We all had a good deal in common, politically and otherwise. For example, we all unanimously agreed that abortion was a heinous evil. At that time, I was a registered Republican, as I had been since I’d turned 18, while others in the group were lifelong Democrats. Party affiliation aside, there was never any question in my mind that I must always vote pro-life. I would choose a pro-life Democrat any day over a pro-abortion Republican.
However, some of my Democrat singles friends, though professing their opposition to abortion, voted for Bill Clinton not just once, but twice. Their decision to vote an unabashedly pro-abortion politician into the highest elected office in the land mystified and frustrated me.
“How could they do it?” I wondered. When Clinton was running for his first term in 1992, I immediately smelled the rat. To me, the Gennifer Flowers incident was more than enough indicator of the sort of president he would make: If he'd cheat on his wife, what was to prevent him from cheating on his fellow citizens? If he could commit adultery with impunity, how much concern could he possibly have for a new human life that might result from such an action?
I was baffled, but I was willing to extend my pro-Clinton friends the benefit of the doubt. Okay, okay, so Clinton had adulterous affairs before he won the White House. Okay, maybe he'd turned a new leaf. Maybe I was wrong.
However, as Clinton's first term wore on and his true stripes became increasingly visible, I realized that the rat I'd thought I'd smelled was indeed the rat I thought I smelled. Particularly heinous was his unswerving support of abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. No person of goodwill, no matter what party affiliation, could possibly vote him a second term. Certainly my friends could see that too — or so I thought.
Clinton ran for a second term in 1996, and again, my friends who had voted for him the first time, voted for him a second time.
When I found that out, I went ballistic. “How can you vote for a man who supports baby killing?” I demanded. Their replies were simple and indicative of unexamined habit: “Because we've always voted Democrat” — just like their parents and grandparents before them.
My friends are typical of the many people in this country to whom we owe the cultural demise now facing our nation. They either can't see, or don't care, that in the past decade the Democratic Party has morphed from the party of the “little guy” to the party of abortion on demand, homosexuality and pornography. In short, it has become the party of death. And the root of its death-knell is sexual libertinism.
Today, the Democratic Party's chosen successor, Al Gore, seeks our vote. Will he get it? More importantly, can our country survive another four years of a Clinton-type administration? Like Clinton, Gore supports abortion, the homosexual agenda, and pornography.
Unfortunately, countless media sources appear eager to help make “Gore for four” a reality. One of the techniques they employ is failing to explain the linguistic deceptions used by pro-death candidates.
For example, Catholic Digest asks on the cover of its current issue, in bold red letters, “Bush or Gore?” What kind of question is that? Why does a Catholic magazine even raise the question in readers' minds that Gore, a pro-abortion zealot, is a viable choice in this election?
Inside the issue are transcripts of interviews with George W. Bush and Al Gore. Included in the Gore interview is an appealing photograph of the candidate shown walking and smiling on a country road with his wife, four children, son-in-law and infant grandson. In contrast, the Bush interview includes unflattering photos of the candidate with his mouth hanging open.
To a question from the editors about abortion, Gore replies, “I strongly support a woman's right to choose . . . I believe that where the woman's life or serious injury to her health is concerned, that decision should be hers.”
What do average voters infer when they see such photos and read such statements? Where is the photo of Bush smiling with his family? And why isn't any guidance provided to help readers understand Gore's deceptive language? Why doesn't the magazine explain that the phrase “a woman's right to choose” really means abortion-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy (read: murder) and that “a woman's health” means any excuse, no matter how trivial, to get an abortion?
By failing to disclose the meaning of such language, publications make it more likely that pro-life readers will vote for the candidate who will advance the culture of death.
The scenarios I've just given — rote habit and lack of media discernment — are only a couple of examples of the destructive forces that conspire to prevent people from voting pro-life. Yet, the abortion issue is the defining issue of this election. It's pretty difficult to debate any other social concerns, such as a living wage, affordable housing, or adequate healthcare, if your life has been snuffed out in the womb.
For pro-life people, there can be no other issue this Tuesday. There is only one choice: We must vote pro-life. And in nearly every case, that means not voting for Democratic Party candidates — and especially not for Candidate Gore.
