Posted on 10/11/2004 1:07:00 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
BAL HARBOUR, Fla. -- Raymond L. Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and US ambassador to the Vatican, injected himself into the presidential race yesterday with a pointed letter to John F. Kerry, his home-state senator and fellow Democrat.
Flynn, in an ad spreading across nearly an entire page of The New York Times, chided Kerry for insisting that, if elected president, he would appoint only people who support abortion rights to be justices on the Supreme Court.
''Removing political correctness from that statement, Senator Kerry, you have announced that you will only support people to the federal judiciary who support killing unborn children," Flynn wrote in an open letter funded by an organization of lay Catholics he heads, Liberty, Life and Family Inc. of Washington. The group, which bills itself as a nonpartisan entity, says its primary concern is preserving the civil rights of unborn children.
''This letter is not on behalf of or in opposition to your candidacy, but I am asking you to announce today that you will not impose any abortion litmus test on candidates for the federal judiciary -- especially those who are faithful Catholics," Flynn wrote to Kerry, listing Harvard Law School Professor Mary Ann Glendon as the type of potential jurist who would be excluded under Kerry's standard.
Kerry has denied that his standard amounts to a litmus test, only an assurance that any prospective justice would support a constitutionally protected right of privacy. Flynn's letter came two days after Kerry aides conceded the Democratic presidential nominee struggled when asked, during his debate Friday with President Bush, whether he would ban spending federal funds on abortion.......
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Kerry apparently hasn't figured out yet that, whenever he votes on anything he is perforce legislating it for those who don't share his belief -- unless it's a vote for National Brownie Week or something (though even then, I'm sure there'd be the odd opponent).
And Mary Ann Glendon would be great for the Supreme Court IMO. How someone as conservative and pro-life as she is manages at Harvard Law I can't imagine.
replyed = replied
Yikes.
GOOD.
I was a little worried that Flynn might not vociferously take Kerry to task.
Now I needn't worry.
The Constitution bans the establishment of a state religion. It does not ban morality; in fact, a close reading will demonstrate that morality is highly encouraged.
An anti-abortion position transcends any individual religion--it is not a "Catholic" issue simply because Catholic tenets oppose abortion. Catholics also oppose the murder of people who have managed to emerge from the womb unscathed. I haven't heard Kerry come out in favor of the murder of those citizens, even though it is a position that is contrary to the philosophy of other religious groups (okay, one religious group--Wahabi Muslims.)
At the church, Jackson and Sharpton repeatedly assailed Bush for his policies and the contentious 2000 election, in which thousands of black voters complained that their votes were discarded. The disputed election remains a rallying cry -- particularly among black voters, who have been slow to warm to Kerry, but whose strong support could turn the Florida vote.
Kerry pledged a legal team, led by former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer,to watch for voting disparities.
''Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America,'' Kerry declared from the pulpit, mixing parts of his standard stump speech with quotes from the Bible and religious parables.
The expressions of faith from Kerry, a Catholic, come as Republicans woo religious conservatives with social issues like abortion, limits on embryonic stem-cell research and a proposal to outlaw gay marriage. Kerry is opposed to same-sex marriage, but has been critical of Bush's effort to put a ban on it into the U.S. Constitution. ....***
The problem with this abortion issue, is that the whole issue is never discussed.
It's not as if Bush banned all abortions, he banned those late term abortions, and partial birth abortions, which is murder as far as I'm concerned.
Any abortion done when a child can survive outside of the womb is murder.
If a woman doesn't want their baby, and they wait this long then decide to abort, why can't they wait a little longer, and have the baby removed by c- section if necessary, and given to someone who wants the child?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't abortions in the first and second trimesters still allowed? (I'm against any abortion for the reason of "I don't want a kid" and beyond the first month of pregnancy)
Why would anyone who didn't want their child wait so long to get an abortion?
I know these are all questions you've heard a thousand times, I just never can understand why women would wait so long to do such a thing. You'd think that a mind would be made up within the first month.
Of course, why they get pregnant in the first place is always hard to understand, considering that there are so many ways to prevent it in the first place, the cheapest way being keeping their legs together.
What about responsibility for your actions? I do realize that in some situations, an abortion is warranted.
I have 2 children, We could have had 3, but we lost one, due to an idiotic motorist who decided slapping my pregnant wife on the ass while she was riding her bike home from work, causing her to crash when she was 5 months pregnant. To me, that was manslaughter, and that child lost her life ( She would have been our only daughter, we have 2 sons)because of an idiot. I felt the loss just as much as I would loosing one of my children who are all grown up now.
I just never had the chance to see this one grow up.
This is why I can't understand abortions, especialy so late in the pregnacy.
The loss of your daughter is heartbreaking.
Your points are something too many pro-abortion activists avoid.
Lurch's whole stance on abortion is that he can't force his own beliefs onto those who don't agree. So he sides with the pro-abortionists. However, now he's forcing the pro side onto the anti-abortionists (a much larger group).
In conclusion, you can't ever say you vote one way or another to "protect" rights of anyone - you make a stand based on what you believe, and stick with it. Cash-and-Kerry's problem is that he knows his beliefs are unpopular with the majority of Americans. He very simply doesn't care about that aspect.
poll attached to article:
Flynn letter scolds Kerry on abortion
What do you think of John Kerry’s position on abortion: that as a Catholic he is personally opposed to it, but he doesn’t believe he can legislate or impose his faith on others?
I think it makes sense and is as easily understood as the saying, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s.” 65.8%
I don’t think it makes sense and is confusing, as President Bush pointed out in the last debate. 34.2%
Total votes: 424
http://www.boston.com/
Afterward, Kerry taped a series of television commercials at his oceanfront hotel before flying to Sante Fe, N.M., to prepare for his third and final debate with Bush on Wednesday in Tempe, Az. Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton, will assist Kerry, aides said, because of his familiarity with domestic issues -- the focus of the debate -- and his ability to speak about them in memorable ways.
Barney Frank speaks about homosexual issues in memorable ways.
That's what it's going to take. Good Catholics need to stand up and tell these politicians to either walk the faith, or stop claiming it.
B. Frank is certainly memorable.
Hooray for Flynn! I'm glad even the odious Globe had to take notice of Kerry's unconstitutional religious test that would exclude believing orthodox Catholics from office.
My son was born premature and by the judgement of the majority of the doctors in attendance was deemed "non-viable", i.e., incapable of surviving in a normal manner after birth. Would abortion be acceptable in this case (i.e., a child delivered from the mother but incapable of surviving on his own)? If not, why?
It's one thing to be chastised by your oponent in a political forum. But being chastised by an official of your own church or denomination should prove devastating and cause a complete 180 degree turnaround in your life. JK does not love the unborn children. Have mercy dear lord....
The article in the Register pointed out that Flynn had gotten Kerry into the Senate before Kerry became very Pro-Abortion.
Ray Flynn has a great deal of integrity, but if one goes to an older article called Dems exclude Catholics from:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=31160
[The Catholic World News], it talks how Governor Bob Casey, Sr, was excluded from the 1992 Democratic convention, and how, in Ray Flynn's own words:
...that the average American's opinions, especially on such matters as abortion and gay marriage, just aren't being heard or welcomed at the Democratic National Convention and by the Democratic Party in general.
These articles by Flynn should be given out at every Catholic and Christian Church to show how far left the Democratic Party is today, and why Zell Miller is as outspoken as he is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.