Is God mad at America?

---

What do you make of this sign? Did God once love America and now not so much? Here is a clip from a comment I left at a friend's blog:

Do you not find it odd how some always seem to be speaking of how God is mad at, and will judge, our country because of things like abortion and homosexuality. It is like God didn't care about the ways that we treated slaves for hundreds of years. It is like he gave people who hated a pass and somehow found a way to bless America. Yet now He has decided to be mad at America.

My point is how people fixated with wrath and judgment have warped the gospel message. It is like wrath and hate are on the same level as love and mercy. And as a sad result Christians have become known more for their strong advocacy of judgment rather than mercy. So my concern is not all that theological but more pragmatic. What if we only preached love and let God deal with the topics of wrath and judgment? What if Christians were known for our love?

Yes, I know that I am dreaming! How could we ever love those who seem to be (to some anyway) our enemies?

---

Converting an Indifferent Abortion Culture

Dustin Siggins recently posted something titled "Time To Change Pro-Life Tactics?" where he lists things that he would change in the approach that pro-lifers take in America. He says that it is all about "converting a culture that is largely indifferent regarding abortion". Here are a few excerpts from his article with a few of my comments:

• Stop using Biblical arguments to debate abortion.
  It is wonderful to be motivated by faith and words from the bible but it is not always profitable to quote scripture to people who do not embrace our values.
  
• Do a better job of educating people about responsible sexual activity prior to becoming pregnant and having an abortion.
  Not sure that people really need more information - even teens understand.
  I might suggest that the abundance of abortion facilities that are used for after-the-fact birth control contributes to irresponsible behaviors.
• Indiscriminately throwing up images of dead babies and similar tactics as employed by Randall Terry will cause most people to simply turn and look in the other direction.
  Sadly religious hate speech and outrageous imagery seems to have an audience and folks often gravitate to the incendiary words of religious leaders.
• Stop making abortion about women vs. children. Both are victims when it comes to abortion.
  Often, in the case of incest and rape, women are victims. Yet, more often than not, abortions are done for the convenience of the mother with little regard for the baby.

I suggest that you read the whole article here. I have been pro-life for almost forty years. I long to see us embrace an approach that really makes a difference. I long to see the a change in America where babies are not dismissed as fetuses. Do you resonate with Siggins? What do you think pro-lifers should do to advance the cause of life?

---

The Value We Ascribe to Human Beings

There is just nothing like jumping back into blogging after a few days off with a controversial topic like abortion. In May Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix declared that a nun had excommunicated herself by advising that a seriously ill woman could have an abortion - I have been thinking about that for a bit and wondering why a bishop would publicly criticize a nun that way.

Abortion is such a dicey subject.. thinking about it reminds me of this comment that I clipped a few months ago.. don't remember where I got it but I have also been pondering it a bit:

If it still hasn't got a functioning brain, it's not really a human life. It's life (but then again, a sperm is made of live cells too, and no one considers it a person), it may even be human life (your hair is too, and cutting it is not considered murder), but it's not A human life. It's not a person.

I think that many hold similar views. To balance things out a bit, here is an excerpt from an old National Review article titled When Life Begins:

Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.

It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two.

The article goes on to speak to the real issues around when life begins.. I think that this goes to the heart of the abortion issue:

Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?

Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives.

Abortion is a very complex issue - my views on it have changed slightly over time.. but that phrase, "the value we ascribe to human beings", is a haunting one. Going back to the nun in Arizona - I do not know her but I imagine that she has a very high regard and value for human life.. and perhaps she made a prayerful decision to value the life of the mother over that of her baby?

In either case I think that abortion is probably always a decision to value one human being over another. So the question might be one that involves the criteria by which we evaluate the value we ascribe to each human being - in each case we are definitely placing a higher value on either the life of the little human being or that of the bigger human being. And sadly I think that many times that little human being is devalued because the larger human being does not want to be inconvenienced.

