Thirty-Six Years of Madness by Tom Neven on 01/24/2009 at 11:57 AM

Is there a constitutional amendment so sacrosanct that it can abide no exceptions? Perhaps the First Amendment? Nope. Courts have placed reasonable restrictions on free speech and the practice of religion. (You can’t libel someone, nor can you sacrifice live animals.) Second Amendment? No again, as any number of gun laws attest.

One can find reasonable exceptions to just about every right granted in the Constitution. But 36 years ago, trawling through the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, Justice Harry Blackmun found an inviolable right that had somehow escaped our Founding Fathers: the right to kill a child in utero—or mere inches from being fully born, for that matter—for any reason or no reason. Read the Roe v. Wade decision sometime; you’ll see it’s a conclusion in search of reasons, an exercise of “raw judicial power,” in the words of dissenting Justice Byron White.

The legacy of that decision, Roe v. Wade, and its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, is a 36-year flight from reason and a political system distorted beyond recognition by the contortions it takes to accommodate such a horrendous “right.”

Chuck Colson wrote, “The right to an abortion has proven to be a jealous god. In exchange for sexual freedom, it demands everything else: cherished ideals, right priorities, the First Amendment, and even decency. It insists that nothing be spared in its defense.”

This state of affairs is not surprising, considering both cases were based on lies. Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, lied to her lawyers about being raped. But she at least was pregnant and seeking an abortion. Sandra Cano, the “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, wasn’t even pregnant. She was a homeless mother seeking a divorce and custody of her children. Her legal-aid attorney, recognizing a poorly educated sucker when she saw one, filed the case under false pretenses.

Those weren’t the only lies. One of the rationales cited in Roe was the supposed number of women dying from illegal abortions—allegedly in the tens of thousands. But Bernard Nathanson, founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, later said the numbers were simply made up. During the debate over partial-birth abortion a few years ago, the pro-abortion side claimed the procedure was rare—as if even one case of puncturing the skull of an infant and sucking out its brains would be acceptable. (Imagine the outcry from the folks at PETA if someone were to do that to, say, a rat.) But Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Association of Abortion Providers later admitted, “We lied through our teeth.” The gruesome procedure was performed more than a thousand times a year, sometimes for a “birth defect” as minor as a cleft palate.

Here in Colorado we’re victims of this monomania. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Hill v. Colorado, upheld a “bubble law” that forbids any person within 100 feet of a “health-care facility” to come within 8 feet of another person to hand out leaflets. They may not display a sign or “engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with that person.”

Justice John Paul Stevens disingenuously said the law is “content-neutral.” It regulates, not speech, he wrote, but merely certain places “where some speech may occur.” This is the same Justice Stevens who thundered in an Erie, Pa., case that the city had “totally silenced a message the dancers at [the strip club] want to convey"—by regulating the location of strip clubs.

Make no mistake: there is only one kind of “health-care facility” Hill v. Colorado was written to protect. Do you honestly think someone protesting against amalgam fillings outside a dentist’s office—yes, there are people who think they’re dangerous—would be hauled in under this law? Moreover, imagine if such a statute substituted “place of business” for “health-care facility.” The unions would go berserk, and rightly so.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent in Hill, called the court an “ad hoc nullification machine that pushes aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice” of abortion.

That court decision 36 years ago has led to many distortions in our law and society:

• The FDA approved the abortifacient drug RU-486 under less-stringent testing intended for medicines that, according to FDA rules, are meant to treat “serious or life-threatening conditions"—something pregnancy most assuredly is not.

• Several investigations have shown that abortion clinics violate mandatory reporting of suspected statutory rape by hiding pregnancies allegedly caused on teenage girls by adult men.

• The efforts to preserve this "right" have turned bork into a verb, named after the vicious smear campaigns used against Supreme Court nominees such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, all in an effort to protect a Supreme Court ruling that might not stand up to democratic scrutiny. Live by the Court, die by the Court.

With the present administration and Congress, we’re guaranteed at least another four years of this insanity. Set aside for the moment the tens of millions of babies who have been denied the right to life guaranteed in our Constitution. Consider simply what this poorly reasoned and extra-constitutional decision has done to our society. If that’s not enough to make you weep, I don’t know what is.

Thirty-Six Years of Madness by Tom Neven on 01/24/2009 at 11:57 AM

Is there a constitutional amendment so sacrosanct that it can abide no exceptions? Perhaps the First Amendment? Nope. Courts have placed reasonable restrictions on free speech and the practice of religion. (You can’t libel someone, nor can you sacrifice live animals.) Second Amendment? No again, as any number of gun laws attest.

One can find reasonable exceptions to just about every right granted in the Constitution. But 36 years ago, trawling through the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, Justice Harry Blackmun found an inviolable right that had somehow escaped our Founding Fathers: the right to kill a child in utero—or mere inches from being fully born, for that matter—for any reason or no reason. Read the Roe v. Wade decision sometime; you’ll see it’s a conclusion in search of reasons, an exercise of “raw judicial power,” in the words of dissenting Justice Byron White.

The legacy of that decision, Roe v. Wade, and its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, is a 36-year flight from reason and a political system distorted beyond recognition by the contortions it takes to accommodate such a horrendous “right.”

Chuck Colson wrote, “The right to an abortion has proven to be a jealous god. In exchange for sexual freedom, it demands everything else: cherished ideals, right priorities, the First Amendment, and even decency. It insists that nothing be spared in its defense.”

This state of affairs is not surprising, considering both cases were based on lies. Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, lied to her lawyers about being raped. But she at least was pregnant and seeking an abortion. Sandra Cano, the “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, wasn’t even pregnant. She was a homeless mother seeking a divorce and custody of her children. Her legal-aid attorney, recognizing a poorly educated sucker when she saw one, filed the case under false pretenses.

Those weren’t the only lies. One of the rationales cited in Roe was the supposed number of women dying from illegal abortions—allegedly in the tens of thousands. But Bernard Nathanson, founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, later said the numbers were simply made up. During the debate over partial-birth abortion a few years ago, the pro-abortion side claimed the procedure was rare—as if even one case of puncturing the skull of an infant and sucking out its brains would be acceptable. (Imagine the outcry from the folks at PETA if someone were to do that to, say, a rat.) But Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Association of Abortion Providers later admitted, “We lied through our teeth.” The gruesome procedure was performed more than a thousand times a year, sometimes for a “birth defect” as minor as a cleft palate.

Here in Colorado we’re victims of this monomania. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Hill v. Colorado, upheld a “bubble law” that forbids any person within 100 feet of a “health-care facility” to come within 8 feet of another person to hand out leaflets. They may not display a sign or “engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with that person.”

