Skip to comments.50 Republican Incumbents Undeserving of Support by Pro-life Voters
Posted on 09/06/2005 3:48:24 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
The Republican National Coalition for Life PAC is currently receiving phone calls from Republican candidates for Congress in the 2006 Republican primaries.
Our usual practice is to mail our Candidate Questionnaire to Republican candidates in each district as soon as the filing deadlines are reached. When we receive the results of the questionnaire, they are recorded on our website at www.RNCLife.org so that voters can see for themselves it those seeking to represent them in Washington are truly pro-life. We hope that this service has been helpful to our friends and supporters in the past, and we plan to do the same during this election cycle.
However, a very telling vote occurred in the U.S. House on May 24th, through which 50 Republican House Members voted to pass H.R. 810, the bill that expands federal funding for research that involves the killing of human beings at the embryonic stage of development. You will likely be surprised to see some of the names on the list of those who cast an anti-life vote on H.R. 810, because they have generally been considered to be pro-life. This is no longer the case.
Below are the names of the Republican House Members, most, if not all, of whom will be running for re-election. These people clearly showed, through their support for H.R. 810, their disregard for innocent human life. Because of this, RNC/Life PAC considers them unworthy of support by pro-life voters.
(AK) Don Young (AZ) Jim Kolbe (CA) Bill Thomas; Howard McKeon; David Dreier; Jerry Lewis; Ken Calvert; Mary Bono; Dana Rohrabacher; Darrell Issa; Randy Cunningham (CT) Robert Simmons; Chris Shays; Nancy Johnson (DE) Mike Castle (FL) Ginny Brown-Waite; Bill Young; Connie Mack; Mark Foley; Clay Shaw (IL) Mark Kirk; Judy Biggert (IA) Jim Leach (MD) Wayne Gilchrest (MI) Fred Upton; Joe Schwarz (MN) Jim Ramstad (MO) Jo Ann Emerson (NV) James Gibbons; Jon Porter (NH) Jeb Bradley; Charles Bass (NJ) Rodney Frelinghuysen (NM) Heather Wilson (NY) Vito Fossella; Sue Kelly; John Sweeney; Sherwood Boehlert (NC) Howard Coble (OH) Steven La Tourette; Deborah Pryce; Ralph Regula (OR) Greg Walden (PA) Jim Gerlach; Charles Dent; Todd Platts (TX) Joe Barton; Kay Granger (VA) Tom Davis (WV) Shelley Moore Capito.
Democrats who defied their partys leadership and displayed their pro-life convictions by voting against federal funding of research on human embryos are: (GA) Jim Marshall (IL) Dan Lipinski; Jerry Costello (MI) Bart Stupak; Dale Kildee (MN) Collin Peterson; James Oberstar (NC) Mike McIntyre (OH) Marcy Kaptur (PA) Tim Holden (TN) Lincoln Davis (WV) Alan Mollohan; Nick Rahall.
As you listen to and read the campaign rhetoric please remember H.R. 810. Its not they say, its what they DO that counts!
WASHINGTON (August 31, 2005) Before the end of September, the U.S. Senate may vote on legislation that would mandate federal funding of research that requires the killing of human embryos.
The bill, H.R. 810, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 24, 2005. H.R. 810 would require federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which would require the killing of human embryos. President Bush has said that he will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
* Each human being begins as a human embryo. Tell your senators that you agree with President Bush that the government should not fund research that requires the killing of human embryos.
* Stem cells can be obtained without killing human embryos, from umbilical cord blood and from various types of adult tissue. Already, humans with at least 58 different disease conditions have received therapeutic benefit from treatment with such adult stem cells. In contrast, embryonic stem cells have not been tested in humans at all because of the dangers, including frequent formation of tumors. Tell your senators that you favor ethical adult stem cell research, not research that requires killing human embryos.
* Those who favor federal funding of research that kills human embryos sometimes claim that these embryos will be discarded anyway, but this need not be so. Many human embryos have been adopted, or simply donated by their biological parents to other infertile couples, and are happy children today. Tell your senators that you favor human embryo adoption, not dissection.
* The biotech industry intends to create human embryos by cloning, specifically for the purpose of using them in medical research, including stem cell research, that will kill them. Urge your senators to act now to ban human cloning before these human embryo farms get started.
NEW STEM-CELL POLL [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Here's David Espo of AP: "Republicans who dissent from President Bush's policy are circulating a poll designed to show they have the party's voters on their side even if many fellow GOP lawmakers are not."
