???

Justice Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. He is the quintessential Roman Catholic, a father of nine children and grandfather of 28 grandchildern. What is his voting record when Pro Life and Dignity of Life issues are brought before the Supreme Court? Has he always voted according to his Roman Catholic upbringing and conscience?

Ung

I don't think the assumption you have put forth is correct. A Supreme Court member who holds to an "original intent" or "literal interpretation" of the Constitution will not have continuing support for Roe. A judge who was not Pro-Life but who respected "original intent" would not find a Constitutional right to abortion. A President who appoints "original intent" justices can very much advance the Pro-Life cause (as we can see with President Bush's numerous Pro-Life accomplishments).

It is necessary to vote for Pro-Life legislators at all ranks of government. Each Pro-Life president can chip away at Roe v Wade. One of them will strike the last blow and it will fall. Then the battle moves to the legislature. One must measure accomplishments over decades, not just a single term of a President (or any legislator).

Is it better to vote for Pro-Life Republican Senators and Congressmen? Good question. I'd say it is necessary to vote for Pro-Life candidates at all levels of government. It is likely that Pro-Life Republican Senators would be far more likely to vote to confirm an "original intent" justice than would even a Pro-Life Democrat Senator (given party loyalty). But each Senator is different and must be evaluated individually. Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania (to his great credit) voted to confirm Supreme Court justices Roberts & Alito. Yet he also voted to allow federal funding to groups that perform and/or advocate abortion whereas Senator Rick Santorum (whom he defeated) would not. [I am praying that Casey become as effective supporter of life as was his father, and that when Specter retires that Santorum take his place.]

Scalia has always ruled with respect to the literal text of the Constitution. He cannot do more than that, though a Pro-Life viewpoint will certainly provide insight into understanding the Constitution. There is only so much he or any justice can do. That is why we need a human life amendment to the Constitution, to take away all ambiguity. But for that we will need a great deal more pro-lifers in Congress and the State legislatures. Lots of work to do.

Aaron, it is not false at all. I don't see any documentation that the Bush presidency prevented one abortion by act of signature into law or executive order, including the "Mexico City Policy".

Regarding the so-called "partial birth" law, it actually codified or at least permitted certain abortions or practices as acceptable by omission from what was to be considered illegal. I would even posit this to be a step back in the larger pro-life movement, a law that is a failure both in language and action. That law also did not stop one abortion to my knowledge and was a token bone to assure the pro-life vote.

The general decline in numbers is certainly not due to any legal barriers for infanticide. They were decreasing already in the Clinton era, which certainly again is not due to any legal barriers. During Clinton's second term the numbers were below 1 million for the first time since the 1970s (CDC estimates). And I am no Clinton fan, either.

In essence, the two-party system has basically failed for the pro-life movement.

With adamant pro-choice luminaries strongly entrenched in the establishment of both parties (Giuliani being a case in point for the Republicans), and the failure of either party to clearly articulate a true cradle-to-grave pro-life policy as an objective and immutable part of the party platform (abortion, just war, care for the elderly, homeless, etc.) this simply will not change in the forseeable future. If anything the Republican Party has greatly backslid on its previous convictions since the Reagan presidency in all aspects, from state committee leadership to delegates to Congressional and presidential candidates.

Diak,

With all due respect, Aaron's statement is more correct than yours. The Culture of Life ideology gained much pro-life support with the Partial Birth Abortion Act. It provided a vehicle for the American Bishops to preach Catholic policy to all Americans. And the real moral war is not Law; its the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Mexico City Policy tells the world that the United States will not finance abortions in other countries. Our pro-life alliance with the Vatican regarding UN abortion policy is a positive. You can't tell me that Obama will continue this. Quite the contrary ; his goal is to penalize any country which does not provide abortion on demand.

Do you know what the result of FOCA will be? Are you aware that Obama has promised NARAL of his support? How can you claim that the presidency is unimportant? We will be back to 1973 with an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress.

Remember the persecution of pro-lifers during the Janet Reno days; a vote for Obama will mean new martyrs and tens of thousands of babies who will not be "worthy" of being born.

First of all I return to my request to demonstrate how even one abortion was prevented by the Bush presidency. The "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" was a farce from the day of its instigation, and did nothing. And certainly Catholic Bishops have been preaching the truth far before this piece of junk and ineffectual legislation.

Secondly, please do not put words into my mouth - I never maintained, implicitly or explicitly, that the "presidency is unimportant" and I ask that accusation be withdrawn. On the contrary. It is very important - and very important that any candidate who would presume to have a pro-life vote demonstrate he is truly prolife. Not voting for embryonic stem cell research. Not waffling on his positions on judicial appointees.

What I have done is state the truth regarding the fact that many in the Republican Party are most definitely NOT pro-life, at the local, state, and national levels. That is not changing for the better.

The "Culture of Life" gained nothing from the "Act". Not one abortion was prevented; as I have demonstrated the numbers were already declining in the Clinton era long before the junk legislation was enacted.

We need real pro-life leaders, not continuous compromises and empty promises that the Republican Party has continued to dish out to pacify the pro-life end of the party without following through. The current Republican ticket does not seem to present a real pro-life leader.