Justice John Paul Stevens disingenuously said the law is “content-neutral.” It regulates, not speech, he wrote, but merely certain places “where some speech may occur.” This is the same Justice Stevens who thundered in an Erie, Pa., case that the city had “totally silenced a message the dancers at [the strip club] want to convey"—by regulating the location of strip clubs.

Make no mistake: there is only one kind of “health-care facility” Hill v. Colorado was written to protect. Do you honestly think someone protesting against amalgam fillings outside a dentist’s office—yes, there are people who think they’re dangerous—would be hauled in under this law? Moreover, imagine if such a statute substituted “place of business” for “health-care facility.” The unions would go berserk, and rightly so.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent in Hill, called the court an “ad hoc nullification machine that pushes aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice” of abortion.

That court decision 36 years ago has led to many distortions in our law and society:

• The FDA approved the abortifacient drug RU-486 under less-stringent testing intended for medicines that, according to FDA rules, are meant to treat “serious or life-threatening conditions"—something pregnancy most assuredly is not.

• Several investigations have shown that abortion clinics violate mandatory reporting of suspected statutory rape by hiding pregnancies allegedly caused on teenage girls by adult men.

• The efforts to preserve this "right" have turned bork into a verb, named after the vicious smear campaigns used against Supreme Court nominees such as Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, all in an effort to protect a Supreme Court ruling that might not stand up to democratic scrutiny. Live by the Court, die by the Court.

With the present administration and Congress, we’re guaranteed at least another four years of this insanity. Set aside for the moment the tens of millions of babies who have been denied the right to life guaranteed in our Constitution. Consider simply what this poorly reasoned and extra-constitutional decision has done to our society. If that’s not enough to make you weep, I don’t know what is.

Comments

[1. BDB said the following at 12:09 PM on Jan 24:]

1

Well, if you want a pro-life President to appoint better judges, it will be necessary for religious conservatives to reach out to new groups to build that majority. The Black and Latino voters who supported biological marriage might be amenable to the idea if their other policy concerns are addressed. Are those who are passionately pro-life ready to build that majority by bending on other issues, including immigration, health care and the environment?

[2. TINA... said the following at 12:33 PM on Jan 24:]

2

Wow this is enough to make me want to go to Washington...If a may be so bold to ad without offending anyone this article proves my very point, at how some Christians although good intent has made it harder to witness to these women...I know it is not always a soft touch Gospel if anything quite the contrary,but what needs to be noted is Jesus approach...keep in mind he embraced the very people who nailed him to the cross,he knew Judas was going to betray him and never stopped loving him...

[3. Kari said the following at 1:47 PM on Jan 24:]

3

I am very concerned with what I am hearing regarding the Freedom of Choice Act-- supposedly medical professionals will be REQUIRED by law
--at risk of losing licensure to practice-- to provide abortions and abortion-related services/referrals?

I would like to ask Mr. President how exactly that serves freedom and promotes his supposed Christianity.

[4. Jacob said the following at 2:16 PM on Jan 24:]

4

puncturing the skull of an infant and sucking out its brains would be acceptable

How is this not an utterly inhuman, barbaric practice? Google for images of aborted babies and then please explain how this is not evil?

I blogged about this a few days before the election: http://jdouvier.blogspot.com/2008/10/truth-about-abortion.html

[5. NeedACatchyName said the following at 5:03 PM on Jan 24:]

5

This is why we ultimately need an amendment that states that life begins at conception, and a baby developing in the mother's womb has all of the rights of one that has been born. If we stack the supreme court with justices that are pro-life that might get Roe vs. Wade repealed for a little while, but their decision can still be overturned by a more liberal court later. But an amendment is in the constitution permanently until repealed. I know this is an awfully difficult goal to reach, and as a result, I think that it needs to start by rounding up a group of pro-life politicians who will sign a covenant promising to make ending abortion their top priority. We have to end the cycle of pro-life politicians who publicly state that they're pro-life but then never do anything once in office to end abortion.

Oh, and while I like the term pro-abortion better than pro-choice, I prefer the term pro-murder. It's much better at illustrating the true nature of this "medical procedure."

[6. AutumnRN said the following at 6:14 PM on Jan 24:]

6

Would someone please address the line of either/or thinking in BDBs comment (no.1) that in order to build the 'human means/majority' to 'win' on the abortion issue, we'll HAVE to bend/compromise according to the perceived issues of importance associated with certain groups. I seem to hear several versions of this line of thinking. The result is many Believers have apparently arrived at the conclusion that the combined issues of universal access to healthcare, global warming, and addressing the 'needs' of various 'disenfranchised' groups carries more moral weight than speaking up for the most voiceless and defenseless (I'll go so far as to say the MOST disenfranchised) among us. I'm trying to understand the current thinking among my brothers and sisters...

[7. beatrice81 said the following at 7:49 PM on Jan 24:]

7

I'm not sure if or where Neven studied constitutional law, but there is a substantial body of case law providing the foundation for the half-dozen or so key abortion rulings (including Roe, but also including Carhart, Casey, Gonzales, etc). Legal affirmations of the two key principles unpinning abortion rights -- privacy (based on due process) and bodily sovreignty -- go back as far as the 1860s.

These principles support not only the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but a whole host of other protections for American citizens. Like the right to refuse an unwanted medical procedure. The right to refuse to donate blood or an organ, even if it will save someone else's life. The right not to be the subject of medical experimentation, even if incarcerated.

And, by the way, none of those rights are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But they are in fact law because the Constitution itself was wise enough to allow case law to determine constitutional rights.

[8. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:48 PM on Jan 24:]

8

For one thing, we need to stop sanitizing the terms. Even the early feminists denounced abortion with terms like "antenatal child murder".

The term "pro-choice" is rampantly dishonest. Those (mostly Democrats) who opposed the abolition of slavery were "pro-choice" on slavery (paraphased: Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves!). Also, Comrade Obamov rescinded the Mexico City Policy, so taxpayers will now be forced to fund overseas abortions whether they choose to or not!

If medicalese terms like "fetus" are used for the baby in the womb, then use the medicalese term "gravida" for the pregnant woman. Either colloquial terms should be used for both, or medicalese for both; anything else is dishonesty.

Always bring the issue back to: what is the nature of the unborn? Everything else is peripheral. See how this cuts through most pro-abort rhetoric, including by the Dems: my reply to someone offended by the correct term "baby-killers".

[9. BDB said the following at 11:30 PM on Jan 24:]

9

AutumnRN:

I'm not actually arguing for universal health care. I'm trying to get Christian conservatives to think outside the box.

The rift between pro-Life groups and John McCain was not about his judge voting record - he supported all the pro-Life judges appointed by Republican presidents. The fight was about campaign finance reform, and the limitations it put on political ads. Those limitations have since been overturned by the Supreme Court. Organizations, including 501(c)3 organizations, CAN identify which candidates hold which views. They just can't tell people who to vote for.

