Category Archives: Election 08


Now that we know that pro-lifers are going to have the same old same old choice in the national presidential election: really really bad verging on communist candidate vs. disinterested in the whole pro-life thing candidate. Why don’t we focus our collective pro-life attention on at least talking about the right things during election time, like legal rights of the preborn babies.

Why do corporations get to enjoy the protections of legal personhood but not preborn babies?

Why are there laws protecting the bodies of dead people against desecration, but not the bodies of preborn people against mutilation?

Why did 1800’s Americans (you know the ones who actually ratified the 14th amendment that protects persons against crimes) also pass abortion laws that showed they believed the preborn to be persons and abortion an evil?

Go here to learn more about the Colorado for Equal Rights personhood campaign.

There are so many great questions, but we can’t ask them because a group of people and interest groups, which we call the incrementalists, don’t want us to divert our attention from partial birth abortion and parental consent.

I propose this pro-life manifesto.

It is agreed that:

Incrementalist pro-lifers seek to act upon the consensus that abortion is available much too widely and seek to pass laws to control under what circumstances an abortion is performed. Incerementalists don’t seek to do away with the motherly imposed death penalty on the preborn, they seek to be judges that can approve or dissaprove of the abortion based on societally acceptable norms.*

Principled pro-lifers seek to have our civil and criminal law reflect the belief that the life that God gave all of us at the moment of fertilization should not be taken from innocent people by anyone for any reason, no matter what the public thinks.

If we acknowledge those two maxims, then we should be fine. Incrementalisms want to bring a certain process to the killing, and principled pro-lifers want to end it.

Incrementalists shouldn’t attack principled pro-lifers for seeking to end abortion, and principled pro-lifers should not attack incrementalists for seeking to limit abortion. Intellectual honesty would be a very welcome thing to the pro-life community though. Incrementalists should acknowledge that the attainment of their goals will leave very large chunks of the population without rights. They should also acknowledge that their intellectual capital will run out and that they will not be able to mount a principled argument after having adopted the flawed logic that incrementalism requires.

Principled pro-lifers should admit that they are the mustard seed. Principled pro-lifers don’t stand a chance in a society that venerates the culture of death, but with the help of God, principled pro-lifers will be able to change the society, whereas incrementalists will only be able to cater to the ever lower common denominator. Right now principled pro-lifers couldn’t win a school board election, much less any legislative or executive change that would actually forbid abortion. Principled pro-lifers need a miracle and should pray for one, incrementalists would not know it even if the miracle came to them …

And finally one question for the incrementalists: how does incrementalism help the down syndrome babies, the children of rape and incest, and those who put their mom’s health in danger? Do they really think that picking the battles based on where the population is at is going to make the population change their views, or is it going to make the leaders change theirs?

Here are some cold facts: most Americans (even conservatives) won’t support a law that does not include exceptions, neither will pro-life politicians, nor the major pro-life organizations, including in many sad instances, the Catholic church whose teaching is opposed to all abortion. Do pro-lifers think that by not talking about rape and incest, this inmense majority of Americans is going to someday wake up and tell themselves that they suddenly support laws that force women to carry their rapist’s child? No, no, no. Incrementalism at best will get us to the point where abortion is banned after 24 weeks, or something like that, it has no chance of anything better, because it aspires to nothing better.

*Believing that incremental bills are the one and only way to go makes you an incrementalist, but supporting an incremental bill when it comes along does not.



I thought it would be interesting to give the candidates a pro-abortion score card. NARAL Pro-Choice America gives a grade to each state based on their legislature’s makeup and several other factors like current abortion laws and number of abortion facilities etc. It is a pretty good ranking of liberal vs. conservative populations since abortion is the linchpin of most liberals – not just liberal democrats but also liberal republicans. I believe that the score that each candidate gets is directly correlated to how they will treat the pro-life movement, since their mandate will come from those people who elected them. The higher the pro-abort score the less attention they will pay to pro-lifers. For example, McCain’s constituency consists of mostly liberal pro-abortion states, it is no surprise therefore that he garnered the endorsement of the Republicans for Choice and received NARAL’s highest grade. Romney’s lower grade may be a little bit deceiving since he won two pro-life states based on his religion and his family history (Michigan and Utah.) In general however, his lower grade shows that his constituency is less pro-abortion than McCain’s. The undisputed pro-abortion flunky is Mike Huckabee, his grade might still have been lower had he won Missouri (which he lost by less than one percent) and not won West Virginia, which he won thanks to McCain’s help.