I will not vote simply because of a purported vice-presidential choice being somehow better in the pro-life movement than the guy who will hold the top office.

It seems philosophical suicide to even ally yourself with those who will not preserve and protect life at all costs - and there are ample examples of those in the Republican party, from the presidential candidate on down. I tried to justify for years remaining in that party, but could no longer do so.

I'll withold for the time being criticism on the so-called "Mexico City Policy" and stick to domestic issues for the time being. I also doubt the efficacy of the words that formed the so-called "alliance" with the Vatican, considering we are the largest provider of legal infanticide in the entire world.

The head of "Priests for Life" believes that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was "historic progress for the pro-life cause":

The State’s Interest in Life
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life (2007)

Today the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003. This is a day of historic progress for the pro-life cause, whose ultimate goal is to restore protection to every unborn child, at every stage of development. Today, for the first time since Roe vs. Wade, the United States of America has actually banned an abortion procedure, rather than just regulated it.

The pro-abortion forces attempted to strike down the ban because it does not have a health exception. The Court, however, said that the ban’s opponents failed to demonstrate that the need for a health exception was extensive enough to render the law unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the arguments that the ban is too broad or too vague. The wording of the ban is clear enough for abortionists to know when they are and are not violating the law.

The decision in this case is refreshing to read, because it emphasizes that the state has a legitimate interest in the life of the unborn child throughout pregnancy. Nor is this the first time the Court has recognized this interest. The decision refers to the state’s right to “express profound respect for the life of the unborn,” and affirms “that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.” The partial-birth abortion procedure differs from other abortion procedures in that it actually hijacks the delivery process and turns it into a method of killing, and hence obscures the role of the physician in the birth process. The Court today reaffirmed the state’s “legitimate interest in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” The decision also asserts, “The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.” In reaffirming these legitimate state interests in defense of the partial-birth abortion ban, the Court is also pointing the way for continued pro-life legislative activity at the state and federal level.

Today’s decision also reminds us that elections matter. The work done by so many pro-life people in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 made this decision possible. The lawmakers who passed the ban were elected, as was the President who signed it into law. The Senators who confirmed the two new Supreme Court Justices were elected, as was the President who nominated those Justices. Today’s fruit of these elections should lead us to renew our commitment to elect pro-life candidates in 2008.

As we give thanks for the ban on partial-birth abortion, we call for a vigorous and faithful enforcement of it. Moreover, state bans on the procedure should likewise be put into effect in a manner consistent with the federal ban upheld by today’s decision.

This decision draws a significant and necessary line that stops the momentum of the abortion movement that believes it can justify any and every method of killing the unborn. The ban will indeed save lives.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2007/07-04-09stateinterestinlife.htm

President Bush is responsible for appointing justices that won this majority. Diak and the others just hate President Bush so they are going to trash Bush if he is anything less than perfect. President Bush is not the monster we read about in the anti-Christian, anti-American media.

I have a few worries about John McCain, but he is better than Obama on the Life issues....
It seems that McCain at one time said he would fund fetal stem-cell research - has he changed his position about that? And if he hasn't, where does he think those 'fetal' cells are going to come from?
Sarah Palin on his ticket makes me a bit more comfortable with him, though I do have some problems with her too...but at least I am relatively sure she is solidly pro-life.

The main problems I have with Palin are the fact that she habitually lies and that she is utterly unqualified and incompetent. That alone gives me serious pause in voting for McCain. McCain is an old man and I just can't justify putting Palin within reach of the presidency. Abortion is horrible but world war III would be worse.

Joe

Diak,

Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory to Him forever!!

I didn't meant to sound accusatory in my last post, so please forgive me.

But back to your original statement, I do think that President Bush's reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy has, in fact, prevented even one abortion by the fact that the U.S. isn't handing out money to "organizations" that perform abortions. Yes, they may have gotten money from another country, but by not giving them U.S. dollars, that would greatly reduce these "organizations" chance of furthering their pro-abortion agenda. (which is essentially to perform as many abortions as possible)

I found an interesting site with regards the the abortion ratio under Clinton and W. Bush (as well as under Reagan and H.w. Bush). I've posted it here for viewing: http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html

There are several key graphs that indicate that abortion has been steadily decreasing for quite sometime now (since the 80's).

In any case, it's a good read and well worth the time to check it all out.

In Christ,
Aaron

WHat where and when did she lie?

I apologize; I apparently misinterpreted your comments. It appeared to me that you were saying that neither party nor Clinton or GW Bush were pro-life in their actions. I guess I don't understand your point. Due to my denseness, would you please propose what the actions the next President should take to decrease the number of abortions?

Christ is among us!
Fr Deacon Paul

When I go into the voting booth, I try to remember the words of the antiphon "Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men . . ."

Sadly, it seems to me, we are always in the position of voting for the lesser of two evils.

BOB

Andrew Sullivan has done an excellent job of documenting her lies. Here are here lies (19 in all) in reverse order.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--5.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--4.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--2.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-23.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--1.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-21.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-20.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-18.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-17.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-15.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-14.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-13.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-12.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-11.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-10.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--9.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--8.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--7.html