It's clear that not enough Americans are pro-Life to make a consistent majority. In this past election, I know lots and lots of people who are very scared about health care. They're worried they will lose coverage, or not be able to afford it, or something else. In 2008, Republicans did a dismal job of talking about health care options, if they discussed it at all. McCain couldn't even explain his own plan!

Personally, I'm ready to deal. I'm ready to ask everyone to support pro-life judges. In exchange for their support on that, I'm willing to discuss things like a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I want Latinos to feel safe voting for pro-Life candidates. Right now, they're afraid that if Republicans get into power, they will send their grandmother back to Mexico. There are LOTS of illegal immigrants living in the same house as people here legally. When people say they want to deport all the illegals, they're saying they want to take them out of their relatives homes and send them back to poverty. That scares them.

If the ones who were citizens weren't scared, would they vote Republican? George W. and Jeb Bush had far more support from Latino voters. The Bushes were also far more pragmatic about immigration.

Those Latino and Black voters did step up to the plate and vote for biological marriage. But other things in the Republican platform scare them. There are lots of Republicans who are trying to use the present state of things to marginalize religious conservatives. They want to stop talking about abortion.

Religious conservatives need to respond to that impulse. I suggest they respond by holding firmly to anti-abortion policies, and putting most other issues on the table.

I don't think it's necessary to give up everything. I DO think Republicans need to go to their black and Latino friends and ask why they support Obama. I know health care and immigration are two big reasons. What are the others?

[10. Stefanie said the following at 9:36 AM on Jan 25:]

10

BDB #1

AMEN!!!

I am pro-life, but I also care about the environment. Why am I stuck in a Republican/Democrat tug-of-war? There are good sides and bad sides to both parties.
If I vote Republican, I'm also voting for corporate greed and destruction of national parks for natural gas drilling, along with good moral things. If I vote Democratic, I'm also voting for immoral things, along with things I care about.

We need a third party. I bet a lot of people would join. What should we call it?

BTW, #6 it's not good for people to get into the mindset that what's not important to you is not important. Don't alienate your allies. I'm with you on the abortion thing. Embrace your allies!

[11. pass the ammunition said the following at 11:45 AM on Jan 25:]

11

nice post, but do remember that a lot of states (i think most actually) have multiple laws regulating access to abortion. The courts may not have put restrictions on abortion, but they are there somewhat on the state level. Also, the majority of counties in America do not have a single abortion provider. Its crazy to think the numbers are so high when people are having to drive hours to visit a clinic.

[12. Texas Craig said the following at 1:31 PM on Jan 25:]

12

BDB:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If many of the posters on here are as passionate about abortion as they claim to be, then they need to start dealing on the other issues to try to get something done about it. But, instead, we get posts like the one a few months back about how liberal Donal Miller is because of some of his views and his willingness to pray at the DNC. While I can understand people challenging his decision to appear at that venue, people were also criticizing him for being "a liberal" because he cared about the environment, or disliked the Iraq War, etc., even though he has always been firmly pro-life.

Pro-lifers who continue to engage in that type of categorization will continue to shoot the whole movement in the foot, by alienating others who could be allies in the cause over peripheral and often non-biblically clear issues. That is a shame, and those who are passionate about ending abortion should think about that before continuing to alienate so many others who could be helpful to the goal of ending abortion.

[13. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:19 PM on Jan 25:]

13

Stefanie (#11), how can the rampant slaughter of babies unborn babies be just an another issue on par with oil drilling (in a tiny fraction of the vast and bleak Alaskan wilderness) or company CEO's making millions of dollars (including the Dem-protected Fannie and Freddy).

[14. BDB said the following at 9:35 PM on Jan 25:]

14

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. (#15) wrote:

OK, but what are your black friends telling you? Do they match up with the "research?"

[15. Fred said the following at 10:30 PM on Jan 25:]

15

Well said Tom, couldn't agree more.

[16. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:25 PM on Jan 25:]

16

BDB, I don't understand the question. I do know that most blacks oppose gay "marriage" and support school vouchers. Black pastors support strong families and hate the toll that abortion takes on blacks. Black communities hate liberal lawyers and judges that release black criminals who prey on them.

Yet as long as the Republicans offer only Dem-lite policies, they will never win blacks over. That's because many blacks will never make the connection between Democrat policies and things they hate. The black conservative pastors have a lot of work to do!

[17. Kate said the following at 7:20 AM on Jan 26:]

17

Hey don't forget these distortions:

1. Fathers don't have a legal say in this decision, even though it's their child too! I'm not sure how many fathers of aborted children actually wanted to keep and raise the child, but this sure sucks for those who did, or would if they had known about the child.

2. Not all abortions are done as a nice, liberating and "free" choice by empowered women who have resources and honestly choose to do it! (as it is often portrayed)

What about teenage girls whose parents force them to do it?

Or more generally, what about disadvantaged women who depend upon others such as boyfriends, husbands, and extended family for basic resources for themselves and existing children... who do not want an abortion but are "forced" into it by threats of being cut off from resources and contact with these "supporting" people, thus becoming homeless with her existing children along for the fun? What about the emotional manipulation and at times physical force and threats of extreme violence that push her along to that abortion clinic and signing her consent?

Sure you can say that these women still "choose" to do it and to some extent it does still seem that they are guilty of murder. Sure you can say they should have been martyrs and given up and fought for whatever it took to keep that child. A lot of women do not know what the possible resources are, or how to get them, or how to find out about them, unfortunately. They also have no support whatsoever to make a change like that.

I am surprised about how little this side of abortion is discussed and portrayed. Probably because the women who experience it do not have the social power or willingness to tell their stories in ways that will be heard... and nobody wants to hear that story. "Abortion is liberating, we know it can't be forced upon women since they technically "consent" to it!"

3. What about how much money the practice of abortion saves the government (and ultimately taxpayers?) Imagine the cost of supporting the proportion of those 1,000,000 per year unwanted children killed by abortions that would survive and depend upon government assistance until age 18? (perhaps even using more special resources due to having developmental problems and/or being from troubled families) And this number renewing every year? I of course do not think this makes a case for the practice of abortion... but I really do believe this is an undisclosed or unrealized motivation that people have for supporting abortion. It's very convenient after all, since women themselves even pay for the extermination and "choose" to do it. Everyone else then is "technically" off the hook!

[18. Adam said the following at 7:59 AM on Jan 26:]

18

5. NeedACatchyName said, "Oh, and while I like the term pro-abortion better than pro-choice, I prefer the term pro-murder. It's much better at illustrating the true nature of this `medical procedure.'"

I agree very much that a constitutional amendment is the only semi-permanent way of banning abortion.

The terms you suggested for pro-choice are rather misleading though. In order to be truly pro-abortion or pro-murder, they must believe that abortion or murder is the only right option in every situation.

