How to Choose among Presidential Candidates

A kind reader suggested that I offer an analysis of all the presidential candidates in order to assist voters in making the right choice. Unfortunately, despite the shrill denunciations of modernist Catholics who insist that my opposition to abortion proves I am a shill for the Republican Party, I am one of the least qualified persons to make such an assessment.

Though I do have a personal friend who is running for the Senate, I tend to be woefully uninterested in politics. I get most of my own political information from people I trust who are far more knowledgeable than I. Of course, I am not referring here to the moral principles which must govern our votes. I’m very keen indeed on those. But as far as getting to the bottom of conflicting reports about a candidate’s positions, or evaluating past voting records, or assessing the best possible political strategy, well, I’m not anywhere near the forefront.

However, since the U. S. Bishops have in general not given adequate moral guidance, I’ll talk a little here about two key principles. The first principle is that serious intrinsic moral evils which can be controlled politically and which affect large numbers of people must be at the very top of the decision tree for selecting candidates. The fact is that a million persons are murdered by abortion each year in our country as a direct result of judicial and legislative action, and countless others are murdered through embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, with more being queued up for death by euthanasia. All of these attacks are intrinsically evil, and they affect enormously large numbers of people.

Now, it doesn’t take a moral genius to understand that this grave evil must take precedence in the decision tree over other significant issues such as concern for the environment, health insurance, welfare programs, or educational policy, none of which typically involve the intrinsic evil of deliberately taking an innocent life. And the same is true even for war policy, the pros and cons of which must be endlessly debated because war is not intrinsically immoral, even though it does involve direct attacks on human lives, though generally (thus far, at least) on a much smaller scale.

 For this reason, the very first principle of political morality in contemporary America is that voters have a serious obligation to distinguish between candidates who support the abortion license (and its related evils) and candidates who want to reduce, restrict or eliminate the abortion license altogether. Assuming one or more candidates fall into the latter camp, a moral voter in America in 2008 will restrict his vote to this group, choosing among them based on the degree of their hostility to abortion, the viability of their plan to restrict or end it, and their expected electability. Only after assessing this is the voter justified in proceeding to secondary moral issues and personal preferences.

Of course, if no candidate falls into the group which desires to reduce or eliminate the abortion license, the voter is justified in choosing on other grounds. The point here is that if the voter can be positively engaged on behalf of the life issues, he must be so engaged. The reason is that in contemporary America nothing else comes close in its combination of human impact and moral importance.

My second principle is a refutation of the mistaken opinion among some pro-life leaders that it is immoral to support incremental measures to restrict abortion. For these leaders, it must be all or nothing at all. The result is that they are very quick to declare no candidates acceptable, thereby leaving the voter morally free to choose on other grounds. On this reading, for example, a candidate who would propose to outlaw only some kinds or classes of abortion is regarded as actually proposing to commit murder against all those who will be left unprotected. In other words, as compared with a pro-abortion politician, the proponent of mere restrictions is said to offer no real moral alternative.

But this is nonsense on its face. While we have an obligation to do the very best we can, the morality of any given step along that path is to be assessed according to how the proposed step will alter the prevailing pattern of abortion at the time it is proposed. If a law will permit fewer to be murdered than are being murdered now (that is, the law will protect and save some), it may morally be supported by both voters and politicians (and the politicians are also morally required to make known their principled opposition to abortion as a whole). Incidentally, this is not me talking. It is Pope John Paul II, who stated the case very clearly in Evangelium Vitae #73:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations — particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation — there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Thus is established the second principle, a principle allowing for many strategic considerations and the exercise of prudence in a good cause — so long as the voter is truly committed to the cause.

On strategy, of course, there is room for disagreement. And there is even more room for disagreement in addressing problems that are not intrinsic moral evils, problems which may be significant but cannot carry nearly the same weight as abortion does in the current context. If a voter’s conscience is animated by the two principles I have outlined, he may also consider, further down the decision tree, these secondary matters, in differentiating among candidates who are still in play after applying the earlier decision path. Such a voter would be well-advised to inform himself about the positions, seriousness and viability of all the available candidates. He should then base his final selection on a decision tree whose first node is morality, whose second node (if multiple candidates still remain) is strategy, and whose third node (if multiple candidates still remain) is a collection of issues necessarily less significant in 2008 than the American holocaust.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Mirus


Dr. Mirus is the founder of Trinity Communications and a veteran Catholic writer. He was previously a professor and co-founder of Christendom College. His writings can be found at