Pro-Life Fringe Lunacy

I am troubled of late by the circus that is ensuing in my state at the trial of alleged murderer Scott Roeder. Consider this clip from a piece by a TV reporter who is covering the trial:

In the front of the Sedgwick County courthouse Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue and one of the leaders of the Summer of Mercy, called out fellow pro-life leaders for their lack of support for Scott Roeder.

"Notice how few pro-life leaders are here, it's because some of them are horrified about what happened. But it's also because some of them are terrified to be consistent with their own logic and their own rhetoric," Terry told reporters.

But as Terry spoke passers by like Rex Morley couldn't help but yell back.

Morley says he's anti-abortion but calls those like Terry fringe lunatics.

"What a spiel, I can't believe that these people really believe that's its right to kill a man for doing what the law allows him to do," said Morley.

There is a rumor floating that one-time pro-life Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline might be testifying at the trial. I am sickened and saddened that pro-life politics might be introduced in the defense of a man who allegedly murdered a person in cold blood in church.

On the positive side most sane pro-lifers recognize the antics of glory-hound Randall Terry as more of his well-known grandstanding.

The Unintended Pregnancy Prevention Act

Last month Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, posted several entries to his blog about the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act" jointly proposed by pro-lifer Ohio Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan and pro-choicer Connecticut Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.Here are a few excerpts from his posts:

• For starters, last time Planned Parenthood would not sign on to this bill. This time they did. So the legislation pretty much has the full support of the pro-choice world.
• No major pro-life groups endorsed the bill, and Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee calls it "a scam" and especially criticizes portions of the bill that will end up funding groups like Planned Parenthood which, in addition to doing the family planning work they'll get money for, also performs abortions. As of now, I don't even see endorsements from Democrats for Life or Feminists for Life.
• The pro-lifers who signed tend to be on the progressive side but the group does include a few who are moderates or even cultural conservatives, such as Rev. Joel Hunter of Lakewood Church, Rich Cizik, the former vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals and Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

Steven lists supporters (including Brian McLaren, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Sojourners and others) of the legislation here. He also posts an email correspondence with pro-life champion Jill Stanek here. In this correspondence Jill speaks to why some pro-lifers oppose the family planning aspects of this new legislation. Here are a few points she makes:

• I would only support abstinence training with perhaps an explanation of the harm of contraceptives - the failure rate, that the pill is composed of artificial female steroids, etc.(Hormonal contraceptives are bad for women. They're simply artificial female steroids. If we understand the harm of male steroids, why not the harm of female steroids?)
• Contraceptives are the root of abortion. "Contraceptive" means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.
• Sex outside of marriage is a sin. ... We need to teach that sex outside of marriage is categorically harmful.
• Steve, for one thing, the idea of authorizing "lesser sins" to decrease "greater sins" is not Scriptural. In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite phenomenon occurs: Little sins lead to bigger sins.

I found Steven's posts on the new legislation to be thought provoking and I think that Jill presents an interesting view of why pro-life organizations are not supporting this legislation.

As I pondered the specifics of this new bill I was struck with the thought that this bill really will do little to reduce the need for abortions.. most of it proposes grants for family planning programs that counsel at risk teens and provide contraception planning for low-income families. I don't think that these types of programs have not worked in the past.. I may be wrong.. so I don't see how this legislation will have any impact on the need for abortions.

To me this issue seems to be more of an issue of why people have irresponsible sex.. it seems to be a much deeper issue than any government can deal with. What do you think? Do you feel that the issue is education about contraception or abstinence? Or is the issue about something else?

