Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Interview: Governor Huckabee Addresses Anti-Catholicism and Abortion
Catholic Online ^ | 12/29/07 | Deacon Keith Fournier

Posted on 12/29/2007 8:40:49 AM PST by tcg

Following our first interview with Governor Mike Huckabee there was an intimation of anti-catholicism by several pundits and commentators. We asked the Governor directly about this and about another issue of importance to our Catholic Online readers and viewers.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; anticatholicism; huckabee; president Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: tcg

Well Catholics are the second biggest group of people sneaking across our border. LOL


2 posted on 12/29/2007 8:45:31 AM PST by cripplecreek (Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Bump!

FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:

3 posted on 12/29/2007 8:49:47 AM PST by W04Man (I'm Now With Fred http://Vets4Fred.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

According to the CIA or the Denver Post? :)


4 posted on 12/29/2007 8:51:59 AM PST by coramdeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Boy Huckabee really has set his store on a religious approach to this campaign. To my mind, he has walked into a huge trap by discussing religions rather than public policy issues. It’s one thing to draw on support from religious folks, quite another to be in the middle of a storm over whose religion is best, or whether you discriminate against some religions.


5 posted on 12/29/2007 8:55:09 AM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

This is breaking news?


6 posted on 12/29/2007 9:03:39 AM PST by mngran2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

tcg: “In regard to exceptions, experience has shown that health of the mother exceptions are so broad that they result in ‘carte blanche’ abortion on demand. Consequently, I do not support an exception in those terms.”

I’m no doctor, but Huck seems awfully sure of himself. So abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother? Apparently some doctors disagree, but I suppose Huck’s “theology” degree gives him a better understanding of the various medical issues.

Abortion shouldn’t be an alternate form of birth control, but I won’t go so far as to say it’s always morally wrong. So long as the doctors aim to preserve life, I don’t believe it’s sinful to choose to terminate one life in order to save another. That isn’t the same thing as murder. To put it another way, there’s a huge difference between an abortionist and a MD who is trying to make the best possible decision for all lives involved. Any doctors in FReeperland agree or disagree?


7 posted on 12/29/2007 9:21:59 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
So abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother?

Has been discussed, rediscussed and discussed again on these pages and many others.

Suffice it to say, an actual threat to the mother's life from a non-ectoptic pregnancy is so rare as to be nonexistent in most ob-gyn practices. I just read the other day that death to the mother from a rupture related to even an ectopic pregnancy is rare now, providing she can be treated quickly at a modern medical facility.

I personally know of a case in which it was stated that a young woman's life would be endangered by a pregnancy due to her congenital disorders, yet she went on to have five children, all doing well as is she.

8 posted on 12/29/2007 9:41:13 AM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steve86
IOW not non-existent.

What would you or Huckabee do with the not non-existent occurrences?

9 posted on 12/29/2007 9:47:08 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

**second biggest group **

Aren’t they the first?


10 posted on 12/29/2007 9:48:34 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve86; wagglebee; From many - one.
Pray for an end to abortion and the conversion of America to a mindset of life!

11 posted on 12/29/2007 9:50:24 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Are you a medical doctor? Are you stating abortion is never, ever medically necessary?


12 posted on 12/29/2007 9:52:51 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
“In regard to exceptions, experience has shown that health of the mother exceptions are so broad that they result in ‘carte blanche’ abortion on demand. Consequently, I do not support an exception in those terms.”

Notice in that quote he is talking “Health” exceptions and not “Life” exceptions. Big difference!

Many that are pro-life would accept a “Life of Mother” exception but the RATS will vote against that because they know that would be one in a million.

Rats want the “Health” word used because they can justify 100% of abortions by saying anything could effect health.

A headache or any such side effect of birth would qualify for them.

13 posted on 12/29/2007 9:59:40 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Salvation: “Pray for an end to abortion and the conversion of America to a mindset of life!”

Agreed! As a Christian, I have an obligation to witness and convince others to have “a mindset of life!” That is truly the best way to protect life, far better than using law to enforce morality. Law is very poor substitute for individual morality.