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    How sad that Republican leadership's lip service and uneven judicial appointments regarding abortion lead millions of well intentioned, Christian citizens to vote for candidates who use this issue to get elected and then betray it once in office.  How many voted for Ronald Reagan due to a stated pro-life position, and then watched Sandra Day O'Connor's pro-choice judgments and listened to Nancy Reagan's pro-stem cell research speeches, influencing millions?  How many voted for George H.W. Bush for his stated pro-life position, and then watched David Souter's pro-choice decisions?  How many voted for George W. Bush because of his stated pro-life positions (in spite of the rise in Texas abortions under his leadership, demonstrably tied to worsening economic conditions, because in truth there is a direct correlation between increases in abortion and poverty), and then watched stunned as he recommended his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the bench?  I am sick and tired of politicians using abortion to get elected and then governing without Christian principles on everything from war to the environment to abortion itself.  Enough is enough.  If global warming is real and the climate is forever destroyed due to lack of political action these past seven years, a planet of death will eclipse all other issues with haste.  Abortion is a terrible thing.  Using it as an issue to get elected is horrible. 

  • Guest

    The Church can not involve itself in politics, at the same time it can not avoid politics. It comes down to the level of savoir-faire diplomacy which the Church can skillfully exercise and which is miserably lacking

    A statement in the article says: “However, since the U. S. Bishops have in general not given adequate moral guidance…”

     I for one would not vote along the lines of the bishops’ suggestions anyway. Both moral and political guidance coming from that group is muddled. There are many that I find trustworthy but even they are reluctant to break away from the pack.

    This is a quote from today’s article about bishops in Georgia:

    "We will be monitoring the legislation during the session to see if there are any changes, but the bishops have done a great deal of legal research and the decision is that this isn't going to be a bill we're going to support, although we're not opposed to it in any way," she said.”

    What did I say? – muddled. So we’re left to make our own judgments and we can certainly do that with the amount of information that we can access. This site and others like it have given me all that I need to make the final choice.

    I’m still undecided.


  • Guest

    Lavender, I'm already feeling the horrible climatic changes you're talking about. Right now I'm cold as hell. Post again in the heat of the summer and I'll help you with your apocalyptic global warming issue.

    Of course, I'm kidding just as you are.

  • Guest

    Thank you Dr. Mirus for stating clearly and logically a process that Catholics can use to incorporate morality into their decisions about voting. I would only add the caveat that rhetoric alone does not establish a candidate's true position, and some research and prayer is needed to reach an informed decision.

    Dr. Mirus suggestions are particularly valuable because of our our tendency to respond to emotional appeals from the candidates. They are experts at "pushing our emotional buttons", and when we vote with our hearts instead of our heads, Catholic morality can be forgotten (as lavenders3 so aptly demonstrates in the above rant).


  • Guest

    Ron Paul 2008

    The other so called Republicans are known neo-conservatives, who, like Bush pay lip service only.

    Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to God's Mercy. Kent C. Bois

  • Guest

    Kent,  did you notice that viability was one of the considerations?

  • Guest

    So what do you do if your choices are a pro-abortion Democrat, a pro-abortion Republican with the difference being the Republican promises to appoint Supreme Court judges who might favor overturning Roe-v-Wade and a third choice being a pro-life Independent?  If it's clear the independent would not have a snow ball's chance of winning and to vote for him or her would ensure victory for the pro-abortion Democrat, what do you do?  Because I personally would find it hard to stomach voting for Guiliani, and yet, it's worse to consider the alternative.  How do you sort through this?

  • Guest

    Dr. Paul is completely viable.  Look at the statistics.  Check his meet up groups.  He has more meet up members than all Rep and Dem combined.  They have grown 50% since October from 50,000 to 100,000.  These are his ACTIVE supporters.  Real people out campaigning for him.  Myself and all of my Catholic friends are supporting him.  We plan to vote in the primaries.  He is VIABLE.  The media blackout on him is reprehensible.  On NPR this morning the played clips from every candidate from the Florida debate except Dr. Paul.  Did not even mention his name.  As Catholics we need to take responsibility for ourselves and not let the media dictate who is VIABLE.  This sounds like a pro-abortion person trying to determine when a baby is a baby.  If you are considering Huckabee you might want to watch this video.   It is plain as day that he is a liar or really ignorant.  Also, watch this video on Dr. Paul.  What other politician have you ever heard say such things about our Church and our beloved Pope John Pau II The Great.  He is the real deal.  A good honest man.  

