A Message from the Heart to Catholic Democrats

“If they [my daughters] make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby” –Barack Obama

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish” — Mother Teresa

With the 2008 presidential election finally upon us, I would like to make a heartfelt, sincere plea to traditional pro-life Catholic Democrats, especially in key swing states like mine: Pennsylvania. In all honesty, and I apologize if this sounds arrogant, I’ve come to see that many of them truly don’t grasp what they’re about to do in voting for Barack Obama for the next president of the United States. I’m not talking about the Democrat who is a socialist-feminist college professor, who is definitely supporting the right guy. I’m referring to the Harry Truman-Jack Kennedy Democrats, like my pro-life Catholic grandmother, born and bred in the mines, mills, and farms of Western Pennsylvania — folks that Obama describes as bitter-clingers. And, yes, I’m thinking about Obama and the abortion issue in particular.

Please listen carefully, and hear me out:

Barack Obama’s position on abortion is unprecedented. It is so singularly extraordinary, so shockingly unusual, so strikingly scary, that it merits the closest inspection of every American, and especially pro-life Catholics in the Democratic Party. Tragically, but predictably, Obama’s abortion extremism is not getting any exposure from the mainstream press that serves as educator for a giant swath of the voting public who will decide our next president.

Obama’s actions and statements on abortion are outrageous even by the outrageous standards we’ve sadly come to expect from the leaders of the Democratic Party — for many of us, the party of our roots. The party, already host to an abysmal track record on unborn human life, has really outdone itself this time. I’ve carefully referred to Barack Obama as a fanatic on the abortion issue not as a form of unfair, angry name-calling, but as a technically accurate description based on facts and proper usage of the term “fanatic.” If ever there was a case where one issue alone disqualified a candidate for the presidency — and particularly among pro-life Catholics — this is it.

It is hard to pick Obama’s most egregious affront against unborn human life, even given his notably short career as a legislator. Most likely, it is his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a piece of legislation that sailed through the U.S. Senate unopposed — advocated even by abortion extremists like Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. Few people realize that once Obama left the Illinois Senate for the U.S. Senate, the bill at last unanimously soared through the state legislature — once he, the principle obstacle, had exited. On this piece of legislation, Barack Obama stands alone in a corner unto himself, a club of one who refused to authorize that medical personnel offer treatment to babies who accidentally survive an abortion procedure. Whatever his backtracking and reasoning — which is deeply flawed at all levels, and terribly misleading — it is no exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee preserved a literal form of infanticide.

If the born-alive votes weren’t bad enough, Obama promises that the “first thing” he will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, according to not only critics but champions, would nationalize abortion, superseding and overturning abortion restrictions in all 50 states. In the words of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the act would “codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman’s right to choose in all 50 states.”

Think about this: This act, in one stroke, would wipe out all the fully bipartisan initiatives — passed by Democratic and Republican legislators all over America — that place perfectly reasonable restrictions on runaway abortion. This is madness, but Barack Obama vows to make it the first thing he would do as president.

When did Obama say such a thing? He made that promise in a July 17, 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood. And it was there, too, that Barack Obama made yet another remarkable, revealing assertion that seems to have eluded even pro-lifers: In that speech, Senator Obama described Planned Parenthood as a “safety-net provider.”

Think about that: Abortion services constitute a “safety net?” According to Barack Obama, yes, they do.

Traditionally, a safety net is a term typically applied to basic government services relating to financial security. Previous Democratic presidents like FDR and LBJ understood a safety net as relating to things like welfare or unemployment benefits or Social Security. Now, alas, in this new Barack Obama definition, a safety net includes Planned Parenthood and its abortion delivery services.

Well, Obama is promising “change.” That’s a definite change.

It is also a testimony to the dark pessimism behind Obama’s sunny rhetoric about “change.” The change Obama has in mind is federal funding — i.e., your tax dollars — to pay for runaway, unrestricted abortion.

Ironically, the total number of annual abortions has been on the decline in recent years. I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t spike up if a President Obama gets what he wants on abortion policy — even before appointing a single pro-choice judge. (Obama says he will appoint only pro-choice judges.) And with an overwhelmingly liberal Democratic Congress, he will get what he wants. The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced by liberal Democrats in Congress — namely, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) in April 2007. Surely, Boxer and Nadler never imagined the bill ever stood a chance — until America’s Democrats nominated Barack Obama as their voice.