Why would I say such a crazy thing? It is just consistency with what the conservatives have done with the term "pro-life." Apparently to be pro-life is to believe that life is to be the only right option in every situation. Any exceptions - such as abortion being ok in cases of rape or incest - and you are no longer pro-life.

But perhaps openness and honesty with the debate is not what's needed. Let's just use the same type of wordplay with a different political slant.

[19. IMO said the following at 9:21 AM on Jan 26:]

19

Didn't President Obama say, last Tuesday, that we can "reaffirm our enduring spirit ... and carry forward the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."

Why does he not apply that to unborn babies?

People don't be fooled. Look at his voting record. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. At least acknowledge it.

Any legislation at the expense of an unborn child is no legislation I will endorse. Period.

[20. PassionatelyProLife said the following at 10:03 AM on Jan 26:]

20

As my "name" says, I've been passionately pro-life since a little prior to the 2008 elections for our present President. I'm currently 24, and only recently (age 22) truly gave my life to Christ. Shortly after this, I got out of a committed relationship in which me and my boyfriend were sexually active. I was on birthcontrol, and we religiously used a condom as well.

There were a couple of scares, all around exam time (obviously during college), and the doctor gave me Plan B (have taken it twice). I don't know how I feel about Plan B as of now, but I'm not sexually active anymore so I don't expect to ever have to worry about pregnancy until marriage. Even though I don't know how I feel about it, I'll never take it again.

I know what it feels like to be afraid you're pregnant with your whole "life" ahead of you. Both my boyfriend and I claimed to be Christians at this point in time, and we knew we'd never have an abortion, but what would I REALLY do if I was actually pregnant?

What I didn't want to admit was that I had sex before marriage, and pregnancy was a possibility anytime I had intercourse. This society places so much emphasis on being sexually free that the consequences are only something that gets in the way as opposed to something that should keep us from abstaining.

What does all this say? Apart from Christ, there is no hope that the world will recongnize that abortion is murder. It seems illogical that the world can't recognize that life starts at conception (even though it's written in every biology text book across America), but the idea of being sexually free trumps that. The devil has masked the truth once again.

We should pray for social revolutions (a revival of sorts) and then the political system will change. Prayer works, but I believe all of this is in God's plan for the end times (not speculating, just thinking).

I don't know, I get fired up about this just like everyone else. I haven't said anything new or thought-provoking, but I believe the abortion-era has opened many would-be mother's eyes to the need for Christ.

[21. BDB said the following at 11:53 AM on Jan 26:]

21

#18. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. wrote:

>>I don't understand the question.<<

I'll rephrase: I think a fundamental reason Republicans lost is that they spend too much time regurgitating talking points and refuse to listen to what really concerns people.

In my case, I found that most active Republican party officials stopped listening to me five years ago on spending. When a fundraiser called me, I rasied the concern. Sometimes they laughed and hung up. One woman, she seemed like a young college-aged volunteer, asked, "What do you mean?" I explained how spending had become much worse than when Gingrich was speaker. But unfortunately, the Congressmen in my area were among the worst earmarkers, the most profligate spenders.

But that's not why people voted for Obama. Lots of Obama supporters expressed frustration that Republicans just don't "get it." A lot of them are scared about health care. But instead of carefully analyzing Obama's health care plan, and comparing it to McCain's, we have talk-show-hosts wasting days and days on Bill Ayers. Now that more than 50% of all health-care spending comes from the government, it's a VASTLY more important issue than "unrepentant terrorists" from the 1960's.

The Wall Street Journal finally did a good analysis of the two plans. They even pointed out that Obama's economists had previously suppored McCain's plan. But their editorial pleas that McCain would PLEASE explain his plan in a debate fell on deaf ears.

And that deafness is a key reason why Republicans are out of power. If the Wall Street Journal feels like Republicans refuse to listen, how does everyone else feel?

That's why people need to GO TALK TO some Obama supporters. Ask them why they supported Obama instead of McCain. You'll find it's not just a difference over Iraq.

Indeed, Senator Joe Lieberman won re-election as an Independent after sticking to his opinion that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. And Deleware is a very blue state. But he also listened and represented his state on a lot of other issues in a way they were satisfied.

The path to political victory is not talking AT people, it's listening to and addressing their concerns in a way that shows you heard them.

Frankly, after reading Obama's book, I think he's grappling with the issue of abortion. He lays out both sides of the issue and why he believes what he does. He doesn't call anyone a Nazi. I also think he's had some really bad experiences with religious conservatives. What we need right now is a "Bono" who can take the pro-Life message to Obama in a respectful way.

[22. Kit said the following at 12:22 PM on Jan 26:]

22

BDB,

Well said. This is not the only issue, and people would be more apt to listen if we realized this.

[23. Keisha said the following at 5:45 PM on Jan 26:]

23

Hey BDB,

I am a black voter who is pro-life and voted for Obama. I chose not to vote for McCain because of his choice for veep, and his insistence that 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong' well into a financial meltdown. I think that Republicans would do better with voters of all stripes if they chose candidates with a better knowledge of the economy and better plans for America's relationship with foreign countries... I am upset about the increase in abortion that will result from Obama's term, but I believe that I can do better work in fighting abortion personally if I have a job. And I pray to God for forgiveness on that opinion.

[24. Stefanie said the following at 7:14 PM on Jan 26:]

24

Jonathan Sarfati (#14)
How many times have I read a post that says we should be "single issue voters"?

It is usually used in the context of "you should vote republican, even though you disagree with their stance on many things, because they are going to help end abortion."

So why can't it be in the context of "you should vote democrat, because your pro-life allies are supporters of teachers unions"

If abortion is all that matters, you should work with those people who will help end it, even if you disagree with some of their other issues.

I know there are many religious conservative people in the Republican ranks, but there are also many business people. Business people are not republican because they care about family values. Many republicans are pro-choice. Just because someone is republican does not make them your ally. I think the republican party caters to the religious conservative crowd to get votes, not because they care. And seeing that the religious conservative vote did not guarantee the election, I think they may soon abandon the religious conservative crowd.

You need to take inventory of your true allies, and then work with them, because they will work with you.

Honestly, I don't think the answer is with either major political party. That's why I hate the Republican/Democrat argument.

[25. BDB said the following at 7:57 PM on Jan 26:]

25

Sorry, Lieberman is Senator in Connecticut, also a very blue state. Biden's from Delaware. I get those New England states confused some times...

[26. Stefanie said the following at 8:29 PM on Jan 26:]

26

One more thought. . .
Thank you Keisha for your post. I feel like there are probably many things that are more effective in the fight against abortion than standing on the sidelines and expecting legislation to "fix" the abortion issue. Don't get me wrong, I would like abortion to be illegal. But the problem is in people's hearts. If abortion were made illegal tonight, all 300 million people in this country would not wake up tomorrow morning pro-life. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the people in this country. The only thing that can reach that is personal involvement with a lost world.