    Join the REVOLUTION!! 


    I urge you and everyone else to do your research and stand for this man.  Pray for him.  He is doing great work!!!!!  Vote Pro-life, Pro-Peace, Pro-Family, Pro-Freedom in the primaries !!!!! 

    In Christ's Peace,


  • Guest

    Why do we spend so much time once every four years fretting about the moral positions of one member of our country (the presidential candidate) and then spend the rest of the time not really paying attention to all the things that can be done to fight the culture of death in our society?  One day at Mass the priest was getting frustrated at the parents for not supervising their children who were making a complete mess of the pews with spilled juice and crushed goldfish crackers and he stated that "children only get away with what their parents let them."  Seems to me this also applies to our politicians.  Politicians get away with what we the people let them.  Isn't it a little superficial for a citizen to say they are "pro-life" but their only efforts in support of that position is a vote cast once every four years for one person? Is everyone out there doing everything they possibly can to support a culture of life?  I doubt it (I will admit I don't).   Let's encourage each other to support a culture of life (no matter what your political prefereces) and be absolutely insistent that our politicans support a culture of life (no matter what political party they are a member of)…the results would be miraculous!

  • Guest

    Hello? Has anyone read through the  U.S. bishops' Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship statement released back in November? It has a lot to say in addressing the moral dilemma we face in this presidential election year.

    Dr. Mirus writes: the U. S. Bishops have in general not given adequate moral guidance…

    I think the recent Statement goes far to provide very good moral guidance. Three sections of the Statement are particularly noteworthy, No. 27-28 (29) and 37:

    27: Two temptations in public life can distort the Church's defense of human life and dignity:

    28: The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.

    29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity…

    and again:

    37: In making these decisions [as to which candidate to support], it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligations to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate's committments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

    The trick is (and I am just as frustrated and angry as everybody else) to find some kind of crystal ball to determine what this or that politician really intends to do and really believes in his heart of hearts regarding the very serious moral crisis of abortion (and related barbarisms like human embryonic stem cell research) rather than accept at face value their pandering sound-bites of "I am pro-life," and "I'm against abortion." Too bad somebody couldn't invent something like the comic book character Wonder Woman's magic Lasso of Truth which, when a crook was caught in it, was compelled to give a truthful answer to any question asked of him.

    Karen: Your question is addressed in No. 36 of the Statement:

    36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma [understatement of the year]. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate, or after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

    Of course, I fully expect many regular visitors to this forum to dismiss anything the bishops have to say out of hand. Their Statement isn't a perfect document by any stretch. Nevertheless, I think the Statment bears reading and provides serious food for thought. To the skeptics I would like to ask, OK, if you were asked to rewrite the Statement what would you have the bishops say that (apparently) they aren't saying?

    Here's the link to the full text: (A shortened digest "bulletin insert" version appears elsewhere).

  • Guest

    I am praying and hoping for Mike Huckabee to be president.  Have any of you got any good reasons why not? 

  • Guest

    Some of you are upset with George W. Bush, but if you take a look at his Pro-life record compared to Bill Clinton's, or Hillary's or Barack's,there is a big difference. The first thing Bill Clinton did when he got into office was to begin funding abortions with tax payer dollars. Hillary says she will do the same. This is not just in America, but worldwide.

    The first thing George Bush did was to stop funding abortions with tax dollars. He also up held the Mexico City policy which bans giving tax dollars to any group which supports abortion.

    George Bush also opposes any expansion of embryonic stem cell research. even thogh he did allow some lines to be used. Geroge W also appointed several Pro life judges, but you saw how difficult it was to get them approved over the Democratic senate.

    I , too, am disappointed that abortion still exists in this country, but if you  decry voting for Pro life Republicans, your only option is to vote for pro-abortion Democrats, since that is one of the major planks of the Democratic party.

    And please read the  U.S. bishops' Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship statement. The Bishops have clearly spoken about voting for ProLife candidates. The difficulty, as they pointed out,will come when our only option is between Pro Choice candidates. This is why we need to insist that the Republican Party still promotes Pro Life candidates and that our vote will sway the election.

    If you notice, abortion is not even considered one of the major factors in this years election by the media. We need to speak up for Pro life candidates, not tear them down.

  • Guest

    Romney in 08!!

    "Putting the Bill and Hillary train out to permanent pasture."