Obama, by the way, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Remember that these are the people who claim they want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” They never do a thing to make it rare; quite the contrary, they do everything in their power to advance it.

What I’ve listed here is a small sample of the awful things Obama has said and intends for an abortion presidency.

Finally, this potential nightmare couldn’t come at a worse time. This country has finally, mercifully, arrived at a true turning point where the balance of the Supreme Court will go either against Roe v. Wade (if John McCain wins) or in favor of 35 more years of Roe v. Wade (if Obama wins). Since Roe became law in 1973, this nation has killed close to 50 million unborn babies. That kind of death total makes battles like World War II — 300,000 dead Americans — look like a picnic.

That’s what’s at stake. If you vote for Barack Obama, you will bear a moral and spiritual responsibility for that decision. I should emphasize that you need not vote for John McCain, who is not my ideal candidate — I’m not stumping for McCain. But a vote for Barack Obama carries some consequences.

I beg pro-life Catholics on the Democratic side to not play the role of dupe yet again. With their consent, whether they know it or not, they are ensuring that their party becomes the Party of Death. It’s their party, and they’ve allowed this to happen right under their noses. With Barack Obama at the helm, the downward slide continues to accelerate. They’re doing nothing — nothing at all — to stop it; quite the contrary, they’re advancing it.

Don’t get angry at me. It’s your party. Do something about it. Please!

The descent into what Pope John Paul II called the Culture of Death has got to stop. No other issue or group of issues matter as much in this election as abortion. Barack Obama’s extremism on abortion is solely responsible for that reality.

Some 2,000 years ago, a good people were offered a choice between Life itself and a murderer. They chose Barabbas. Please don’t misunderstand: I’m most definitely not comparing John McCain to Jesus Christ or calling Barack Obama a killer. I’m talking about rejecting rather than choosing a Culture of Death. Catholics will make their pick on Tuesday.

[Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. He is also co-author (with Patricia Clark Doerner) of The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).]

Dr. Paul Kengor

By

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Pingback: US Election On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » Choosing Barabbas: Obama’s Abortion “Safety Net”()

  • DRF

    FoCA would’t pass. FoCA passing is about as realistic as overturning Roe vs. Wade.

    The abortion rate in the U.S. has been falling since the early 1980′s, not just in recent years. However, the rate of decline has stalled during this most recent Bush administration. It might be that abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work as well as comprehensive sex ed. It might be the economy. But for whicever reason, the abortion rate dropped more under Clinton’s liberalism than it did under Bush’s “culture of life.”

    The organizations that are working to make abortion “safe, legal and rare” do do some things to make abortion rare: They work to get insurance coverage for birth control and medically accurate sex ed into schools. If the woman never gets pregnant in the first place, then she doesn’t need the abortion and everyone wins.

  • curtin24

    This comment is addressed to DRF who believes that contraceptives are the answer to the abortion problem. I have worked in a crisis pregnancy center for over 7 years and can tell you why women have abortions: women choose to have sex with a partner that they do not wish to have children with. The Pro-Choice platform wants us to believe that if the women just used contraceptives then abortion will practically go away.
    Almost every women in the U.S. has access to contraception of some sort. 50% of women who go to an abortion clinic say they were using a contraceptive when they got pregnant. They are seeking an abortion because of contraceptive failure. Some 2-10% of the time a woman taking the pill ovulates in a given month. The rate with Norplant or Depo-Provera is 40-60% of the time. Condoms fail 13-31% of the time. The other 50% say that they have used contraceptives in the past, they just were not using it at this particular time. Often these are teens and sometimes women in their 20s. They break up with their boyfriend, they don’t like the side effects of the contraceptive pill/patch, they stop taking it, the boyfriend comes around or they get a new one and before they get on the new birth control regime, they have sex and they get pregnant. 19% of those getting abortions are married. The major reason is NOT poverty. Main reasons that are given are: they got pregnant by someone other than their husband, they want to further their career, they just don’t want a baby now. Even the Supreme Court says that contraception leads to abortion in PP vs. Casey. The resolution to the case states, “For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” So the Supreme court says that they are not going to look at the question of when human life begins because our culture has become absolutely dependent upon abortion: people need abortion should their contraceptives fail. But is that true?
    Contraceptive failure doesn’t mean a woman needs an abortion. If a contraceptive fails, then it is only just to give the baby life. But that brings me back to my original premise. The problem is not that the contraceptive failed but that the women are having sexual intercourse with someone whom they have no intention of having a baby. I wish it were easy to say, “Just give them health care, that will fix it”. But in our state (Ohio), we have free health care for pregnant women. Just give them housing? – we have FREE maternity homes in Ohio. No, the women do not want anyone to see that they are pregnant. They believe, “Hey, I did my part. I took contraceptives like you said. It didn’t work so it’s not my fault that I am pregnant” and they march down to the abortion clinic to end the pregnancy. Legal abortion has so devalued life that it is even a struggle to have a women understand the nature of a unborn child’s development in a ultrasound when they see the arms and legs waving and their only concern is how much will the abortion cost? But they won’t have to worry anyone because Barack Obama has it all figured out. He’s stated that he is going to make it free for anyone in his health care plan.
    God help us all.