14 posted on 12/29/2007 10:01:04 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Beagle8U: “Notice in that quote he is talking “Health” exceptions and not “Life” exceptions. Big difference!”

Sounds quite reasonable to me. I have never heard of “life” exceptions as opposed to ones for “health,” but based on your post, life exceptions seem a very reasonable approach. Believe me, I’m pro-life. I think the unborn should be cherished and loved, even in cases of rape and incest, but I’m not in favor of using the heavy hand of the federal government to make all abortions illegal. The real problem here is a SCOTUS that usurped our power by making abortion a right. The best way to win this culture war is by winning hearts and minds, not creating new laws.


15 posted on 12/29/2007 10:12:12 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Well Catholics are the second biggest group of people sneaking across our border. LOLAnd throughout history have been the first largest group to come here legally.
16 posted on 12/29/2007 10:19:17 AM PST by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

BTW, I don’t think Huckabee has a nuanced view of abortion like yourself. I think he sees it more as a black and white issue. Either way, his support for a HLA is irrelevant, because he almost certainly cannot deliver one. He MIGHT be able to appoint judges who are opposed to Roe v. Wade, but he cannot even guarantee that. In other words, his effective position on abortion is the same as most of the other Republican candidates.


17 posted on 12/29/2007 10:20:14 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Abortion shouldn’t be an alternate form of birth control, but I won’t go so far as to say it’s always morally wrong. So long as the doctors aim to preserve life, I don’t believe it’s sinful to choose to terminate one life in order to save another. That isn’t the same thing as murder. To put it another way, there’s a huge difference between an abortionist and a MD who is trying to make the best possible decision for all lives involved. Any doctors in FReeperland agree or disagree?

I’m not a doctor and I agree that abortion should never, ever be used as a from of after the fact birth control or a way of weeding out children base on sex or possible physical or mental disabilities. Life, both that of the mother and that of the child, should be preserved in all cases when ever it is ethically, medically and reasonably possible to do so.

That being said there are some very rare cases when the life of the mother vs. the life of the unborn child is at risk and that is no easy decision for an ethical medical professional, mother or family member to decide. An entopic pregnancy is one situation where the baby can’t possibly come even close to term and the mother will certainly die so therefore it is ethical to save the mother’s life. That decision should not be left up to government bureaucrats.

If all medical possibilities are exhausted and when it comes down to a life or death decision in a moment of crisis, I would prefer to see the mother live, especially if she already has children to care for who depend on her and the likelihood she would be able to have more children in the future. But that is again a very rare scenario but then not unheard of either.

My niece and her husband gave birth to a beautiful, healthy baby daughter last April. I was honored to be present for the birth and it was a wondrous and beautiful experience. Four months ago, they found out they were pregnant again – with triplets!

While a pregnancy with triplets is high risk by it’s self, the fact she gave birth not long ago and her cervix is still week makes it even riskier for her. She is at a high risk for hemorrhage and other serious complications. Early in her pregnancy, she found out that two of the babies share the same uterine sack and share an umbilical cord. She was presented with the option of having what her previous doctor called a “selective reduction”, meaning to abort the higher risk twins to potentially save the life of the third baby and reduce the risk to herself. She and her husband discussed it at length and decided to go forward with the pregnancy and give birth to all three if possible.

She has a new OBY doctor, a specialist in high risk pregnancies and he is committed to see her and the babies deliver safely. So far things are going well. The goal it to get them to 32 weeks then deliver as to go longer only more greatly jeopardizes the risk that the twins will strangle in the umbilical cord and the greater risks of complications to their mother.

While we, her family and her friends are doing everything we can to support her and help her care for an 8 month old, we know that this road is fraught with many dangers. While delivery at 32 weeks is the goal, it is very possible that the babies will come sooner and may not survive.