He highlights the poll's finding that 57 percent of 800 Republicans polled favored embryonic stem-cell research while only 40 percent opposed. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican pushing for expanded funding of the research and for allowing research on cloned embryos, tells Espo: "Anytime you see a poll like that, that's a strong preference. Members of Congress understand polls."
Members of Congress, one hopes, also understand the limitations of polls--and of the ways interested parties like Castle can spin them. Here are some specific things they ought to understand:
-- The 57-40 percent support for embryonic stem-cell research does not indicate where public opinion stands on taxpayer funding or on cloning--the positions Castle favors. Dave Winston, who conducted the poll, tells me that these numbers, while interesting, do not reflect the policy question.
-- When asked their preference, 25 percent of Republicans said they wanted no government funding of the research, 33 percent favored the limited funding Bush offers, and 36 percent wanted expanded funding to cover research on leftover embryos at fertility clinics. So 58 percent of Republicans were with Bush or to his right, while only 36 percent were with Castle (and even that's with a question that arguably hypes the potential of the research).
-- Another finding: 70 percent of Republicans approved of the job Bush was doing on stem cells.
-- The 57-40 result came after respondents were exposed to 3 arguments for embryonic stem-cell research and 2 against it. I respect Winston's polling, and there are judgment calls on which arguments to select, but I think the ones he used tend to drive the numbers up artificially.
The argument that adult stem cell research is promising and does not involve ethical problems, and should therefore be pursued first, is the chief argument of the congressional opponents of the research. (I'm not find of this argument myself, but there's no denying it's the top one opponents are using.) Yet it's not one of the arguments presented to respondents.
Respondents are, however, presented with the argument that "fertility treatments should not be permitted" because they create embryos that will eventually be destroyed. Almost nobody is arguing for that position, it's an unpopular position, and it's only tangentially related to the policy question actually before the Congress.
-- Respondents were asked, understandably given the politics though somewhat oddly as an abstract matter, about what they thought about the promise of various lines of research. Sixty-nice percent thought that embryonic stem-cell research might generate medical advances. But when asked which avenue of research held the most promise, only 24 percent picked embryonic stem-cell research. Another 21 percent said adult stem-cell research, 31 percent said cord-blood stem-cell research, and 24 percent said (as I would have) that they didn't know.
These numbers aren't terrific for pro-lifers, but they're not the slam-dunk for Castle's side of this debate that he (and the Associated Press) would have us believe.
Bookmarked, thank you.
Throw them all out!
Politicians are human wind socks. Most of them believe in nothing but determining which way the wind is blowing during election time.
"Below are the names of the Republican House Members, most, if not all, of whom will be running for re-election. These people clearly showed, through their support for H.R. 810, their disregard for innocent human life. Because of this, RNC/Life PAC considers them unworthy of support by pro-life voters.
(AK) Don Young (AZ) Jim Kolbe (CA) Bill Thomas; Howard McKeon; David Dreier; Jerry Lewis; Ken Calvert; Mary Bono; Dana Rohrabacher; Darrell Issa; Randy Cunningham (CT) Robert Simmons; Chris Shays; Nancy Johnson (DE) Mike Castle (FL) Ginny Brown-Waite; Bill Young; Connie Mack; Mark Foley; Clay Shaw (IL) Mark Kirk; Judy Biggert (IA) Jim Leach (MD) Wayne Gilchrest (MI) Fred Upton; Joe Schwarz (MN) Jim Ramstad (MO) Jo Ann Emerson (NV) James Gibbons; Jon Porter (NH) Jeb Bradley; Charles Bass (NJ) Rodney Frelinghuysen (NM) Heather Wilson (NY) Vito Fossella; Sue Kelly; John Sweeney; Sherwood Boehlert (NC) Howard Coble (OH) Steven La Tourette; Deborah Pryce; Ralph Regula (OR) Greg Walden (PA) Jim Gerlach; Charles Dent; Todd Platts (TX) Joe Barton; Kay Granger (VA) Tom Davis (WV) Shelley Moore Capito."
Some of these names are indeed surprising. Obviously a lot of pro-lifers decided to waffle when it comes to stem-cell research because they're afraid of the Christopher Reeves vote. Of the 50 Republicans, at least 21 of them usually vote pro-life: Don Young; Howard McKeon; David Dreier; Jerry Lewis; Ken Calvert; Dana Rohrabacher; Duke Cunningham; Bill Young; Clay Shaw; Jo Ann Emerson; Jon Porter; Heather Wilson; Vito Fossella; John Sweeney; Howard Coble; Steven La Tourette; Ralph Regula; Greg Walden; Jim Gerlach; Todd Platts; and Joe Barton.