  • http://www.fatimashrine.com Peter M. Calabrese

    Dear DRF:

    It is also true that por-Life efforts soared during the Clinton Administration could it be that they had something to do with the declining abortion rate. Even with the inflated Nathanson figures form the late 60′s abortion soared after it was legalized. It would surely drop radically MORE if it was banned.

    On what basis do you say FOCA won’t pass. It has been propesed. The Judiciary Committee is composed of Democrats and at least one Republican who are pro-Death. In an Obama White House it would be a prioirty. If Democrats don;t stand up for life now why would they oppose their so-called Messiah on one of his pet issues.

    Finally let’s follow your logic. Social spending decreases certain activities. Well Wife-beating is primarily caused by financial issues. Should we rescind the laws on wife-beating and just give money to people to people who would otherwise beat their wives? What other activities are you willing legalize to test your theories on?

    Obama does not want to make abortion rare he wants to make it a constitutional right. Just remember Hitler and Mussolini increased social spending, improved unemployement and got their respective economies on agreat footing. We wouldn;t want to be one issue voters though; after all opposing Hitler just because he wanted to kill Jews would have meant the continuance of high unemployment and spiraling inflation, kept the country divided into left and right, etc.

    FOCA would never pass, just like Hitler would never enact his more radical theories from Mein Kampf. There’s no need to worry about past assocations no one every believed that Aryan supremacy philosophy anyway.

    Get real, Get on your knees. Repent of being a formal cooperator in the death of 1.2M people every year.

    LEt’s use the Pro-Death Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute figures. AS for your contraception idea 54% of the women who had aboritons were using contraception the month they becamse pregnant. So Obamas funding of another intrinsic moral evil will not really help things. 23 percent of women who choose abortion do it for economic reasons. Let’s double it just to admit that those that say they do it because it would change their lives (16%) and som other reasons given may also refer to economic motives. Let’s round that to 50% for argument’s sake. That still means you are accepting a man as President who says that killing 600,000 Americans every year for convenience sake is a constitutional right. YOU are willing to kill 600,000 Americans per year. That is treasonous folly. Anyone that proposes this is not fit to be President or mayor or even a community organizer.

  • mjlaloggia

    Thank you, Professor Kengor, for a well written article! THANK YOU!!!

  • Grace Harman

    Comprehensive sex ed. tells kids they can have sex “safely” – which is the big lie that makes abortion more likely. Most contraceptives have substantial failure rates. They also don’t stop the spread of s.t.d.’s but risky behavior increases the liklihood of both disease and pregnancy. (Why do you think Planned Parenthood supplies condoms and pills?) When I was in high school there were only 3 things you could “catch” and there was no pill to “prevent” pregnancy. (WE were told to do nothing “below the neck” to keep out of trouble). The unmarried birth rate was 2 per thousand nationwide. (40′s and 50′s) After “the pill” kids started living together thinking they were “safe”, and boys just left if the girl got pregnant. Suddenly there was a “need” for abortion. Suddenly there were many teen pregnancies and by the ’80′s, there were new and more serious diseases, including AIDS and HPV.

  • LarryW2LJ

    What I am about to write will undoubtedly cause a lot of hand wringing and a lot of underwear to be twisted into knots among “progressive” Catholics.

    You CANNOT vote for Barack Obama and call your self a Roman Catholic. Period …… end of story.