  • Guest

    Thank you Dr Mirus for including this: My second principle is a refutation of the mistaken opinion among some pro-life leaders that it is immoral to support incremental measures to restrict abortion. When nations have drifted so far from reason and morality, as the US and Canada have done in the matter of abortion (among other things), one cannot expect that hearts and minds can be changed overnight.  Our society is rather like a massive ocean liner which is unable to stop on a dime and make a sharp u-turn.  It must make a long slow sweeping turn in order to reverse directions.  In Canada, too many pro-life leaders insist pro-lifers only vote for candidates with pro-life stances even if it means ignoring the only mainstream party hope for this nation to commence its slow incremental u-turn.  Ignoring the hard facts of the political process is ignorance of culture, societies, and, most importantly, the unlimited unchecked power of the pro-abort media to demean, belittle and marginalize the pro-life position, and sway the populace to the liberal candidate du jour. Wisdom is needed here. 

  • Guest

    The little guy is leading with the left, but it's the "right" that's going to take her out. Please God, let it be so.

    Thanks, rakeys for the reminders about Dubba U's pro-life picks and policies. We wouldn't have done better with one of our own bishops in there.

    Speaking of which, the statement that they put out is a good start and certainly every faithful Catholic should refer to it. The problem is that it's a dead document if it's not supported with ongoing reminders and actions from the authors. Since that statement was released there have been dozens of signals and actions from our bishops that do not square with their own teaching. The credibility factor is not there as it needs to be.

  • Guest

    Yes,  First of all Huckabee named Richard Haas (the President of the Council on Foreign Relations) as one of his principal foreign policy advisors.  Richard Haas is in complete support of Globalization.  i.e. NAU (North American Union), New World Order, etc.

    Also check out this video

  • Guest

    Ron Paul is pro-life and against the war.

    Who else takes both of these positions?

  • Guest

    I vote on the LIFE and DEATH issues. Everything else is just about money.


    May God bless and forgive us all!


  • Guest

    I have tried to watch the debates and wade through all of the trash, but I am so lost.  Is anyone else just sick and tired of the main stream media choosing the candidates for us??????  They allow the "front runners" to have all the time they need  to argue and debate the issues, yet when one of the "other guys" tries to answer a question, they have limited time and are not viewed as worth listening to!  

    I am so grateful for the articles on Catholic Exchange concerning the candidates.  I have been so disgusted with so many of the candidates and really am at a loss of who I will vote for.  I like the views of Ron Paul and was happy to see him Tuesday at the March in DC ( another issue the media didn't bother to cover well).  If Hillary gets the vote, my family is seriously considering moving back to Italy!


    Jesus, Mary, and Joseph pray for us!

  • Guest

    Is Ron Paul a man that Real Catholic can vote for?

    • Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    • Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    • Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
  • Guest

    Yes I'm sick of the Conservatives and there news mouths trashing Huckabee who is in my opinion the only viable Prolife Candidate.

    Ron Paul Is not Pro life he believes the constitution of men is more important then life or he would be for a constitutional amendment to end it and he would understand the historical parallels with slavery that makes the amendment to only viable complete solution. Us people at the lower end of income have sacrificed a lot when we elect conservatives who live to keep us at the botom and will not keep their word to end abortion.

  • Guest

    Huckabee has a governing record. Let him fight for it. It's not really a conservative one. So if he wants to run as a conservative he has some explaining to do. Those who call him on it are clarifying the issues.

  • Guest

    Ron Paul's pro-life stance is not acceptable because he believes that it is an issue that every state should decide for themselves rather than a moral issue that applies to everyone.  He stated that he did not think it was right to impose his beliefs on someone else (see John Stossel's interview with him at – how different is that from Mario Cuomo's hand-washing really?  Also, Pope JPII warned George W. that having gone into Iraq, the US had a moral obligation to stay until the country was stable again – now that appears to have been prophetic of our great Pope.


    Mike Huckabee is not just a conservative in general, but most importantly, a proven and trustworthy social conservative – one who has Marched for Life before & has promised to continue to do so as president!  


    For some further examples:

    November 12, 2007 – 03:08 PM
    Arkansas Conservative Accomplishments
    by Jerry Cox (President, Arkansas Family Council)

    Mike Huckabee has been my friend and strong ally for over 23 years.  Long before his involvement in politics, he was a defender of the unborn, a promoter of character in our schools, and stalwart champion for traditional values.  In the political arena, as the Governor of Arkansas, he was successful in fighting for those same values.  His compassion for people, his command of the issues, his faith in God, and his genuine desire to work with people on both sides of the aisle are a rare find in the politics of today.  I believe his years of tireless service to all the people of Arkansas and his vision for the future make Mike Huckabee an excellent choice for President of the United States.