Mentoring a teenager is probably more effective than legislation. And you may have more impact on that teen's eternal soul than if you make everyone "act" righteous on the outside, but do nothing to address their hearts.

There will probably be many murderers in hell, but there will also be people who never murdered anyone. There may be many thieves, but also many people who never stole anything. There are many cultures that expect girls to be virgins when they get married, but that doesn't mean they have a saving relationship with God.

[27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:42 PM on Jan 26:]

27

Stefanie, I am Australian. But note that the Dems are united about pro-abortion, including partial birth. They denied those useful idiot "Democrats for Life" a link on the official Dem website. The GOP is hardly an ideal party, but at least they are not totally sold out to the abortion industry, led by a pro-infanticide president Hussein "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby" Obamov.

The NEA is also pro-abort and pro-homosexual, so why should we support teachers unions?

[28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:48 PM on Jan 26:]

28

Keisha (#25) claims to be pro-life, but she is clearly willing to sacrifice millions of unborn babies for the sake of the almighty dollar.

And for her information (although this is not nearly as serious as her disregard for life), the GOP in 2005 tried to reign in Freddie and Fannie but were opposed by the Dems, as this video documents.

And note that it was Democrat presidents Carter and Clinton who bullied lenders into "sub-prime loans". Even the leftist NYT warned 10 years ago of the problems (Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending by Steven Holmes, NYT 30 Sept 1999):

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

[29. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:41 AM on Jan 27:]

29

Stefanie in 26 said:
It is usually used in the context of "you should vote republican, even though you disagree with their stance on many things, because they are going to help end abortion."

I usually heard it along the following lines:
"If a candidate has promised to do all that is in his power to pass legislation that advances abortion and another candidate has no intention of advancing abortion (regardless of his intentions going in the opposite direction), then you should vote for the latter over the former because the lives of unborn children are the most important issue today."

I never heard "vote republican, not democrat" especially since they could be fined for it or have their tax-free status taken away or not be allowed to exist anymore.

Keisha AND Stefanie (27 and 28),

Not a big McCain fan either...but a lot of McCain's planned policies for the economy were echoed by Obama...evidence of that in the fact that he's CONTINUING the very thing Bush's administration was doing in the last days. (Though to give both credit, Obama and McCain were initially against the stimulus package but felt pressure for a quick fix...cuz the majority of voters want to see progress NOW, not later).

And for most of the election campaigning, no one saw this housing bubble-burst coming. One year ago, houses were selling within minutes of For Sale signs being put up - walk out, pound your sign in the front yard, and someone would see you, pull up, and make an offer 3x's the amount you listed for.

Apparently no one in government saw it coming...cuz everyone on both sides (as Sarfati gave good info on) had a hand in the economic downfall.

As someone said on another recent post, government likes to make the decisions that make life easy NOW with little thought of the consequences years from now.

Maybe that's a consequence of our 4-year election plan. Clearly, it wasn't Clinton that got the backlash for his poor legislation in the housing industry - instead, its all Bush's fault. There's no repercussions for Clinton (or Bush, or Obama) to make good, long-term decisions in their term...because THEY won't get credit for it when the policies start bearing fruit. Better make the quick fix to keep people happy while I'm president and let the next guy take the fall for it.

[30. TINA said the following at 10:20 AM on Jan 27:]

30

OKAAAAAAYYYYYY.......WHAT are we gonna do about it? so far the approach by many is obviously not effective here...how can we come to agreement and fight this issue? we live in a country that allows us to stand up for what we believe that's how laws are changed...so lets rise together in prayer first and allow the Lord to lead the action...

[31. BDB said the following at 7:08 PM on Jan 27:]

31

Here's a real concrete example:

I just got a call from a pollster working for the Family Research Council. They asked me which was the top priority:

1) Protecting the life of the unborn.
2) Stopping enforcement of the fairness doctrine.
3) Stopping something else liberal
4) All of the above

I said "none of the above." They needed to focus on how government spending is impacting families. After I hung up, I realized that I should have mentioned how scared many families are about health care. FRC should really devote some resources to that issue.

[1. BDB said the following at 12:09 PM on Jan 24:]

1

Well, if you want a pro-life President to appoint better judges, it will be necessary for religious conservatives to reach out to new groups to build that majority. The Black and Latino voters who supported biological marriage might be amenable to the idea if their other policy concerns are addressed. Are those who are passionately pro-life ready to build that majority by bending on other issues, including immigration, health care and the environment?

[2. TINA... said the following at 12:33 PM on Jan 24:]

2

Wow this is enough to make me want to go to Washington...If a may be so bold to ad without offending anyone this article proves my very point, at how some Christians although good intent has made it harder to witness to these women...I know it is not always a soft touch Gospel if anything quite the contrary,but what needs to be noted is Jesus approach...keep in mind he embraced the very people who nailed him to the cross,he knew Judas was going to betray him and never stopped loving him...

[3. Kari said the following at 1:47 PM on Jan 24:]

3

I am very concerned with what I am hearing regarding the Freedom of Choice Act-- supposedly medical professionals will be REQUIRED by law
--at risk of losing licensure to practice-- to provide abortions and abortion-related services/referrals?

I would like to ask Mr. President how exactly that serves freedom and promotes his supposed Christianity.

[4. Jacob said the following at 2:16 PM on Jan 24:]

4

puncturing the skull of an infant and sucking out its brains would be acceptable

How is this not an utterly inhuman, barbaric practice? Google for images of aborted babies and then please explain how this is not evil?

I blogged about this a few days before the election: http://jdouvier.blogspot.com/2008/10/truth-about-abortion.html

[5. NeedACatchyName said the following at 5:03 PM on Jan 24:]

5

This is why we ultimately need an amendment that states that life begins at conception, and a baby developing in the mother's womb has all of the rights of one that has been born. If we stack the supreme court with justices that are pro-life that might get Roe vs. Wade repealed for a little while, but their decision can still be overturned by a more liberal court later. But an amendment is in the constitution permanently until repealed. I know this is an awfully difficult goal to reach, and as a result, I think that it needs to start by rounding up a group of pro-life politicians who will sign a covenant promising to make ending abortion their top priority. We have to end the cycle of pro-life politicians who publicly state that they're pro-life but then never do anything once in office to end abortion.

Oh, and while I like the term pro-abortion better than pro-choice, I prefer the term pro-murder. It's much better at illustrating the true nature of this "medical procedure."

