Pro-Lifer: Christians Wasting Their Votes on Both Parties

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/152003f.asp ^ | December 15, 2003 | Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown

[Federalist 78]

A South Carolina pro-life activist says there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two major political parties when it comes to protecting the unborn -- and he is asking Christian voters to remember that in next fall's elections.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the world's largest abortion provider, is a "money machine." The agency's just-released annual report shows a total income of more than three-quarters of a billion dollars -- $288 million in clinic operations, $254 million in taxpayer money, and $228 million in donations. The report also indicates the abortion mill made more than $36 million in profits during the 2002-2003 fiscal year, three times the profits reported in the previous fiscal year.

Both the overall income and taxpayer figures for 2002-2003 are record highs for the agency. During the same reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed 14,000 more surgical abortions than last year -- but only completed 12 more adoption referrals than in 2001-2002.

The agency gets tens of millions of dollars from the federal government through the birth-control program known as "Title X," which is included in the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services. Steve Lefemine, director of Columbia (SC) Christians for Life [Caution: Graphic Images], says many Republicans voted for that funding -- and that President Bush signed it into law.

Lefemine says Christians should stop wasting their votes on people who will not stand up for righteousness.

"In the November 2004 elections, my plea with Christians is to vote for righteousness," he says. "The Bible says that righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people [Proverbs 14:34]. If Christians vote for Republicans or Democrats, they are wasting their votes."

Lefemine does not buy the old line about voting for what some call "the lesser of two evils," saying: "God has not called us to a lesser of evil. He's called us to holiness."

Lefemine says any politician who casts a vote to fund child-killing has innocent blood on his hands.

[No Blue States]

There is only One who is holy, and He isnt running in 2004. I'm looking forward to His birthday party next week.

So am I Johnny, Happy Birthday Jesus Christ! And thanks for paying my sin debt on that horrible cross.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Yep I would have to agree that it's a states rights issue. Most of the things that goes through the District of Criminals is a states rights issue, but we as states, have surrendered our sovereignty to the Federal Governments.

[TigersEye]

I believe that Roe needs to be overturned..it was bad law, but as conservatives, if we agree it's a state rights issue....i.e. local choice...what will be accomplished?

This question contains a false premise; i.e. "if we agree it's a state rights issue....i.e. local choice..." Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't be a tacit endorsement that abortion was a State's rights issue. It might throw it to the States in a de facto manner but that's beside the point. Overturning Roe would remove the Federal stamp of approval on abortion. Recognizing abortion as murder, from the viewpoint of the U.S. Constitution, is simply a seperate matter.

[No Blue States]

"I will vote for W, however, I do so not because I identify with the word "Republican", its because I identify with the name Jesus, and Christian. I stand with Christ and with you NBS."

Its hard for me sometimes to not let my politics become my Religion. The 2 are so related. I stand with You too TheGunny. May The Lord reveal to us the best way to vote in any election so that we have clear consciences.

[ken5050]

I agree with your comments..and it is important to remove the government endorsement of abortion that Roe implies, but would overturning Roe curtail abortions?..I fear not, sadly..that's what troubles me..

[Tabi Katz]

I completely agree with you. Most Republicans are decidedly pro-life, and many are passionate about the issue. Telling us to take a hike would be political suicide in many places, and certainly on the national level. While a George Pitooti or Christine Fraud Witless may win in a RINO state, anyone who believes they'd be electable to the White House is fooling himself.

[Tribune7]

I also like to ask those who may not have strong pro-life convictions, how many "fiscal conservatives" are really fiscal conservatives. Arlen Specter's not. Neither is Chaffee nor the ladies from Maine.

They are very much pro-regulation and getting them to go with a tax cut requires a whole lot of hand-holding and even out-right begging.

Not all pro-lifers are fiscal conservatives but there does seem to be a correlation in a pro-lifer Republican meaning what he says that doesn't seem to exist with a self-proclaimed "fiscal conservative."

[TigersEye]

... but would overturning Roe curtail abortions?..I fear not, sadly..that's what troubles me...

Well, you could argue that it wouldn't prevent them in a legal sense, but it would certainly have a psychological impact on the "national psyche" as it were.

Let's start with a narrow focus though. Throwing it back to the States could very well mean that some States would outlaw abortion or severely curtail its application. It would be possible for the individual to go out of State but, since it would be more difficult, less would. Particularly very young women. It brings the issue of transporting a minor across State lines into it, which is a Federal matter, to point to one difficulty that would exist.

Now the broader view. Once the Fed's are removed from the position of defending abortion; suits could be filed against the State that allows it, based on 'deprival of life', in a Federal court. There is no question that such a process is slow and difficult. This is where firearms owners stand in the fight to have the 'individual' right to bear arms recognized. This is where the individual now stands (represented by various groups) in regards to CFR. A single case is going to have to be brought to the SCOTUS level which can overturn current law.

The PBA ban may not prevent a single abortion directly but it is a pro-life win nonetheless. It changes the political landscape which changes popular opinion. It isn't possible to account for how many women will choose to carry to term instead of abort because of this slight shift. Both political and cultural changes come in small steps just as a war is fought by measured progress. The final climactic victory occurs only on a foundation of small unremarkable acts.

[Tabi Katz]

Right again! I've noticed that conservative candidates who aren't afraid to take "politically incorrect" stands - such as pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment, are more likely to be solid fiscal conservatives as well. Hiding behind a less controversial label (i.e. "fiscally conservative") while pussyfooting around the social issues often betrays a tendency to be somewhat less fiscally conservative than they'd have us believe.