Tiller, "Operation Rescue" and Bonhoeffer

My cyber-friend and fellow pro-lifer Julie has a great blog post with the same title as this post. Here are a few excerpts:

"Jon and I were active in Operation Rescue back in the late 80s and early 90s. Jon spent Easter weekend (1990) in jail along with 300 Christians for blockading an abortion clinic in downtown Los Angeles. I stood with picketers on the sidelines with a baby in a backpack and a toddler in a stroller."
...
"The heyday of Operation Rescue resulted in little rescue. I mean, we heard about women who turned back from particular clinics. But that wouldn't have prevented them from seeking out other ones."
...
"The first tentative conversations I heard about murdering abortionists happened over dinner at one of the Operation Rescue leader's homes. ... Passive resistance was not effective. There needed to be graphic symbols and social/shaming pressure on abortionists to make them give up their abortion practices. This is when picketing abortionist homes became popular (using those graphic signs of aborted fetuses). But Jeff went further. He said if that didn't work, he could understand the need to take this cause all the way to murder (though quickly added that he didn't yet feel led that way himself)."
...
"Bonhoeffer didn't get a gun and stalk concentration camp guards. ... Killing abortionists is like killing a prison camp guard. It doesn't actually eliminate what a pro-life person sees as evil. It may stop abortions that day, but it doesn't change the nature of the laws, or address the reasons that abortion exists."

I so respect Julie's writing and clear thinking on this topic. IMO militant and inflammatory "baby killer" language is part of the problem and needs to stop. Head over to Julie's place to read all of her thoughts.. and leave a comment there.. I turned the comments off here.

Ethical Pro-? Riddles

Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief and co-founder of BeliefNet, recently posed these ethical questions:

For Pro-Lifers he asked:

You are running out of a burning hospital and can run into the fertility clinic to save a liquid nitrogen container holding 500 zygotes, or into the natal unit and save a baby. Which do you do?

For Pro-Choicers he asked:

Let's assume that abortion is fully legal, right up until the point of birth. Would you feel morally comfortable aborting the fetus one day before the birth date? Under what circumstances? And if you feel like that's too late in the pregnancy, where would you personally draw the line?

I am a pro-lifer so I will answer the first question: I would first go to the natal unit.. time permitting I would go to the fertility clinic.. if I even knew it was there.

Your turn.. depending on your pro-? position.. how would you answer?

Red Envelopes to Washington

4/8/09 Update: The White House confirms that they have received over 2 million red envelopes.. [snarky comment alert].. not sure that the Obama administration was impacted but the post office thanks everyone who participated.. probably generated over a million dollars in revenue for them :)

2/22/09: Got an email from a friend this week urging me to:

Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party supply stores. On the front, address it to:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington , D.C. 20500

On the back, write the following message.

This envelope represents one child who died because of an abortion. It is empty because the life that was taken is now unable to be a part of our world.

We will mail the envelopes out March 31st, 2009.

Put it in the mail, and send it. Then forward this event to every one of your friends who you think would send one too.
...
Together we can change the heart of The President and save the lives of millions of children.

Does anyone think that this campaign will really work? I guess I don't. I periodically "write my congressman" and always get a form letter response with their position on whatever issue I had wrote them about.. it is generally a huge waste of my time.. albeit a cathartic one.

Don't misunderstand me.. I think that a campaign like this one is a sincere and heartfelt one.. but I don't think that it will change President Obama's views about abortion laws.. but it may help the economy and maybe save a job or two at the post office.

What do you think? Have you found, from personal experience, that our leaders in Washington are responsive to your letters? How would you respond to these red envelopes if you were President Obama?

Kansas Late-Term Abortionist Aquitted

A jury in Wichita acquitted late-term abortion doctor George Tiller of 19 abortion-related charges Friday. Here is a clip from his testimony in that trial:

Under questioning from Assistant Atty. Gen. Barry Disney, Tiller said that he charges $6,000 for abortions of fetuses that are "viable," or able to live outside the womb. He performs 250 to 300 such abortions a year, he said, and about 30% of his gross income is profit.

Yeah.. this is one of the sadder times to be a Kansan.. actually a sad time to be a human.. I really don't have much else to say.

Prolife Senators Support Sebelius Nomination

President Barack Obama nominated pro-choice Governor Kathleen Sebelius this week as secretary of Health and Human Services - the most powerful cabinet position for the lives of unborn babies. Unfortunately and sadly Kansas’ two Republican senators, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, have said they will support the governor's nomination. The last I looked both of these guys (especially Sam) claim to be pro-lifers.