    *The following is a list of conservative accomplishments directly outlined
    by Jerry Cox during Mike Huckabee's tenure as governor.

    1.  Banning Same-Sex Marriage:  Arkansas became one of the first states in the nation to pass a state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  Through the leadership of pro-family legislators and with the backing of the governor and his staff, Family Council took the lead in the successful passage of this law.  Later, Family Council strengthened Arkansas pro-marriage position by securing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    2.  Banning Partial-Birth Abortions:  Arkansas was one of the first states
    in the nation to ban partial-birth abortions.  Family Council worked for the better part of an entire legislative session to secure passage of this
    pro-life legislation.  Even though this law was later struck down in federal court, it solidified public opinion against this especially gruesome form of abortion.

    3.  Reducing Unwed Births:  During the years when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Arkansas became known as a state where contraceptives were dispensed thorough health clinics located in public schools.  Governor Huckabee established the Governor's Steering Committee on Abstinence Education and asked Family Council staff attorney, Martha Adcock, to chair the committee.  Each year, this committee awards over $1 million in state and federal funds to local groups that are teaching abstinence.  State funding for contraceptives in schools has been discontinued.  For the first time, Arkansas' unwed birth rate is declining.

    4.  Passing Covenant Marriage Legislation:  Arkansas has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. In response to this, Arkansas became the third state in the nation to pass a covenant marriage law.  This new law enables couples to obtain a covenant marriage license that requires pre-marriage counseling and makes it more difficult for them to obtain a divorce.
    Governor Huckabee and his staff led the effort to pass this legislation and Family Council was pleased to assist them.

    5.  Informed Consent Abortion Law:  Family Council and other pro-family
    organizations worked 10 years to secure passage of a law requiring doctors to inform women about the risks and alternatives to abortion and wait until the next day before performing the abortion.  Governor Huckabee testified before legislative committees as far back as when he was lieutenant governor.  We celebrated the culmination of a ten-year struggle when Governor Huckabee signed the bill into law in 2001.

    6.  Supporting Home Schooling:  When Mike Huckabee became governor, Arkansas had one of the worst home school laws in the nation.  A joint effort between the governor, Family Council, other home school leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education, helped secure the passage of much better home school legislation.  The number of Arkansas children enrolled in home schooling has tripled since Mike Huckabee became governor.

    7.  Internet Safety in Public Schools and Libraries:  Family Council and
    conservative lawmakers initiated a successful effort to require public
    schools to install Internet filters on their computers that are connected to the Internet.  In addition, Arkansas law requires all public libraries to
    implement a policy to ensure that people are not able to access
    inappropriate material on library computers. Governor Huckabee and his staff assisted with the passage of this legislation.

    8.  Hosting Conferences on the Family:  Recognizing the importance of strong families, Governor Huckabee sponsored three conferences on the Family.
    Family Council partnered with the governor and his staff to bring nationally recognized experts to Arkansas to address ways to strengthen families.

    9.  Passage of the Fetal Protection Act:  The tragic deaths of unborn
    children, some just days away from safe delivery, prompted the passage of a law that enables murder charges to be filed against anyone who assaults the mother of an unborn child causing the death of her baby.  Governor Huckabee and his staff led the effort to pass this law and Family Council was pleased to assist them.

    10.  Safe Haven Act to Protect Newborns:  The deaths of abandoned newborns motivated Family Council to address the issue through the successful passage of legislation allowing mothers to anonymously drop off their newborn baby at a police station or hospital rather than abandoning the child to die.
    Governor Huckabee supported this legislation and signed it into law.

    11.  Parental Consent for Abortions:  Since 1989, Arkansas doctors have been required to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor.  In 2005, Family Council worked for the successful passage of a law requiring parental consent before a doctor can perform an abortion on a minor.  Governor Huckabee and his staff assisted with the passage of this legislation.

    12.  Covenant Marriage Celebration:  In 2005, Family Council assisted the Governor's office and FamilyLife in promoting a covenant marriage
    celebration in Little Rock.  The event was attended by over 6,000 people, many of whom converted their marriage to a covenant marriage.

    13.  Banning Physician-Assisted Suicide:  The legalization of
    physician-assisted suicide in Oregon prompted the passage of an Arkansas law banning the practice in our state.  Family Council and our Physician's Resource Council division worked with supportive legislators and the governor's office to pass this law.