[6. AutumnRN said the following at 6:14 PM on Jan 24:]

6

Would someone please address the line of either/or thinking in BDBs comment (no.1) that in order to build the 'human means/majority' to 'win' on the abortion issue, we'll HAVE to bend/compromise according to the perceived issues of importance associated with certain groups. I seem to hear several versions of this line of thinking. The result is many Believers have apparently arrived at the conclusion that the combined issues of universal access to healthcare, global warming, and addressing the 'needs' of various 'disenfranchised' groups carries more moral weight than speaking up for the most voiceless and defenseless (I'll go so far as to say the MOST disenfranchised) among us. I'm trying to understand the current thinking among my brothers and sisters...

[7. beatrice81 said the following at 7:49 PM on Jan 24:]

7

I'm not sure if or where Neven studied constitutional law, but there is a substantial body of case law providing the foundation for the half-dozen or so key abortion rulings (including Roe, but also including Carhart, Casey, Gonzales, etc). Legal affirmations of the two key principles unpinning abortion rights -- privacy (based on due process) and bodily sovreignty -- go back as far as the 1860s.

These principles support not only the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but a whole host of other protections for American citizens. Like the right to refuse an unwanted medical procedure. The right to refuse to donate blood or an organ, even if it will save someone else's life. The right not to be the subject of medical experimentation, even if incarcerated.

And, by the way, none of those rights are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But they are in fact law because the Constitution itself was wise enough to allow case law to determine constitutional rights.

[8. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:48 PM on Jan 24:]

8

For one thing, we need to stop sanitizing the terms. Even the early feminists denounced abortion with terms like "antenatal child murder".

The term "pro-choice" is rampantly dishonest. Those (mostly Democrats) who opposed the abolition of slavery were "pro-choice" on slavery (paraphased: Don't like slavery? Don't own slaves!). Also, Comrade Obamov rescinded the Mexico City Policy, so taxpayers will now be forced to fund overseas abortions whether they choose to or not!

If medicalese terms like "fetus" are used for the baby in the womb, then use the medicalese term "gravida" for the pregnant woman. Either colloquial terms should be used for both, or medicalese for both; anything else is dishonesty.

Always bring the issue back to: what is the nature of the unborn? Everything else is peripheral. See how this cuts through most pro-abort rhetoric, including by the Dems: my reply to someone offended by the correct term "baby-killers".

[9. BDB said the following at 11:30 PM on Jan 24:]

9

AutumnRN:

I'm not actually arguing for universal health care. I'm trying to get Christian conservatives to think outside the box.

The rift between pro-Life groups and John McCain was not about his judge voting record - he supported all the pro-Life judges appointed by Republican presidents. The fight was about campaign finance reform, and the limitations it put on political ads. Those limitations have since been overturned by the Supreme Court. Organizations, including 501(c)3 organizations, CAN identify which candidates hold which views. They just can't tell people who to vote for.

It's clear that not enough Americans are pro-Life to make a consistent majority. In this past election, I know lots and lots of people who are very scared about health care. They're worried they will lose coverage, or not be able to afford it, or something else. In 2008, Republicans did a dismal job of talking about health care options, if they discussed it at all. McCain couldn't even explain his own plan!

Personally, I'm ready to deal. I'm ready to ask everyone to support pro-life judges. In exchange for their support on that, I'm willing to discuss things like a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I want Latinos to feel safe voting for pro-Life candidates. Right now, they're afraid that if Republicans get into power, they will send their grandmother back to Mexico. There are LOTS of illegal immigrants living in the same house as people here legally. When people say they want to deport all the illegals, they're saying they want to take them out of their relatives homes and send them back to poverty. That scares them.

If the ones who were citizens weren't scared, would they vote Republican? George W. and Jeb Bush had far more support from Latino voters. The Bushes were also far more pragmatic about immigration.

Those Latino and Black voters did step up to the plate and vote for biological marriage. But other things in the Republican platform scare them. There are lots of Republicans who are trying to use the present state of things to marginalize religious conservatives. They want to stop talking about abortion.

Religious conservatives need to respond to that impulse. I suggest they respond by holding firmly to anti-abortion policies, and putting most other issues on the table.

I don't think it's necessary to give up everything. I DO think Republicans need to go to their black and Latino friends and ask why they support Obama. I know health care and immigration are two big reasons. What are the others?

[10. Stefanie said the following at 9:36 AM on Jan 25:]

10

BDB #1

AMEN!!!

I am pro-life, but I also care about the environment. Why am I stuck in a Republican/Democrat tug-of-war? There are good sides and bad sides to both parties.
If I vote Republican, I'm also voting for corporate greed and destruction of national parks for natural gas drilling, along with good moral things. If I vote Democratic, I'm also voting for immoral things, along with things I care about.

We need a third party. I bet a lot of people would join. What should we call it?

BTW, #6 it's not good for people to get into the mindset that what's not important to you is not important. Don't alienate your allies. I'm with you on the abortion thing. Embrace your allies!

[11. pass the ammunition said the following at 11:45 AM on Jan 25:]

11

nice post, but do remember that a lot of states (i think most actually) have multiple laws regulating access to abortion. The courts may not have put restrictions on abortion, but they are there somewhat on the state level. Also, the majority of counties in America do not have a single abortion provider. Its crazy to think the numbers are so high when people are having to drive hours to visit a clinic.

[12. Texas Craig said the following at 1:31 PM on Jan 25:]

12

BDB:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. If many of the posters on here are as passionate about abortion as they claim to be, then they need to start dealing on the other issues to try to get something done about it. But, instead, we get posts like the one a few months back about how liberal Donal Miller is because of some of his views and his willingness to pray at the DNC. While I can understand people challenging his decision to appear at that venue, people were also criticizing him for being "a liberal" because he cared about the environment, or disliked the Iraq War, etc., even though he has always been firmly pro-life.

Pro-lifers who continue to engage in that type of categorization will continue to shoot the whole movement in the foot, by alienating others who could be allies in the cause over peripheral and often non-biblically clear issues. That is a shame, and those who are passionate about ending abortion should think about that before continuing to alienate so many others who could be helpful to the goal of ending abortion.

[13. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:19 PM on Jan 25:]

13

Stefanie (#11), how can the rampant slaughter of babies unborn babies be just an another issue on par with oil drilling (in a tiny fraction of the vast and bleak Alaskan wilderness) or company CEO's making millions of dollars (including the Dem-protected Fannie and Freddy).

[14. BDB said the following at 9:35 PM on Jan 25:]

14

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. (#15) wrote:

OK, but what are your black friends telling you? Do they match up with the "research?"

[15. Fred said the following at 10:30 PM on Jan 25:]

15

Well said Tom, couldn't agree more.

[16. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:25 PM on Jan 25:]

16

BDB, I don't understand the question. I do know that most blacks oppose gay "marriage" and support school vouchers. Black pastors support strong families and hate the toll that abortion takes on blacks. Black communities hate liberal lawyers and judges that release black criminals who prey on them.