    The Catholic Church and abortion are mutually exclusive. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has never seen a piece of pro-legislation that he didn’t like. Well, actually, I might be wrong there. There may have been a piece of pro-abortion legislation that didn’t go far enough for his taste.

    Therefore, the Catholic Church and Barack Obama are mutually exclusive.

    If you would like to vote for Barack Obama, that is fine and is your right to do so. But please do not bring scandal upon yourself by continuing to call yourself a Roman Catholic. You and Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and the myriad of others had best go join some other New-Age, quasi”Christian” religion. Go join the Unitarians or the latest “makes me feel good about myself’ cult; but do not insult me and others faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Magesterium by continuing to call yourselves Catholic.

    Please remember that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is an institution that was initiated by Jesus Christ and is based upon His Eternal Truth. If you cannot accept that Truth fully and without reservation, you can call yourself whatever you’d like – but you’re not Catholic.

    There’s no room for debate here – that’s just how it is.

  • LarryW2LJ

    What I am about to write will undoubtedly cause a lot of hand wringing and a lot of underwear to be twisted into knots among “progressive” Catholics.

    You CANNOT vote for Barack Obama and call your self a Roman Catholic. Period …… end of story.

    The Catholic Church and abortion are mutually exclusive. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has never seen a piece of pro-abortion legislation that he didn’t like. Well, actually, I might be wrong there. There may have been a piece of pro-abortion legislation that didn’t go far enough for his taste.

    Therefore, the Catholic Church and Barack Obama are mutually exclusive.

    If you would like to vote for Barack Obama, that is fine and is your right to do so. But please do not bring scandal upon yourself by continuing to call yourself a Roman Catholic. You and Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and the myriad of others had best go join some other New-Age, quasi”Christian” religion. Go join the Unitarians or the latest “makes me feel good about myself’ cult; but do not insult me and others faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Magesterium by continuing to call yourselves Catholic.

    Please remember that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is an institution that was initiated by Jesus Christ and is based upon His Eternal Truth. If you cannot accept that Truth fully and without reservation, you can call yourself whatever you’d like – but you’re not Catholic.

    There’s no room for debate here – that’s just how it is.

  • christymomof3

    On the question of why abortion rates declined dramatically during the Clinton years and stalled during the Bush years, I suspect the reason may be the dramatic advances in ultrasound technology during the Clinton years. For the first time in human history, we all could see on tv, in magazines, and at the doctor’s office that the fetus was not just a blob, but a baby, and fewer women were willing to kill that baby. In recent years, however, I suspect a steady number are hardened and willing to kill the unwanted baby anyway. I remember how stunned I was when one woman I discussed abortion rights with called the baby a parasite that the mother should be able to destroy. For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

  • yblegen

    Thank you, Dr. Kenger. You could have also have included in your plea to traditional pro-life Catholic Democrats, especially in key swing states like mine: Ohio. Some of my family are starting to look at the candidates rather than the party, but not all of them. I wonder if these states are swing states because they are torn between the party of their fathers and the reality,today, of what their father’s party has become. I know that my grandparents would be horrified at even the remote idea that someone would vote for abortion or same sex marriage. I shudder when I even think about it.

  • Claire

    Yesterday I got an email from a friend trying to convince me that Obama is “pro-life”, trying to change my mind so that I would vote for him. She used that safe/legal/rare tactic. Infanticide is infanticide, no matter how rare, and despite how much health coverage a country provides to its citizens. Let’s get our priorities straight. Should we vote to legalize murder since murder occurs despite the laws against it? I don’t think so.

  • Pingback: A Message from the Heart to Catholic Democrats | Pelican Project Pro-Life()

  • mrteachersir

    Christymomof3:

    During Clinton’s administration, the Pro-life movement was greatly advanced. Remember that in 1994, there was a some-what conservative Republican sweep throughout the states. More and more abortion restricting legislation was passed. While those pieces of legislation haven’t changed, rationale has.

    As you point out, during Clinton’s administration (through no fault of his own) ultrasound proved the baby was no blob of cells. However, pro-abortion people have changed their tactics. Peter Singer, founder of PETA, concludes that murdering a baby is okay because we can’t give them the “standard of living” they deserve. I remember reading of the “confession” of married woman who had an abortion. She understood that she was killing her child, but for her, it was okay, because that child was not in her career plans (she even named her baby).