McCain, the front-runner gets the following grades from NARAL:

Arizona(C+), California (A+), Illinois (B-), New York (A-), New Jersey (A-), Oklahoma (F), Connecticut (A), Missouri (by less than 1%) (F), Delaware (C+), Florida(D), South Carolina (F), New Hampshire (A-)

McCain’s total comes out to a 2.31 or the equivalent of a C+

Romney, “the conservative’s conservative” (according to Laura Ingraham et. al.) gets a NARAL gets the following grades:

Massachusetts(B-), Utah(F), Michigan (F), Minnesota (C+), Alaska(A-), Colorado(C-), Montana(A-), North Dakota(F), Main(A), Nevada(A-), Wyoming(D)

Romney’s total comes out to a 1.98, or a solid C.

Huckabee, the church-goer’s candidate received the following grades from NARAL:

Arkansas(F), Georgia(D), Alabama(F), Tennessee(D+), West Virginia (B), Iowa (C+)

Huckabee’s totals come out to a 1.33 or a solid D+
What does this tell us about the makeup of the voting blocks? What does it tell us about the candidate?

Here are my conclusions:

1. McCain will continue to compromise on life when it suits him, for example suing Wisconsin Right to Life to uphold his Campaign Finance Bill or pushing for funding of human embryo destructive research. Who he will appoint to the supreme court only God and John McCain can tell, but I am not confident appointing a pro-lifer will be very high on his list.

2. Romney, even with the incessant and overbearing advocacy of talk radio and the conservative mainstream media was not able to convince pro-lifers that he was their man. Christian conservatives have been taken for granted too many times by candidates who paint themselves in a favorable light to us only to later care little if at all about our issues.

3. Huckabee will have a hard time winning over Romney’s base, since as the grading describes Romney’s base is closer to McCain’s than to Huckabee’s. McCain 2.3, Romney 2.0, Huckabee 1.3. I believe most Romney supporters wanted a winner who spoke like a generalized conservative. Huckabee supporters want a proven Christian conservative. I believe the Romney base will take a while to warm up to McCain, but they will end up following the currently perceived winner – after all Americans, especially conservative Americans, love a winner. The Huckabee followers will follow Huckabee through the primary and only in the general election will they vote for the lesser of two weevils.

4. Out of all conservative talk radio, only Rush understood the Huckabee crowd. We didn’t support Huck because we don’t like Mormons (See. Hugh Hewitt), and we didn’t support Huck because we love illegal immigration and higher taxes. (See all the rest of the talk show hosts), we supported Huck because we are willing to believe he will change his ways on taxes and immigration and remain a pro-life advocate. For too long Christian conservatives have been taken for granted. Our main concern is abortion. We also like lower taxes and the rule of law, but we want the abortion genocide stopped or at least we want to see someone put up a good fight. During the GOP primary we went for the candidate with a proven consistent pro-life record, and that was Mike Huckabee. After all, isn’t it time the mainstream GOP hold their nose for one of ours like we have done for them for 35 years? Rush had it right, the Christian conservatives voted for one of their own, and it all revolves around abortion.

Mitt Romney on Abortion

Mitt Romney has a very visible pro-abortion record. Here are two videos that have been widely circulated on YouTube.
This first one is from a 2002 debate for the governorship of Massachusets. Pretty clear where he stands. What bothers me is that he seems so emotional on the issue of abortion and uses a personal family story to legitimize his long record. In fact it is a multi-generational record as his mother ran on a pro-abortion position for a US Senate seat in 1970, three years before Roe was decided.

This next clip is from Romney’s run for Ted Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate in 1994, it includes a variety of issues, but the abortion responses are chilling.

So the real question is why are pro-lifers supposed to forget this long and proud record while completely disqualifying people like Huckabee, because he gave the children of illegals a shot at merit based scholarships. Give me a break. We are told to judge candidates on their record, that is unless analyzing their record somehow weakens the chances of a fiscal conservative. Mark Levine, went so far as to say that Giuliani is a conservative. I guess for Mark Levine, we pro-lifers are invisible.
Sure Huckabee, is not perfect, and he would need to catch up on a lot of foreign policy, but for a pro-lifer every day is 9/11 and having a reliable record that shows that the candidate understands this is a necessity not a one of a broad list.

