Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Our "Pro-Life" President

A Republican president has demonstrated (again!) what many in the pro-life movement (outside the boot-licking-fancy-dinner-fund-raising crowd) have been saying for years. Last December, "Dubya" signed a Title X funding increase for this year, to a record $288.3 million. According to the linked source: "Title X is one of two major federal government funding sources for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of abortion centers (murdering over 244,000 unborn human beings per year by surgical abortion alone)."

Right before the election, a priest active in the pro-life movement was quoted as saying that a vote for a third-party candidate would take away a vote for Bush, which would help Kerry, and therefore would be co-operation with evil. I actually had an argument with some pro-life lobbyist, who was concerned for my eternal salvation if I voted for a third-party candidate instead of Bush. Geeeeez!!!!!

Republicans have taken the pro-life vote for granted for nearly a quarter century. And like lambs to the slaughter, they still fall for it. It's almost as bad as Catholics who voted for Clinton, then Gore, then Kerry, simply because their grandparents voted for Roosevelt. After all, many of their deceased relatives are still registered Democrats, aren't they?

Is anyone paying attention???


Anonymous said...

I think that a number of folks are paying attention. The problem is that in most elections, at best, you are left with a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Morally, when I have a choice, I must weigh the records and statements of the candidates and vote for the candidate who is the most pro-life. I cannot get into all kinds of calculations as to how this will affect the overall makeup of a legislative body, etc. Much of this is pure speculation. I am responsible for my vote, not the collective votes of the electorate.

Once the person is in office, you must do what you can to persuade the person to actually govern or legislate in a pro-life manner.

The fact is that the government is only one way to change the culture of death. I think most pro-life folks know that it is the grassroots efforts that directly affect people's lives that are changing people's hearts and minds to a culture of life perspective.

Mr. Nixter said...

Pro-life. One of my convictions is that we respect life as the most precious gift we have.
This is NOT an advertisement,but if you go to my web site: & check out the editorial I wrote there titled: Rights of Mammals Vs. Humans, you'll see how I feel on this topic.
And, if you don't want to travel there, just remember that all life is precious, but there's absolutely no negotiating on human life. Period.

mrsdarwin said...

My grandmother-in-law was indeed a registered Democrat -- she was a Nixon-era liberal, and her politics stayed fixed while the party moved on. She retained her Democratic registration so she could vote in the primaries for the candidate she considered the wackiest and most unlikely to win. Her husband died several years before she did, but she kept right on voting for him! Making up for all those dead voters in Chicago, I guess...

Anonymous said...

It really is pretty inexcusable, because honestly, how much heat would he have taken if he'd pushed back on Title X. It's not something that the voting population is worked up about, so you'd think as a pro-life politician he'd go our way, not theirs.

The big question, though, is what happens with the supreme court in replacing O'Connor and (probably before too long) Renquist. Even two strong pro-life appointments wouldn't quite set us up for a Roe v. Wade overturn, but it would get us to 4 to 5.

If, on the other hand, Bush gives us a "middle of the road" justice on life issues, I have the feeling there would finally be a melt-down between pro-lifers and the GOP.