    DRF:
    Obama is fighting to keep abortion legal. Let us consider the ramifications of this. [I]Roe[/I] legalized abortion because it decided that life did not begin at conception. It was able to rule, without considering scientific data, on the humanity of a class of humans, and thus sentence them to death. With this precedent, who is stopping further decisions about whether we live or die? Always remember this: the first thing that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was to legalize abortion (while increasing welfare and increasing jobs). Once the concept of human life as a convenience is established, it is only a matter of time before all human life is put on the chopping block.

    One abortion is too many.

  • dlapointe34

    To LarryW2LJ: Right On!!! There is no room for debate on the Life issue. Imagine our sadness this past weekend when we witnessed Catholics For Obama buttons — IN MASS! It really was scandalous.

  • Lucky Mom of 7

    mrteachersir,

    Your point about the devaluation of human life is one I have made to pro-choicers as well. If we throw “unwanted” babies in the trash, who’s next? Old people? The handicapped? Will we create a class of diseases that aren’t worth our money to treat, which in turn will institutioanlize “euthenasia”? It’s already happening.

    Lucky

  • tednkate

    Claire: I love the fact that you used the word “murder”. For it is, and we just can’t get around that. Abortion IS murder.

    Sadly, our bishop (a so-called “good bishop”) had this to say on an election statement: “Can any other issue, or combination of issues, attain sufficient gravity to outweigh the directly willed destruction of 1 million children every year? That’s the question we must ask ourselves and each other as we weigh our election choices.”

    (You can read all of his statement at http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=30364)

    I am distressed about this. He asks the question, then doesn’t give it an answer. (I know many, many Catholics in our area–including people in charge of religious e–who are openly advocating and have worked to get Mr. Obmama elected.)

    But what if we replaced the word “abortion” (or destruction)with “murder” (and not “murder of the unborn”, just “murder”–since it doesn’t matter whether in utero or not). Somehow, I think he would have come to a different conclusion, and be able to say “No.You can’t vote for someone who has this type of radical abortion/murder agenda We are not talking about the occasional vote, which we might be able to overlook, but a consistant record of the promotion of abortion. No Catholic can vote for that when there are other choices on the ballot.”

    In fact, on our election ballot, not just the Dems and GOP were represented, but the Libertarians and Tax Payers, and Greens etc. A person doesn’t need to vote GOP if they don’t like McCain; there are other choices.

  • heinz

    Quite honestly, I am sick of the GOP, and please do not get me started on the dems. Look, during the first four years of the Bush reign, hardly any pro-life legislation was signed into law. tednkate and the author make a very good point: McCain is not exactly the ideal candidate. I will take a step further, he is nowhere near the perfect candidate and is barely pro-life if he is at all. Even if we elect McCain and get a GOP majority in Congress, I just don’t see us taking any steps forward in the pro-life movement, and I think that if he gets in, he will quickly legalize ESTCR. Pray for a better candidate the next time around and when you find him, get on the stump for him quickly.

  • Mary Kochan

    Here we go again with the “Bush did nothing” argument. How quickly they forget…

    1) Appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The appointments resulted in the upholding of the federal partial-birth abortion ban by a 5-4 decision.

    2) Reinstituted the Mexico City Policy, begun by the Reagan Administration and reversed by the Clinton Administration (when Congress tried to reinstitute the policy, Clinton vetoed the bill), that bars foreign aid funding to groups that perform or advocate for abortions. In 2003, the Bush Administration expanded the Mexico City Policy to include not just funds dispensed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), but also the State Department.

    3) Discouraged advancement of pro-abortion legislation by announcing early in his administration that he would veto legislation that threatened pro-life policy.

    4) Signed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which made it a federal crime not to treat babies who survive abortion.

    5) Signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.

    6) Signed Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the unborn child as a separate crime victim if injured or killed during an assault.

    7) Cut off all federal funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its involvement in China’s one-child policy which includes forced abortion and sterilization. President Bush sent a fact-finding mission to China which found that the nation’s one-child policy was indeed coercive in nature and that the UNFPA was an integral part of implementing that policy, placing the UNFPA in clear violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment that prohibits any aid to any program that involves forced abortion or forced sterilization. Tens of millions of dollars that otherwise would have gone to the UNFPA were redirected to maternal and child health programs.