I’m glad that she, her husband and doctors are committed to seeing this through to its best possible outcome. But if things do not go well and if my niece’s life is in immediate danger and a decision has to be made, I would hope that my niece lives. While we would all morn the loss of any of these babies, her 8 month old baby and teenage daughter need their mother.
18 posted on 12/29/2007 10:49:47 AM PST by Caramelgal (Rely on the spirit and meaning of the teachings, not on the words or superficial interpretations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
“BTW, I don’t think Huckabee has a nuanced view of abortion like yourself.”

I don’t have a “nuanced” view of abortion. I’m 100% pro-life on the abortion issue.

I would vote for an abortion ban with a “Life” exception but against a “Health” exception for the reasons I stated.

I support Fred Thompson BTW.

19 posted on 12/29/2007 10:50:33 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Another sermon by Brother Huckabee?


20 posted on 12/29/2007 10:51:37 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

There are a lot of ways to fight abortion — offering alternatives, educating people to what abortion really is, etc. But the MOST IMPORTANT thing one can do is to make abortion illegal — to shut down the abortion mills. Sure, there will still be some illegal abortion, but there is illegal prostitution and murder now.


21 posted on 12/29/2007 11:06:19 AM PST by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal

Thank you very much for the personal story. That, to me, seems the best way to cope with a problem pregnancy. People should favor life and do everything reasonable to protect the lives of both mother and unborn. If, God forbid, a situation threatened the life of the triplets or mother where a choice needed to be made, I would prefer the choice be left to the parents (based on the available medical information) and not determined by law. I suspect my opinion is also the majority opinion in the US. Those who are adamantly in favor of or opposed to abortion in every circumstance are not in the mainstream of political thought, and as long as abortion foes continue to fight an all or nothing battle on abortion, they will likely be disappointed. Agree?


22 posted on 12/29/2007 11:10:28 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

guitarist: “But the MOST IMPORTANT thing one can do is to make abortion illegal — to shut down the abortion mills.”

Perhaps, but that isn’t likely to happen, at least not nationally. I’ll go as far as to say it almost certainly won’t happen nationally. In my opinion, this issue needs to return to States. People, like Huckabee, who want to rewrite the US Constitution to fit their socially conservative agenda won’t succeed. They don’t have the numbers. That may not be a popular opinion, but I think it’s an accurate one.

I happen to be very socially conservative, btw, but where does individual morality and responsibility come into this? Do we conservatives actually think we can win simply by passing laws? Laws, for the most part, reflect society.


23 posted on 12/29/2007 11:18:19 AM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

In the days before Roe v. Wade, when the size of the abortion holocaust was unthinkable, Ronald Reagan was persuaded as governor of California to sign a bill allowing abortion to protect the life or health of the mother.

He did so, I believe, because he had no idea how that would be twisted by the Culture of Death. When he saw what happened, that “health” would be twisted to mean any trivial excuse, he repented having signed the bill, and was reliably pro-life thereafter.

As others have indicated on this thread, the health clause became an excuse to kill for any and all reasons. Basically, it was interpreted as a convenience clause.

Catholic teaching says that if the life of the mother is genuinely at risk, then an abortion can be licit, not because an abortion is intended, but because it is an unfortunate side effect of saving the mother’s life.

Such instances are extremely rare. Tubal pregnancies are one case, where at least until recently it was impossible to save the baby’s life, and if nothing was done the mother would die too.

Another instance is if the mother has cancer, chemotherapy is necessary to save her life, but the side effects of it would abort the baby. There have, in fact, been several instances where mothers have voluntarily died in such circumstances in order to save the baby, but that is a voluntary decision on their part, not required by the Church’s teachings. Still, one such mother who died for her child has been named a saint. Which is to say that such a sacrifice amounts to extraordinary virtue and love, not something that can be required.


24 posted on 12/29/2007 11:23:37 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Campaign non-news hardly BREAKING.


25 posted on 12/29/2007 11:25:35 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

Huckabee is not my candidate, but this has not been fair to him at all. It was posted last week that Huck spoke at Hagee’s church and Hagee has made anti-Catholic remarks. The intimation was that Huck agrees with anti-Catholicism. What a reach!! Alleging guilt by association is evil.