Yet as long as the Republicans offer only Dem-lite policies, they will never win blacks over. That's because many blacks will never make the connection between Democrat policies and things they hate. The black conservative pastors have a lot of work to do!

[17. Kate said the following at 7:20 AM on Jan 26:]

17

Hey don't forget these distortions:

1. Fathers don't have a legal say in this decision, even though it's their child too! I'm not sure how many fathers of aborted children actually wanted to keep and raise the child, but this sure sucks for those who did, or would if they had known about the child.

2. Not all abortions are done as a nice, liberating and "free" choice by empowered women who have resources and honestly choose to do it! (as it is often portrayed)

What about teenage girls whose parents force them to do it?

Or more generally, what about disadvantaged women who depend upon others such as boyfriends, husbands, and extended family for basic resources for themselves and existing children... who do not want an abortion but are "forced" into it by threats of being cut off from resources and contact with these "supporting" people, thus becoming homeless with her existing children along for the fun? What about the emotional manipulation and at times physical force and threats of extreme violence that push her along to that abortion clinic and signing her consent?

Sure you can say that these women still "choose" to do it and to some extent it does still seem that they are guilty of murder. Sure you can say they should have been martyrs and given up and fought for whatever it took to keep that child. A lot of women do not know what the possible resources are, or how to get them, or how to find out about them, unfortunately. They also have no support whatsoever to make a change like that.

I am surprised about how little this side of abortion is discussed and portrayed. Probably because the women who experience it do not have the social power or willingness to tell their stories in ways that will be heard... and nobody wants to hear that story. "Abortion is liberating, we know it can't be forced upon women since they technically "consent" to it!"

3. What about how much money the practice of abortion saves the government (and ultimately taxpayers?) Imagine the cost of supporting the proportion of those 1,000,000 per year unwanted children killed by abortions that would survive and depend upon government assistance until age 18? (perhaps even using more special resources due to having developmental problems and/or being from troubled families) And this number renewing every year? I of course do not think this makes a case for the practice of abortion... but I really do believe this is an undisclosed or unrealized motivation that people have for supporting abortion. It's very convenient after all, since women themselves even pay for the extermination and "choose" to do it. Everyone else then is "technically" off the hook!

[18. Adam said the following at 7:59 AM on Jan 26:]

18

5. NeedACatchyName said, "Oh, and while I like the term pro-abortion better than pro-choice, I prefer the term pro-murder. It's much better at illustrating the true nature of this `medical procedure.'"

I agree very much that a constitutional amendment is the only semi-permanent way of banning abortion.

The terms you suggested for pro-choice are rather misleading though. In order to be truly pro-abortion or pro-murder, they must believe that abortion or murder is the only right option in every situation.

Why would I say such a crazy thing? It is just consistency with what the conservatives have done with the term "pro-life." Apparently to be pro-life is to believe that life is to be the only right option in every situation. Any exceptions - such as abortion being ok in cases of rape or incest - and you are no longer pro-life.

But perhaps openness and honesty with the debate is not what's needed. Let's just use the same type of wordplay with a different political slant.

[19. IMO said the following at 9:21 AM on Jan 26:]

19

Didn't President Obama say, last Tuesday, that we can "reaffirm our enduring spirit ... and carry forward the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."

Why does he not apply that to unborn babies?

People don't be fooled. Look at his voting record. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton. At least acknowledge it.

Any legislation at the expense of an unborn child is no legislation I will endorse. Period.

[20. PassionatelyProLife said the following at 10:03 AM on Jan 26:]

20

As my "name" says, I've been passionately pro-life since a little prior to the 2008 elections for our present President. I'm currently 24, and only recently (age 22) truly gave my life to Christ. Shortly after this, I got out of a committed relationship in which me and my boyfriend were sexually active. I was on birthcontrol, and we religiously used a condom as well.

There were a couple of scares, all around exam time (obviously during college), and the doctor gave me Plan B (have taken it twice). I don't know how I feel about Plan B as of now, but I'm not sexually active anymore so I don't expect to ever have to worry about pregnancy until marriage. Even though I don't know how I feel about it, I'll never take it again.

I know what it feels like to be afraid you're pregnant with your whole "life" ahead of you. Both my boyfriend and I claimed to be Christians at this point in time, and we knew we'd never have an abortion, but what would I REALLY do if I was actually pregnant?

What I didn't want to admit was that I had sex before marriage, and pregnancy was a possibility anytime I had intercourse. This society places so much emphasis on being sexually free that the consequences are only something that gets in the way as opposed to something that should keep us from abstaining.

What does all this say? Apart from Christ, there is no hope that the world will recongnize that abortion is murder. It seems illogical that the world can't recognize that life starts at conception (even though it's written in every biology text book across America), but the idea of being sexually free trumps that. The devil has masked the truth once again.

We should pray for social revolutions (a revival of sorts) and then the political system will change. Prayer works, but I believe all of this is in God's plan for the end times (not speculating, just thinking).

I don't know, I get fired up about this just like everyone else. I haven't said anything new or thought-provoking, but I believe the abortion-era has opened many would-be mother's eyes to the need for Christ.

[21. BDB said the following at 11:53 AM on Jan 26:]

21

#18. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. wrote:

>>I don't understand the question.<<

I'll rephrase: I think a fundamental reason Republicans lost is that they spend too much time regurgitating talking points and refuse to listen to what really concerns people.

In my case, I found that most active Republican party officials stopped listening to me five years ago on spending. When a fundraiser called me, I rasied the concern. Sometimes they laughed and hung up. One woman, she seemed like a young college-aged volunteer, asked, "What do you mean?" I explained how spending had become much worse than when Gingrich was speaker. But unfortunately, the Congressmen in my area were among the worst earmarkers, the most profligate spenders.

But that's not why people voted for Obama. Lots of Obama supporters expressed frustration that Republicans just don't "get it." A lot of them are scared about health care. But instead of carefully analyzing Obama's health care plan, and comparing it to McCain's, we have talk-show-hosts wasting days and days on Bill Ayers. Now that more than 50% of all health-care spending comes from the government, it's a VASTLY more important issue than "unrepentant terrorists" from the 1960's.

The Wall Street Journal finally did a good analysis of the two plans. They even pointed out that Obama's economists had previously suppored McCain's plan. But their editorial pleas that McCain would PLEASE explain his plan in a debate fell on deaf ears.

And that deafness is a key reason why Republicans are out of power. If the Wall Street Journal feels like Republicans refuse to listen, how does everyone else feel?

That's why people need to GO TALK TO some Obama supporters. Ask them why they supported Obama instead of McCain. You'll find it's not just a difference over Iraq.

Indeed, Senator Joe Lieberman won re-election as an Independent after sticking to his opinion that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. And Deleware is a very blue state. But he also listened and represented his state on a lot of other issues in a way they were satisfied.

The path to political victory is not talking AT people, it's listening to and addressing their concerns in a way that shows you heard them.

Frankly, after reading Obama's book, I think he's grappling with the issue of abortion. He lays out both sides of the issue and why he believes what he does. He doesn't call anyone a Nazi. I also think he's had some really bad experiences with religious conservatives. What we need right now is a "Bono" who can take the pro-Life message to Obama in a respectful way.

[22. Kit said the following at 12:22 PM on Jan 26:]

22

BDB,

Well said. This is not the only issue, and people would be more apt to listen if we realized this.

[23. Keisha said the following at 5:45 PM on Jan 26:]

23

Hey BDB,

I am a black voter who is pro-life and voted for Obama. I chose not to vote for McCain because of his choice for veep, and his insistence that 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong' well into a financial meltdown. I think that Republicans would do better with voters of all stripes if they chose candidates with a better knowledge of the economy and better plans for America's relationship with foreign countries... I am upset about the increase in abortion that will result from Obama's term, but I believe that I can do better work in fighting abortion personally if I have a job. And I pray to God for forgiveness on that opinion.

[24. Stefanie said the following at 7:14 PM on Jan 26:]

24

Jonathan Sarfati (#14)
How many times have I read a post that says we should be "single issue voters"?

It is usually used in the context of "you should vote republican, even though you disagree with their stance on many things, because they are going to help end abortion."

So why can't it be in the context of "you should vote democrat, because your pro-life allies are supporters of teachers unions"

If abortion is all that matters, you should work with those people who will help end it, even if you disagree with some of their other issues.

I know there are many religious conservative people in the Republican ranks, but there are also many business people. Business people are not republican because they care about family values. Many republicans are pro-choice. Just because someone is republican does not make them your ally. I think the republican party caters to the religious conservative crowd to get votes, not because they care. And seeing that the religious conservative vote did not guarantee the election, I think they may soon abandon the religious conservative crowd.

You need to take inventory of your true allies, and then work with them, because they will work with you.

Honestly, I don't think the answer is with either major political party. That's why I hate the Republican/Democrat argument.

[25. BDB said the following at 7:57 PM on Jan 26:]

25

Sorry, Lieberman is Senator in Connecticut, also a very blue state. Biden's from Delaware. I get those New England states confused some times...

[26. Stefanie said the following at 8:29 PM on Jan 26:]

26

One more thought. . .
Thank you Keisha for your post. I feel like there are probably many things that are more effective in the fight against abortion than standing on the sidelines and expecting legislation to "fix" the abortion issue. Don't get me wrong, I would like abortion to be illegal. But the problem is in people's hearts. If abortion were made illegal tonight, all 300 million people in this country would not wake up tomorrow morning pro-life. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the people in this country. The only thing that can reach that is personal involvement with a lost world.

Mentoring a teenager is probably more effective than legislation. And you may have more impact on that teen's eternal soul than if you make everyone "act" righteous on the outside, but do nothing to address their hearts.

There will probably be many murderers in hell, but there will also be people who never murdered anyone. There may be many thieves, but also many people who never stole anything. There are many cultures that expect girls to be virgins when they get married, but that doesn't mean they have a saving relationship with God.

[27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:42 PM on Jan 26:]

27

Stefanie, I am Australian. But note that the Dems are united about pro-abortion, including partial birth. They denied those useful idiot "Democrats for Life" a link on the official Dem website. The GOP is hardly an ideal party, but at least they are not totally sold out to the abortion industry, led by a pro-infanticide president Hussein "I don't want my daughters punished with a baby" Obamov.

The NEA is also pro-abort and pro-homosexual, so why should we support teachers unions?

[28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:48 PM on Jan 26:]

28

Keisha (#25) claims to be pro-life, but she is clearly willing to sacrifice millions of unborn babies for the sake of the almighty dollar.

And for her information (although this is not nearly as serious as her disregard for life), the GOP in 2005 tried to reign in Freddie and Fannie but were opposed by the Dems, as this video documents.

And note that it was Democrat presidents Carter and Clinton who bullied lenders into "sub-prime loans". Even the leftist NYT warned 10 years ago of the problems (Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending by Steven Holmes, NYT 30 Sept 1999):

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

[29. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:41 AM on Jan 27:]

29

Stefanie in 26 said:
It is usually used in the context of "you should vote republican, even though you disagree with their stance on many things, because they are going to help end abortion."

I usually heard it along the following lines:
"If a candidate has promised to do all that is in his power to pass legislation that advances abortion and another candidate has no intention of advancing abortion (regardless of his intentions going in the opposite direction), then you should vote for the latter over the former because the lives of unborn children are the most important issue today."

I never heard "vote republican, not democrat" especially since they could be fined for it or have their tax-free status taken away or not be allowed to exist anymore.

Keisha AND Stefanie (27 and 28),

Not a big McCain fan either...but a lot of McCain's planned policies for the economy were echoed by Obama...evidence of that in the fact that he's CONTINUING the very thing Bush's administration was doing in the last days. (Though to give both credit, Obama and McCain were initially against the stimulus package but felt pressure for a quick fix...cuz the majority of voters want to see progress NOW, not later).

And for most of the election campaigning, no one saw this housing bubble-burst coming. One year ago, houses were selling within minutes of For Sale signs being put up - walk out, pound your sign in the front yard, and someone would see you, pull up, and make an offer 3x's the amount you listed for.

Apparently no one in government saw it coming...cuz everyone on both sides (as Sarfati gave good info on) had a hand in the economic downfall.

As someone said on another recent post, government likes to make the decisions that make life easy NOW with little thought of the consequences years from now.

Maybe that's a consequence of our 4-year election plan. Clearly, it wasn't Clinton that got the backlash for his poor legislation in the housing industry - instead, its all Bush's fault. There's no repercussions for Clinton (or Bush, or Obama) to make good, long-term decisions in their term...because THEY won't get credit for it when the policies start bearing fruit. Better make the quick fix to keep people happy while I'm president and let the next guy take the fall for it.

[30. TINA said the following at 10:20 AM on Jan 27:]

30

OKAAAAAAYYYYYY.......WHAT are we gonna do about it? so far the approach by many is obviously not effective here...how can we come to agreement and fight this issue? we live in a country that allows us to stand up for what we believe that's how laws are changed...so lets rise together in prayer first and allow the Lord to lead the action...

[31. BDB said the following at 7:08 PM on Jan 27:]

31

Here's a real concrete example:

I just got a call from a pollster working for the Family Research Council. They asked me which was the top priority:

1) Protecting the life of the unborn.
2) Stopping enforcement of the fairness doctrine.
3) Stopping something else liberal
4) All of the above

I said "none of the above." They needed to focus on how government spending is impacting families. After I hung up, I realized that I should have mentioned how scared many families are about health care. FRC should really devote some resources to that issue.