    8 ) Thwarted efforts at the United Nations to promote abortion by instructing U.S. delegates to state at every appropriate opportunity that America does not regard anything in any document before the U.N. to establish any international right to abortion.

    9) Issued Executive Order banning the use of new lines of embryonic stem cells in federally funded experiments. Later vetoed legislation passed by Congress to permit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

    10) Signed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which will fund research using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. The measure provides funding to increase the inventory of cord blood units available to match and treat patients and to link cord blood banks so that doctors have a single source to search for cord blood and bone marrow matches. It also reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Registry.

    11) Launched public awareness of adoption campaign, working with the National Council for Adoption and pregnancy help centers across the country. The campaign sponsored conferences encouraging faith based communities to promote adoption and produced public service announcements featuring the First Lady urging the adoption of foster children.

    12) Established the first federal government and national website listing and showing children available for adoption across the country (www.AdoptUSKids.org).

    13) Increased the tax credit for adoption related expenses from $5,000 to $10,000; for special needs children, the credit was raised from $5,000 for qualified adoption related expenses to $10,000 for any adoption related expenses. This was done as part of the President’s tax relief bill.

    14) Annually declared Sanctity of Human Life Day.

    15) Issued a federal regulation allowing states to include unborn children in the federal/state S-CHIP program, which provides health insurance for children in poor families. This allowed states to include pre-natal care in the health insurance they offer to poor children under the program.

    16) The Bush Administration did what it could to stop assisted suicide from taking further hold in Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows doctors to prescribe federally controlled drugs in lethal amounts to certain of their patients who say they want to die. Federal law holds that federally controlled drugs may only be prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. During the Clinton Administration, Attorney General Janet Reno decreed that assisted suicide was a legitimate medical purpose in those states that permit it. During the Bush Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft changed that ruling, saying that assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, thereby barring doctors from prescribing lethal drugs. A lawsuit was filed and ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the drugs to be used for assisted suicide.

    17) Signed legislation making it possible for a federal court to hear whether Terri Schiavo’s constitutional rights had been violated by being denied hydration and nutrition.

    18) Dramatically increased funding for abstinence education through the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress did not approve the full amount the Bush Administration requested.

  • Warren Jewell

    In reference to the Presidency of George W. Bush – I think too many have taken the wide-ranging MSM-promoted anti-Bush syndrome to heart when they should have weighed his time in office with all his efforts in the balance. In his economic mishandling, for one example, he was no more culpable than the GOP (and Democratic) representatives in Congress were.

    One weight I assign to his great favor is thinking we’d be a lot worse on life issues and other issues if either Gore or Kerry had won over Dubya. Such as, with either of these fools as President and unlikely to so fully combat terrorism as renascent violent Muslim jihad has delivered it – how many other American cities and people would be further damaged and destroyed, by now? There is no ‘Catholic’ requirement to be for or against the Afghan and/or Iraqi actions – but, at least violent enemies have had to fight armed Americans on the formers’ own turf. And, of the combat troops we have sent into these action, the bloc of them voted proportionally more for Bush (and, so it seems, will for McCain) over his Democratic opponent than most any other group, including many state GOP groups of regulars.

    But, with a Democrat in the White House at any time in the last eight years, and the man bound by the Democratic pro-abortion plank and interest-group funding, might not an incremental form of FoCA have already been making its way through governance? In fact, I think that we may end up with such incremental approach, anyway: the better to avoid the Supreme Court dumping the whole package.

  • goral

    Sorry Mary, Bush falls short of the twenty items he needed to do to satisfy the nitpickers. Obama on the other hand will give us 20 the other way. We do stand a fighting chance with a Palin/McCain administration.
    Bash Bush all you want but he’s arguably the most “Catholic” president we’ve had.

  • elkabrikir

    Here’s the deal. Nobody cares.

    Okay?!

    We spend time discussing these issues of natural law and its role in the foundation of our country. We care that the Founding Fathers wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    How many people know the roots of the thought process behind those words?

    Few, few indeed.

    The majority have progressed beyond reason and landed in the lap of the Candy Man.

    I’m disgusted but NOT destroyed.

    Get on your knees and pray for America.

    Obama has won the day but not Eternity.

    May God have mercy on us all.

MENU