In addition, how true are the allegations re Hagee?

Jesus befriended a tax collector; did that make him an endorser of usury, etc.?

These kinds of smear “controversies” are for the brain-dead.


26 posted on 12/29/2007 11:30:50 AM PST by La Enchiladita (For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

I don’t believe Catholic Online is an official Church source either, but an independent forum with its own take on the faith.


27 posted on 12/29/2007 11:32:02 AM PST by La Enchiladita (For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

The allegations against Hagee come from Hagee’s own book, which is an ugly revisionist view of history that blames the Catholic Church and its theology for the Holocaust.

I’ve searched far and wide trying to find the full text of Huckabee’s sermon at Hagee’s church, but it’s not to be found. I would love to know if he said anything to Hagee’s flock about anti-Catholicism, since he’s so pro-Catholic and all. I would bet not, since he called the bigot Hagee “one of the great Christian leaders of our nation.”

Like Huckabee’s other sermons from his stint as a Baptist minister, this appears to be under lock and key. I wonder why? Shouldn’t we get to judge this man, who presents himself as a “Christian leader,” on his words about Christ?

As for Catholic Online, Keith Fournier is a well-known politically liberal Catholic who unfortunately grabbed the name catholic.org a long time ago. He does not speak with any authority other than his own, and I’m not a bit surprised to see that he has his lips firmly attached to Huckabee’s backside. Fournier, like Huckabee, is a liberal, pro-life populist.


28 posted on 12/30/2007 6:44:31 AM PST by LadyNavyVet (An independent Freeper, not paid by any political campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet

I left one liberally political minefield (the Episcopal church) for another (the Catholic church). At least, in my parish, politics are kept out of the Mass and the Church bulletin. I’ve noticed that Catholic Online forum is very slow; Fournier is probably trying to build up traffic. But, it’s a shame that the unwary might go there to try to learn about doctrine and other spiritual values of the Church.

I appreciate your post. I just think any allegation against a candidate should be well-founded. I do not care for the fact that Hucklebuck is a pastor, nor do I care for him or any other candidate campaigning in a church.

Church leaders should have the integrity to stay away from political endorsements. Obviously, Hagee has a problem with integrity in that regard and, based on what you read in his book, he teaches religious bigotry.

Sounds like the kiss of death rather than an endorsement.


29 posted on 12/30/2007 8:40:47 AM PST by La Enchiladita (For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

I am also a convert to Catholicism. I’ve been a Catholic for many years and have been a member of five parishes in as many states. I have not found the church to be liberal. Like you, I notice that politics is left out of the mass other than discussions about the right to life and general exhortations to help the poor and downtrodden, the latter not necessarily through government. I find both of these moral teachings fully in keeping with the New Testament.

Like all churches, Catholicism has its share of liberal nutjobs and no shortage of moderates who blow in the political wind, but I do believe that the church overall does a better than average job of keeping politics out of the pulpit. And no one can call the last two Popes anything other than staunch conservatives.


30 posted on 12/30/2007 9:42:51 AM PST by LadyNavyVet (An independent Freeper, not paid by any political campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Williams

This man would be a disaster on the international stage. He can’t discuss policy because everytime he tries he shoots himself in the foot. He has to wrap himself in religion, it’s all he’s got.


31 posted on 12/30/2007 9:48:29 AM PST by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet

I live in the Los Angeles Archdiocese and that should help to explain the situation here. I was basing my assessment on the publication of the local church, THE TIDINGS. I can’t read it. But, no, I don’t think the radicals run the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI is revealing himself as more lovely and courageous with every pronouncement. No problem with the Popes, thank God...:)


32 posted on 12/30/2007 1:48:52 PM PST by La Enchiladita (For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

“I live in the Los Angeles Archdiocese...”

That does explain the situation. When you have the opportunity to travel, check out other Catholic churches. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, especially in flyover country.


33 posted on 12/30/2007 5:33:07 PM PST by LadyNavyVet (An independent Freeper, not paid by any political campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson