Life of the Party

Why Pro-Lifers Should Never Trust a Republican Who Dodges the Abortion Question

Many pro-lifers are fooled by Republican candidates who dodge the abortion question in their campaigns, because they prefer not to have the general public know where they really stand.  Pro-lifers often give the candidate a pass because, they reason,  "he has to be able to obtain broad appeal,"  especially if he is campaigning in a "blue state".   Pro-lifers really need to be asking themselves, "who's he fooling?"  Take a look at what Republicans for Choice had to say to their supporters before the 2006 elections:

What will  this Congress look like for women’s rights after this election?          

If control of Congress switches from Republican to Democrat won’t that mean a woman’s right to choose will be safe?  The answer is “not necessarily.”

When Republicans For Choice was founded following the Supreme Court’s Webster decision back in 1989 (the first decision that almost overturned Roe) the majority of state legislatures were Democrat-controlled.  Congress was Democrat-controlled.          

Some of the most active anti-choice activists in office were Democrats.  And many still are.  The Democrat’s Leader in the U S Senate, today, Harry Reid, for example is a strong opponent of a woman’s right to choose.

So we  founded Republicans For Choice (RFC) to help you look past the Party label.          
If you are an active member of RFC you have already received our candidate listing of all Republican candidates.  We have included those running for Congress (House and Senate) and for Governor and what their positions are on a woman’s right to choose as well as on embryonic stem cell research (there are some anti’s who are good on stem cell research).  If you need another copy let us know by email.

We do not post our full listing since we know our site is monitored by the opposition so we don’t want to give them an easily accessible target list of our friends. We will share it upon written request with friendly press and those who join with us.          

Many of our strongest pro-choice GOP office holders are under attack. Some may lose.  But the sad irony is they will lose not because of their position on Choice….but because voters will unfairly paint them as anti-choice and anti-stem cell research and pro-Bush just because they are Republican.

So our plea to the voting public is this….if you care about preserving a woman’s right to choose…take the time to find out the real position of the candidates.  Look past the Party label.           

And also understand this…it takes a whole lot more principle and courage to be a Republican running as a pro-choice advocate than to be a Democrat.  So if you are lucky enough to have two pro-choice candidates to choose from…please reward the courage of the Republican with your vote.

We have some races we are especially concerned about …Nancy Johnson, Deb Pryce, Sue Kelly, Chris Shays, Rob Simmons, John Sweeney  all have tough races for their re-election in the House. Senator Lincoln Chafee who survived a vicious primary challenge by an anti-choice activist is behind in his race.  We are more optimistic about our good friend Senator Olympia Snowe who has been such a leader for women in the Senate.  These wonderful, honest, dedicated legislators all deserve your support. 

Remember as well when you vote for a pro-choice Republican you not only get a candidate who trusts women to make their own decisions and who fights to keep government out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom…but they also believe in lower taxes so you get to keep more of what you earn!  Such a deal!!

While there are a few points in the above message that are laughable, (1. Harry Reid a strong opponent of abortion rights? and 2. It takes more principle and courage to be a pro-choice Republican than to be a pro-choice Democrat?  Perhaps more slimy political tactics.)  But there are a few very important points to be aware of in this message:

1. There is a persistent effort by Republicans for Choice and their coalition of friends to make the party impotent on fighting abortion and other attacks on life.
2. Pro-abortion Republican politicians rely on the votes of pro-lifers to get elected, and they don't want you to know their position on life issues.  They tell pro-death groups and their friends in the pro-death media where they stand, but don't want you and I to know.  (Note: There are some Republicans who are openly pro-abortion.  These politicians have been considered "safe" in their seats until 2006, but most pro-abortion Republicans hide their views behind their double-speak.)
3. Just because the Democrats attack a Republican for being "anti-choice" doesn't mean he's pro-life.  As noted in the RFC message, they have unfairly charactarized these candidates.
4. RFC desperately wants pro-choice Republicans to win, to prove their point, that the party needs to drop abortion as an issue.

Don't fall for it.  Resist outwardly pro-abortion candidates like Rudy Giuliani and cosmetically pro-life candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney.  Resist. Resist. Resist.

Who Will Phyllis Schlafly Support for President?

From the Team Tancredo website (And that doesn't necessarily answer the question.  You've gotta love how it's never all about himself!):

(Feb 22, CONCORD, NH) -Conservative author Phyllis Schlafly urged New Hampshire Republican activists to test the conservative bona fides of the 2008 presidential candidates, especially those of the three Republicans leading in polls.

"New Hampshire is the front line of the presidential race, and as I go about and talk to the conservative movement, they're in disarray," said Schlafly, who led opposition to the failed Equal Rights Amendment more than 25 years ago. "They don't know what to do, who to back. We're told by the media that we have a choice of one of three, (Sen. John) McCain or (former New York mayor Rudy) Giuliani or (former Massachusetts governor Mitt) Romney. Each one of them is capable of raising $100 million. I'm not happy of being told that at all. I don't think that any of the three are acceptable."                    

She spoke yesterday at Newick's Restaurant in Merrimack before about 50 people, including members of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, the National Right to Life Committee and staffers of Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign. She told them to ask hard questions of each candidate so that each would commit himself. But she made clear that she thought that McCain, Romney and Giuliani lacked credibility on issues important to her - immigration, gay marriage and abortion.

She disagreed with McCain's choice to co-sponsor legislation with Sen. Ted Kennedy that would give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Instead, she supported building a fence and fortifying the border patrol on the country's southern border.                   
Romney didn't impress her when she saw him speak in Missouri.

"Mitt Romney's very handsome, very attractive, a wonderful speaker with a wonderful resume," but he didn't focus on conservative issues, she said.                    

Instead, he focused on his turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics, she said.

As for Giuliani, Schlafly said his standing at the top of polls won't last. "The polls also say that people don't know that he's pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and anti-gun," she said. "I think those polls will change when people find out."                    

McCain, Giuliani and Romney are the top three candidates in the latest poll of likely Republican primary voters by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Schlafly, 82, visited New Hampshire to stump for issues she has long supported. Yesterday, she urged state legislators to fight the repeal of the parental-notification abortion law at a press conference in Concord. Schlafly, reviled by feminists for opposing the constitutional amendment calling for equal rights for both sexes, also spoke to a women's studies class at Southern New Hampshire University. Tuesday, she met with Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican candidate from California also visiting the state. Schlafly has backed iconoclastic candidates before, including Barry Goldwater, Steve Forbes and Ronald Reagan.                    

Her books include The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, Feminist Fantasies and A Choice, Not an Echo, which criticized the Republican Eastern establishment and was distributed by Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. She is the founder of the Eagle Forum, a St. Louis-based conservative volunteer group, and has fought for a pro-life plank to be included in the national GOP platform since 1984.

Those who attended Schlafly's speech echoed her call to confront candidates and to make sure voters listen to everyone running, not just the poll leaders.                    

"If McCain proved nothing else (in 2000), he proved that everybody has a chance from going to 0 percent in the polls to winning the primary," said Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and a former state GOP chairman.

Several activists wore stickers for Tancredo, whom Schlafly lauded for opposing McCain's immigration bill.                    

"There are groups who will not vote for those three, because like Phyllis said, they don't line up with them on the right-to-life, gun control and immigration," said Shelly Uscinski, who is managing Tancredo's New Hampshire campaign and was handing out stickers yesterday.

Near the end of her speech, Schlafly tried to buck up Republicans dispirited by losses in the November congressional election. She likened the atmosphere today to when the press and some conservatives didn't believe her 1979 declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated.                    

"Conservatives didn't believe we could win anything at that time," she said, noting that the amendment hasn't been ratified. "We're kind of back to this defeatism again. We need to rebuild it."                   

NY Times Freudian Slip: Abortion. Infanticide. What's the Difference?

Michelle Malkin has the story of the major whopper Freudian slip in the NY Times by freelance writer Jack Hitt, in the magazine's April 9 cover story entitled Pro-Life Nation.  Pro-Life Nation is a "hitt piece" on the criminilization of abortion in El Salvador, complete with scare tactics and vivid pictures to evoke sympathy, focusing on one woman serving a 30 year prison term "for having an illegal abortion".  (The falsehoods in the story were first exposed by Lifesite.)   

Here is an exerpt from Michelle's blog:

The sensational piece alleged that women there had been thrown in prison for 30-year terms for having had abortions. Hitt described his visit to one of them, inmate Carmen Climaco. "She is now 26 years old, four years into her 30-year sentence" for aborting an 18-week-old fetus.

Cruel. Horrible. Outrageous. And utterly, demonstrably, false. Climaco had actually been convicted of murder for strangling her newborn baby.