I guess this is just another example of how politicians really just give lip service to unborn babies. Wake up pro-lifers and stop believing the rhetoric coming from these politicians. Of course I am sure that staunch pro-life senators like John McCain will lead the charge to block this nomination.. and if you believe that I have a bridge in Kansas to sell you. Guess it is just a sad day to be a Kansan.

Morality

I just uploaded this photo, that I took 22 years ago when I visited China, and made this poster. I was motivated in part by this comment that my cyberfriend Casey contributed a few days ago:

All laws either encourage or condemn a certain behavior. It's not a matter of enforcing morality or not enforcing morality. It's whose morality are we going to enforce?

Sometimes people say silly things like we should not be inflicting our 'morality' on others.. Casey is right to ask "whose morality". I think that our laws are very reflective of our 'morality'.. at one time they reflected an ignorance about the rights of women and African Americans.. today they reflect an ignorance about the rights of the unborn - just because something is legal does not mean that it is moral.

Brownback Calls Out Pelosi - Not!

The following is part of a letter that was allegedly mailed out from the office of Kansas Senator Sam Brownback.

As expected.. at the bottom of the letter you can read this:

I did a bit of checking on this.. after all Sam is one of my senators.. and found this on Politico.com:

Brownback spokesman Brian Hart told the National Catholic Reporter, “Our chief of staff ... had never seen, heard of or approved it,” suggesting the letter was entirely unauthorized.

Hart, who didn’t return our requests for comment, told the magazine that Brownback’s Senate staff has “reached out to both the organization responsible and the mail house [responsible for printing and distributing the letter] and directed them not to use Sam Brownback’s name, signature, likeness or representation in any way moving forward and expressed that we are not pleased with the content of the letter.”

But Brownback’s chief of staff, Glen Chambers, painted a slightly different version of events in an e-mail to Catholic Advocate founder Deal Hudson, who provided it to POLITICO.

“As I mentioned to you on the phone, I think we’ve gotten to the bottom of the confusion over the mail piece,” Chambers wrote. “Neither the senator nor I had seen the letter or were aware of it. I figured out that you did get permission to use his name on the piece from a former campaign staffer in February of last year.”

I am sure that Sam will think twice in the future when he deals with faith and prolife advocacy groups. It is a good reminder for us all that the faithful do not always act in good faith.. especially when money is involved.

Informed Ultrasound Consent

Excerpted from this USA Today / Associated Press article:

Lawmakers in 11 states are considering bills that would offer or require ultrasounds before a woman gets an abortion. The most stringent are proposed laws in Nebraska, Indiana and Texas, which would require a doctor show the ultrasound image of the fetus to the woman, despite legal challenges to a similar measure in Oklahoma.

A similar bill was proposed in Wyoming but it was defeated in a state House committee before reaching the floor.

"Many times, these are young mothers who are in vulnerable situations. And they are about to make a very grave choice." said Nebraska Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln, who introduced the ultrasound bill (LB675) there. "This is about informed consent."

Sixteen states already have laws related to abortion ultrasounds, some requiring they be performed and others requiring a woman be told where she can get a free ultrasound.

Now this is an abortion pre-requisite that I agree with.. I think that women contemplating an abortion should be required to view an ultrasound of the life growing inside of them.. what would be the harm in it?

Religious Abortion Views

Found this chart at The Pew Forum. It is a telling picture of how divided religious America is on the legality of abortion. Small wonder that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned yet.

Apart from the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the supreme court, what do you think it will take to change the abortion laws? Do you think that medical science will ever convince anyone that an unborn baby is a life? Seems that there is already plenty of evidence.

The Freedom of Choice Act

Therese responded to my last post titled Abortion and the States saying:

I'm sure a number of states would try to outlaw all abortion, but what's really grim is that every limitation you mention, limitations voted on by the people of the states, every last one will be GONE if Pres Obama signs his "Freedom" of "Choice" Act.

Got me to wondering.. I found this summary at WashingtonWatch.com:

"Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

A few thoughts:

1. It seems that this bill would not invalidate all state restrictions on abortion as fetal viability is involved.. also doesn't address other points such as parental notification.
   
   
2. The bill has never gotten out of committee.. it will be interesting to see if it does and if it is filibuster proof.
   
   
3. I suspect that if it actually does come to a vote it will look differently then the one that didn't get out of committee.
   
   
4. It will really be interesting to see who actually votes for the bill.. at least we will have an idea who the pro-choice folks (especially the Republican ones) really are.. and how much outrage (read that filibustering) is expressed by the so-called pro-lifers.
   
   
5. If passed and signed the bill will probably and ultimately be contested and decided by the supreme court.

I will be surprised and saddened if it is actually passed and signed.. alas.. I have been surprised before.

Abortion and the States

From a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute:

Since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, states have constructed a lattice work of abortion law, codifying, regulating and limiting whether, when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. The following highlights the major provisions of these state laws.

• Physician and Hospital Requirements: 38 states require an abortion to be performed by a licensed physician. 19 states require an abortion to be performed in a hospital after a specified point in the pregnancy, and 18 states require the involvement of a second physician after a specified point.
• Gestational Limits: 36 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy, most often fetal viability.
• “Partial-Birth” Abortion: 14 states have laws in effect that prohibit “partial-birth” abortion. 4 of these laws apply only to postviability abortions.
• Public Funding: 17 states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions for Medicaid enrollees in the state. 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of state funds except in those cases when federal funds are available: where the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. In defiance of federal requirements, South Dakota limits funding to cases of life endangerment only.
• Coverage by Private Insurance: 4 states restrict coverage of abortion in private insurance plans to cases in which the woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. Additional abortion coverage is permitted only if the woman purchases it at her own expense.
• Refusal: 46 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion. 43 states allow institutions to refuse to perform abortions, 16 of which limit refusal to private or religious institutions.
• State-Mandated Counseling: 17 states mandate that women be given counseling before an abortion that includes information on at least one of the following: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (6 states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (8 states), long-term mental health consequences for the woman (7 states) or information on the availability of ultrasound (6 states).
• Waiting Periods: 24 states require a woman seeking an abortion to wait a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, between when she receives counseling and the procedure is performed. 6 of these states have laws that effectively require the woman make two separate trips to the clinic to obtain the procedure.
• Parental Involvement: 35 states require some type of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. 22 states require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 11 require that one or both parents be notified and 2 states require both parental consent and notification.

You can check out a state-by-state breakdown of these here.

I have to say that I was surprised at the diversity of the abortion related legislation.. especially the first two bullet points.. also interesting how insurance limitations are involved. Any of these laws surprise you?

I do wonder though.. if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court.. how many states would outlaw all abortions and what the penalties would be for those participating in abortions?

McCain on Unborn Babies

According to this article:

In an interview with evangelical leader James Dobson that aired Wednesday Palin said she thought Republican presidential candidate John McCain would implement the GOP platform if elected - "I do, from the bottom of my heart" - but McCain doesn't support the platform on three issues important to evangelicals: abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.

The platform calls for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, an issue McCain says should be left to individual states. Similarly, the platform seeks a constitutional ban on all abortions; again, McCain supports allowing states to decide the question. McCain supports research using embryonic stem cells, which the platform opposes.

Interesting that McCain believes that the rights and person-hood of the unborn is one that should be relegated to the states. Got to wonder if he understands this issue at all.. or if his pro-life position is just another case of pandering for the votes of folks that have deep felt and strongly held beliefs that the rights of the unborn are ones endowed to them by their creator.

Voting the Supreme Court

Over at Rose's Reasonings we have been having a spirited debate about the presidential campaign. Several of the commenters have asserted that "discerning" Christians could not vote for Barack Obama because he would appoint pro-choice justices. The insinuation and innuendo is that to vote for Obama is tantamount to sinning.. but I digress. Following is a comment I left about presidents and their supreme court nominations:

For the past 28 years.. in the last 7 presidential elections I have voted pro-life.. the abortion issue trumped every other issue.. I believed that Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the elder) would nominate pro-life justices.. Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy.. Bush nominated Souter.. and Ford nominated Stevens.. much of the present court make-up can be attributed to these republican presidents.

I understand how strong this issue is but I simply no longer believe that the supreme court is the answer to abortion. I think that the best that they will do is return the issue to the states.. they will not outlaw abortion in our country.

The rights of unborn babies is not a state issue.. it is one which.. like slavery.. demands a national answer. William Wilberforce was a man of integrity who made a change in slavery for England. We fought a civil war to give slaves person-hood.. this led to a change in our constitution.

I do not believe that John McCain has a fire in his belly about the unborn.. he has never introduced legislation to abolish abortion in our country.. his support for unborn babies has been passive at best.. he will do nothing for the unborn if he is elected.. and I don't think that even a pro-life justice nomination is assured.. he makes many decisions by the seat of his pants.. if he had not listened to advisers we would be looking at a pro-choice Ridge or Lieberman VP nomination.

What do you think? Is it the position of the high court to send the legalization of abortion back to state legislatures? Do you think that they would ever rule that unborn babies have a right to life? I am interested in your thoughts.

The Evangelical Vote

Once upon a time the likes of Ronald Reagan spoke at conferences held by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). So it surprised me when Richard Cizik, chief NAE lobbyist, gave this somewhat anti-Republican interview reported in Christianity Today. Here are a few excerpts from the interview:

I'm of the opinion that some people are going to vote Republican no matter what.... Party line voting in my opinion is unbiblical. It says you don't think. If you're simply voting on same sex marriage and abortion, you're not thinking. What I'm saying is that a lot of evangelical don't think, sad to say.
...
There's a demographic shift that's occurring. Young [evangelicals] are less tied to the Republican Party. Those who are disaffected with the GOP are not becoming Democrats. They're becoming Independents. It's a slow moving earthquake that you don't fully recognize.
...
Evangelicals are 50-percent conservative. There are 10 percent that are liberal, and you've got 40-percent that are swing voters. They're the people that McCain has to worry about because if, for whatever reason--the economy, etc.--they go for Obama, then McCain is in trouble. If they decide to vote on economic reasons or the war, then McCain is in trouble.

I think that Cizik gave this kind of interview because the McCain campaign has been snubbing his requests for a meeting and the Obama campaign has been listening to him. That said, I have to say that I found some of his perspectives to be very interesting.. helps explain the way that I have been feeling.

Can anyone else relate?

Prolife Politics

This comment by rmkton over at Julie's place resonated with my thinkings of late:

I think it is interesting to hear folks say that they vote Republican based upon the pro-life stand when it seems obvious to me that Republicans have no interest in actually overturning Roe v. Wade.

It is an easy stand to take to be pro-life when you know it will garner a lot of votes and yet the practicality of passing anti-abortion legislation is nil. I think it is why many Republicans pur forth anti-abortion bills with no provision for the health of the mother which they know will get shot down....then they can claim to be pro-life and demonize those who allow for abortion as "baby killers".

Abortion proponents at least say they are for it...but the anti-abortion crowd say they are against it, but do nothing practically to stop it. Appointing conservative supreme court justices ain't gonna do it.

I have been voting prolife since Reagan and I am thoroughly disgusted that these who depend on our prolife votes do absolutely nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ever wonder:

• what our country would look like if our conservative majority (i.e. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy) supreme court ever had the courage of their conviction to take on Roe?
• how many conservative jurists it will take (6, 7, 8 or all of them) to take on Roe?
• how many babies would be saved if abortion was controlled by the states?
• how many states would actually outlaw all abortions?
• why the Republican Party did nothing to overturn Roe when it had both the congress and the presidency for the first six years of this millenium?

I am already hearing the rhetoric in my head.. I espoused it for 25+ years.. I understand it.. I just think that it is irrational to allow this issue to cause us to ignore all of the other issues.