McCain on Abortion

I remember that in 1999, when McCain was planning on running against then Governor Bush, he made some statements that showed very clearly his soft, no to say inexistent pro-life position. Here are the quotes:

“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”


On Sunday, on CNN’s “Late Edition,” McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion “litmus” test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, “we all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”


To be fair, John McCain has a 26 year record of semi-consistent pro-life votes (60-75% agreement with NRLC), but on the critical issue of using tax payer funding for human embryonic stem cell research he was dead wrong. It is worth mentioning that NRLC only proposes and only supports legislation that is the equivalent of the low hanging fruit of the pro-life universe of legislation, so having a 60 %’ish record is not all that amazing.
Furthermore, the following quote shows a basic misunderstanding of abortion which would lead me to the conclusion that John McCain is as pro-life as is convenient to him at any given moment. Here’s the quote:

KEYES [to McCain]: What you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you’d have a family conference. That displayed a profound lack of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say, “Let’s have a family conference.” You’d look at her and say “Just Say No,” because that is morally wrong. It is God’s choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our declaration of principles is just as wrong.

McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.

Source: (X-ref from Keyes) GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000

Is this a man we pro-lifers can vote for?  If he wins the nomination pro-lifers will be given that proverbial lesser of two evils choice yet again.  Stay tuned for my analysis on the other possible GOP nominee Mitt Romney.


From 2001 to 2003, Barack Obama was the only state Senator to speak out against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of Illinois.  He was afraid that giving protection to some babies would extend to all other babies in danger of an abortion.  However, this was proven to be an empty excuse because when an amendment was introduced to assure that the bill would not extend to any other babies except those that had been born alive during an abortion attempt, he, as chairman of the committee in charge of the bill, prevented the amendment from being voted upon.

Even Hillary voted to grant this tiny slice of protection to infants born alive during an abortion.  There was a 98-0 vote in the Senate in 2002.

Latent Racism in South Carolina?

The Democratic primary in South Carolina showed that approximately four out of five black Democrats voted for Obama.  Given the fact that he has almost no legislative record to go by, is it possible that black people voted based on the color of the skin not on the content of the character.  National polls show Hillary around ten points over Obama.  So it would seem that black Democrats depart from the national Democratic ideology when enticed to do so by race.

The analysis is more complex though.  Iowa, a state with a very small black population voted for Obama.  It is likely that there is a preference among the black electorate for a black candidate so long as he is a) a liberal Democrat, and b) has a shot at actually winning.  That would explain why conservative black candidates such as Alan Keys, or second tier liberal candidates such as Jessee Jackson have never been able to gather the black vote like Obama seems to have done.

Some may argue, well, Romney gets the Mormon vote.  This argument is flawed for two reasons.  The first is that religion is to a certain extent a personal choice and a reflection of your character, race is not.  The second is related to the first, and that is that Mormons, because of their religious belief tend to be semi-conservative Republicans, and would thus gravitate towards Romney, just as all other semi-conservative Republicans are doing.

I will be very surprised if black liberals are able to get over their own form of racial discrimination or racial preference and vote for Billary, the first androgynous black presidential nominee.   In the end it shouldn’t matter, and Billary will be the the Democratic nominee, and black Americans will have made themselves as irrelevant as pro-life Americans.

Where does the GOP presidential nomination stand?

Mike Huckabee, the only bonafide pro-life advocate didn’t win South Carolina and has been getting less and less media attention.  To make matters worse, the Florida Fox News debate focused almost completely on the recent tribulations of the economy and on Mitt Romney.  Huckabee was unimpressive, visibly uncomfortable when talking about the economy.  Barring something unforeseen Mitt Romney, Inc. is in the driver’s seat.  John McCain’s straight talk and zig zagging past won’t win over the fiscal conservatives and leaves the social conservatives as unenthused about him as he is about them.  The only other possibility is Rudy, but Rudy blew it by making himself irrelevant early on, and now he can’t shed the image of a candidate that hasn’t received double digits in a single state.  Well there is one abortion disaster that the GOP averted.

Once again the fiscal conservatives prevail.  At least Romney says he’s pro-life, but I still can’t really believe it.  But hey, at least he says he is; maybe if I repeat this enough I will be able to stomach voting for him. 

If the Democrats nominate Billary Clinton they will get a candidate(s) that is no more trustworthy on any of the democrat socialistic policies than Romney is on abortion.  That is with the exception of abortion.  Bill Clinton might have once been “pro-life”, but I doubt Hillary ever was.  If Billary is the nominee for the Democrats the American people will have a dogged committed pro-abortion presidential nominee.

What a CHOICE for pro-lifers!  The raging feminazi versus the disinterested businessman.  Once again pro-lifers get the shaft.  Pro-lifers are the battered spouses of politics, we get beat up again and again and then we come back believing he’ll change.  Maybe it’s time to take the kids and file a divorce?