    14.  Banning Human Cloning:  Arkansas became the second state in the nation to ban the cloning of human beings, including the cloning of human embryos.
    The Arkansas Physicians Resource Council division of Family Council worked with the governor's office to secure passage of this legislation.

    15.  Affirming the Rights of the Terminally Ill:  Family Council worked with the governor and supportive legislators to enact legislation that empowers terminally ill patients to overrule doctor's orders that food and water be withheld as long as they are able to request it.

    16.  Choose Life License Plate:  Passage of the Choose Life specialty
    license plate has generated thousands of dollars for adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers across the state of Arkansas.  Family Council assisted Arkansas Right to Life with the passage of this legislation.

    17.  Repealing Outcomes-Based Education:  When Mike Huckabee became governor, outcomes-based education was a primary emphasis with the Arkansas Department of Education.  The governor and his staff led an effort in 1997 to move Arkansas away from an outcomes-based education philosophy.  This, coupled with changes at the Arkansas Department of Education and on the State Board of Education, moved Arkansas public schools toward a more traditional system.

    18.  Stronger DWI Legislation:  The Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council,
    Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and Family Council worked with the governor's office to secure passage of legislation that lowers the legal limit for DWI from .10 to .08 percent blood alcohol content.

    19.  Good Appointments to State Boards and Commissions:  The governor is responsible for appointing citizens to serve on over 300 state boards and commissions.  These boards and commissions affect virtually every area of life in Arkansas.  Family Council has been pleased to assist the governor's office by recommending qualified individuals to serve on them.

    20.  Endorsement of the Arkansas Marriage Amendment:  When the effort to pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage needed endorsement from Arkansas leaders, Governor Mike Huckabee was the first one to publicly voice his support.  Eventually a bi-partisan group of elected officials and ministers from across the state supported the measure.

    21.  Office of Family Policy:  Governor Huckabee became the first governor in the history of Arkansas to establish an Office of Family Policy.  Staffed by individuals who support traditional values, this office set a pro-family tone for all of state government.  They enabled the governor to lead the way in passing pro-family legislation and establishing pro-family policies throughout state government.  Early on in his administration, Governor Huckabee issued an order to all state agencies requiring them to evaluate their policies and programs to be certain that they were doing no harm to the family.

    22.  A Great Working Relationship With Family Council:  One of the first
    things Mike Huckabee did when be became governor of Arkansas was to
    communicate to his entire cabinet and to the heads of all state agencies
    that he considered Family Council to be a friend and that they were to, as much as possible, work with me and my staff.  This set the tone for a great working relationship that enabled us to work with just about everyone in state government.

    Jerry Cox is president of the Arkansas Family Council.  He served on the
    Pulaski County Quorum Court and he is the past director of Unborn Child
    Amendment Committee.  He is a former classroom teacher.  Jerry and his
    family live in Little Rock, Arkansas.

    *The opinions stated here solely reflect the personal opinions
    of Jerry Cox.  The views stated here do not reflect the opinions,
    endorsements, or preferences of any organization with which Jerry Cox has
    been, or is currently associated.

  • Guest

    Ron Paul authored H.R. 1094 This legislation seeks to define life as beginning at conception.

    Ron Paul also authored H.R. 300 which would negate the effect of Row v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.  

    Again he authored H.R. 1095 which prevents federal funds to b used for so-called population control.

    You have to understand that he is a Constitutionalist.  We need to create laws that conform to our Constitution and not negate it like Roe V. Wade did.

    If he was not pro-life  Norma McCorvey "Jan Roe" or Roe Vs. Wade would not have endorsed him saying: 

    “Ron Paul states, ‘The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty.’ I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade," McCorvey said Tuesday.

    "Ron Paul doesn't just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all," McCorvey added.

    "He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn," she said.

    "After taking all of the presidential candidates into consideration, it is obvious that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn't just talk the talk. For this reason and those stated above, I am publicly endorsing Ron Paul for president," McCorvey concluded.

    He has said on many occasions that he wants to protect ALL life.  As an OBGYN he has delivered 4000 babies.  And he has stated that he understands as a doctor he is supposed to protect life not destroy it.  Please research this.  It is too important not to.  There are plenty of youtube videos of him saying these things.


    He is the most pro-life candidate.  His foreign policy and Health Care policies are the most in line with Catholic Doctrine.  He respects the dignity of all people.  Please look him up and consider voting for him in the primaries!


    In Christ's Peace,