"Democrats who defied their partys leadership and displayed their pro-life convictions by voting against federal funding of research on human embryos are: (GA) Jim Marshall (IL) Dan Lipinski; Jerry Costello (MI) Bart Stupak; Dale Kildee (MN) Collin Peterson; James Oberstar (NC) Mike McIntyre (OH) Marcy Kaptur (PA) Tim Holden (TN) Lincoln Davis (WV) Alan Mollohan; Nick Rahall."
Most of these are principled pro-lifers. Oberstar, Rahall, Kildee and Kaptur vote liberal on most issues but are consistently pro-life. Costello, Lipinski and Stupak are moderates who consistently vote pro-life. Peterson, McIntyre, Holden, Davis and Mollohan are conservatives who not only vote pro-life, but cast conservative votes on other issues and would be able to switch to the GOP without skipping a beat. The only hypocrite in the bunch is Jim Marshall of Georgia, who almost always votes pro-abortion and is a liberal on most other issues as well but is scared that he'll be defeated for reelection in his GOP-trending district.
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 -
Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
(1) have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
(2) were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
(3) were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment); and
(4) were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Get ready to be scolded by the win-even-if-it-means-selling-your-soul republicans. Thanks for posting this.
contact firstname.lastname@example.org , or check their website in about 60 days
BUMPING YOUR BLOG http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/
which has a copy of your letter to Frist."
An Open Letter to Senator Bill Frist Regarding Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research"
And .. of course that makes the democrats MORE DESERVING OF SUPPORT - JUST TO SHOW THOSE REPUBS WHO'S IN CHARGE!! /s
People need to get real!
I'm glad you liked my Open Letter to Bill Frist. Feel free to pass it around.
The Rammer (what he call him) is a classic RINO. The problem is he's in a safe seat.
Vito Fossella; I'm surprised.
I saw this list-3 from PA.
Good post. Stuff to remember at election time.
More republicans than that are un-deserving of the anti-socialism vote..
There are two who are in real danger of primary defeats.
One, Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), faces a primary challenge from ex-state Representative Randy Graf. Graf is emphasizing border security but is also strongly pro-life.
Joe Schwarz (R-MI) first won last year because several pro-life candidates split the conservative vote. If conservatives can rally around one candidate, he can win if he gets proper support.
The Republican National Coalition For Life should focus their recourses on those two winnable races.
Thanks for the ping!
He ran as a pro-lifer -- what has he voted the wrong way on?
Is not pro-life, IIRC. A few of the others were notable for not being the most principled members, but some were surprises.
As for Joe Schwarz he can be beaten with a strong primary challenger. He is well known for being pro-choice, as well as anti-gun(and somewhat pro-tax as well). He only won in 2004 because conservatives split their votes among several challengers in different parts of the district. Schwarz took advantage of that, as well as some democrat crossover votes. He won with under 30% in the primary, and was lucky to face a weak democrat who was underfunded.
On the democrat side, Dale Kildee is extremely liberal on most issues(unions, guns, economics), but he is pro-life due to his Catholic religion(he went to Sacred Heart Seminary).
Bart Stupak (also Catholic) is a moderate democrat from the Upper Peninsula. The district voted for Bush twice and has a majority of conservative democrats who split their tickets. Stupak is erratic on many issues, but is solidly pro-life, as is his district. A pro-choicer would likely be defeated there as the district is socially conservative, and economically somewhat populist.
Since GOPcapitalist left Free Republic I have only you to ask. Joe Batron a good conservative is on this list, any idea what's up?
I thought he already announced he was not seeking reelection.
He's generally pro-life-especially in comparison to his predecessor in office-but not an absolutist-for better or worse-on most social issues.
My problem with this subject-and this was alluded to in Ramesh's NR piece-is that it's so often framed within the parameters of a debate between implacably anti-science, religiously orthodox Luddites-a la Steve Reich-and enlightened, progressive forces that only want to enrich the lives of desperately impaired Americans suffering incomparable grief and pain as a result of chronic illnesses.
I take issue with this notion, since it doesn't take into account the moral dimensions inherent in bioethics, and dismisses legitimate moral concerns that arise from both religious and non-theist individuals who don't believe that human beings-or incipient life-should be tampered with in order to further the aims of scientific research, no matter how valuable such scientific discoveries might be.