[Southack]

"(1) Banned Partial Birth Abortion Maybe. We'll see. Currently this is tied up in court, and as other pro-lifers have observed, the law is anything but watertight. I'd submit this was a bone that he threw out to his captive constituency to get them to forget about how he's governed and show up in November."

What's this "maybe" nonsense?

Did he freaking sign the ban on Partial Birth Abortion or not?!

That's what pro-lifers got for their Republican vote in 2000, the *first* ever federal restriction on abortion since Roe v Wade 3 decades ago.

But you don't want to give President Bush credit for it. You want to hem and haw and whine about how the "courts" are jumping into the fray (as if that would have never happened with some *other* President).

And of course, there is more.

President Bush also Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy

He stopped foreign aid that would be used to fund abortions.

He supported and upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals

President Bush even signed an E.O. reversing Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act

And you pointedly *ignored* giving our President credit for all of those other, additional, pro-Life actions.

And when I say "actions", I mean concrete steps taken, not mere rhetoric such as spouted endlessly by you and your 3rd Party nimrods.

Because that's all that you 3rd Party activists have: rhetoric. Mere words.

You are all wastes of our time, and your candidates are all wastes of our votes.

Here in Alabama, the *largest* two donors to the Alabama Libertarian Party are two Democratic Party trial lawyers.

By funding useful idiots such as yourself, they can reliably shift almost 2% of the Republican vote into the useless Libertarian category.

When one considers how much TV time has to be purchased to normally move 2% of the vote, donating to Libertarians is quite a bargain for Democrats (and don't bother pretending that Libertarians get equal numbers of supporters from Republicans *and* Democrats, it's 4 to 1, not even at all).

[Jim Cane]

Bush said he will model his USSC nominees after Thomas & Scalia.

He just won't use his bully pulpit to stand up for them, alas.

[Southack]

"(2) Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit. Both of which have been for the most part ineffective. Most pilots do not now, nor will they ever, carry guns due to the ridiculous hurdles in the law. They are akin to my picking up the phone and calling you and telling you that I'm giving you a million dollars...and that the check is in a safe on the moon...you can pick it up anytime you wish and cash it."

So that's why you won't vote for President Bush in 2004, you claim?! Because only some 200+ pilots have so far been armed under the two pro-gun bills that he signed into law?!

You know, all that the President can do is sign or veto legislation. Here he goes and signs two pro-gun bills into law and you want to cite this as a *BAD* thing?! What moronic logic you have.

You also pointedly ignored President Bush's other pro-gun actions such as:

Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers

Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined *collective* right

Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e. the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty)

[Southack]

"(3) You raised several points regarding the war on terror, etc. Bush has not moved to ban immigration from these nations, and has misidentified the enemy. In addition to this, he has expanded the federal bureacracy and has John Ashcroft curtailing the freedoms of average Americans in his quest for national security against what is clearly a foreign threat."

What are you smoking?!

Did you SLEEP through the whole hullabaloo over Bush requiring Saudi's to get fingerprinted for even *traveling* to the U.S.?!

Nor has John Ashcroft curtailed any of your freedoms. Not one. If you think otherwise, name that specific "freedom" that you think has been lost to Ashcroft.

< /Sound of Crickets >

[Southack]

" (4) Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed Really? Interesting how his position on Taiwan has changed, isn't it?"

Rubbish.

President Bush just told the Chinese premier to his face that the U.S. would oppose any unilateral move by either China or Taiwan.

Spin that however you want it, but most Americans know that it means that the U.S. will smash China if they fire any or all of their 400+ missiles at Taiwan.

Thus, President Bush ruled out the military option for China, and to think otherwise is sophomoric.

[Southack]

"(9) Signed 2 income tax cuts ---- 1 of which was the largest Dollar value tax cut in world history And a much smaller cut than Ronald Reagan. This statement of yours really gives you away as a Bush partisan as opposed to a Conservative. Bush's 3% is far from a victory and has left him free to continue his big government ways."

Oh, so *that's* why you are voting AGAINST BUSH in 2004. Now I understand. Small tax cuts (as if $1.3 Trillion was "small") must be opposed at all costs in your warped world.

< /MOCKING >

[Southack]

(11) Reorganized the INS in an attempt to safeguard the borders and ports of America and to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
"And has done nothing to secure the borders."

Then you haven't been paying any attention.

President Bush signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal Aliens
S. 1685, the Basic Pilot Extension Act of 2003, was signed by President Bush on December 3, 2003.
It extends for five years the workplace employment eligibility authorization pilot programs created in 1996. It expands the pilot programs from the original five states to all 50 states.

[Southack]

(14) Passed Medicare Reform (authorized $39.5 Billion per year for preventive medicine such as drugs and doctor visits as well as included a ten year Privatization option)

..."Another big government program that real conservatives don't like."

You wouldn't know a "real" conservative if you met one because REAL conservatives are thrilled that we now have half a dozen Privatization options in place for Medicare.

In contrast, how were you going to get *your* 3rd Party Medicare Privatization plan passed by the current 40+ Democratic Senators, by the way?!

< /MOCKING! >

[rcofdayton]

That's right. Vote for the President if you want to accelerate the growth of government.

[Southack]

c#73

[TommyDale]

Vote for a third party and help the Democrats get control again.