Even if you accept the premise that embryonic stem cell research will ultimately prove more profitable than other less objectionable alternatives, e.g. adult stem cell and blood cord research, rather than merely a biomedical dead-end, as was the case with the equally promising-but ultimately fruitless-field of fetal tissue research several years ago, that still doesn't resolve the crux of the problem, which is the existing conflict between exigent medical needs and longstanding ethical qualms about reducing the amount of respect accorded to potential human life.
I don't think you have to be of a particularly conspiratorial mindset to extrapolate from what the government is being asked to do now, i.e. rescind any and all restrictions placed upon embryonic stem cell research, and perhaps endorse therapeutic cloning, to a future scenario where the federal government has put its imprimatur of acceptance on mass harvesting of human embryos for any and every conceivable reason, including-quite possibly-merely for cosmetic purposes.
The advocates for these sorts of procedures place a premium on the duration and quality of life, which are indeed very important, but the quality of an individual's life doesn't necessarily encompass the entire sweep of humanity.
Unfortunate, but typical of Republicans. They treat us the way Dimmycraps treat blacks.
It looks like they based this soley on the stem cell vote.
While I disagree w/ Barton on that bill, declaring him to not be pro-life, as if one bill wipes out his entire record, doesn't strike as having a whole lot of credibility.
The local Right to Life has kind of gone off the deep end too. I used to be somewhat involved with them, but I think they've lost perspective. They view themselves as sole judges and spokesmen for the movement, which just isn't true anymore. When they take a solid anti-abortion legislator, and call that person an "enemy of life" on the basis of one vote, they lose credibility. I've seen the local group do the same thing, where they completely disregard some legislator's solid anti-abortion record because they disagreed on a research bill.
Sorry, when I said "the local group," I was thinking of Texas Right to Life, not the Republican Coalition for Life.
In any event, we are winning more than we are losing, and could win more if we weren't so damned determined to purge all the 95%ers.
These are moral and ethical questions that government is not capable of resolving, but encroaching federalism will enforce our condecension. Questions of law best left to state governments to define citizenship and the rights thereof. At least in that arena, moral questions have a chance, because morality is not a universal. Morality is a code of conduct.
I agree with a solid majority of Americans and scientists that embryonic stem cell research is promising and will save millions of lives down the road. It's an embryo, not a fetus! Be consistently pro-life and allow universities federal funding for this life-saving research.
Although I don't think anyone is advocating federal intervention against states that choose to experiment with embryonic stem cell research, e.g. California, New Jersey, among others.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a reflexive prejudice against exploring other avenues of biomedical research.
It's almost as if some public officials have already reached the conclusion that this is the only viable way of finding treatments for chronic diseases before all of the data is in, which is the opposite of how the scientific method should (ideally) work.
Agreed, and my thanks.
Yes. Because the right to life forces challenge the cloaked defense of abortion, and as you say, the debate is painted with the broad brush of fanaticism.
The public is fed false hopes of miracle cures and the people who would deny that hope are made evil.
Unfortunately, we can forget about the scientific community doing anything to help the situation because they've proved themselves to be $$$ whores. They'll walk away with pockets full of money and say it's all a "policy decision" and they have nothing to do with it. So we are funding the promise of a promise.
And you're right again. It's the opposite of scientific method. But no one (except that rare honest person)is going to come forward and block one avenue of research against another because no one really knows what the outcome of either avenue will be, and they don't want to be perceived as standing in the way of progress.
Look at what happened in the Terri Schiavo debate. She was painted as a hopeless vegetable and even with a willing and able family to care for her, her life could not be spared and those who supported sparing her life were called a bunch of nuts.
Bush is right to say the government should err on the side of life. But he's sounding like one voice in the wilderness. I had hopes for Frist, because he was one person who could have lent a good deal of credibility in this debate, and he turned out to be another politician.
only one in MN? Is that because of the low percentage of Repubs from MN or... :-)
"The only hypocrite in the bunch is Jim Marshall of Georgia, who almost always votes pro-abortion
He ran as a pro-lifer -- what has he voted the wrong way on?"
Is not pro-life, IIRC."
Many of these are perposterous. Want to know what Republicans don't deserve pro-life support? Ones that are Democrats. Even a pro-choice Republicans are more helpful to pro-life ones then even pro-life democrats.
There are a few exceptions, Chaffee is the only promenant one I know of, but very few.