New Stanek column on WND: “Quit De Wining about the Santorum Spectercle”
A few weeks ago, I sent an e-mail to my list, encouraging Pennsylvania pro-lifers to support Republican Rick Santorum in his rebid for the U.S. Senate against Democrat Bob Casey.
Both are pro-life, but because Santorum and the White House supported pro-abortion incumbent Arlen Specter in the 2004 Republican primary against pro-lifer Pat Toomey, pro-lifers consider him a traitor. Specter won 51-49 percent. Pro-lifers blame Santorum and Bush for the edge.
This was typical of negative responses I received regarding my e-mail:
Let Rick Santorum be the example to all the other Republican politicians that we will not allow them to play games with the lives of our unborn children, and if they do, they will be gone.
I wish Santorum had not supported Specter. But would turning from Santorum help or hurt the pro-life cause?
I submit it would hurt, badly. Here’s why….
Read my column today, “Quit De Wining about the Santorum Spectercle,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t live in PA, so I will never have the pleasure of voting against Rick Santorum.
The abortion issue is not a concern of mine. The simple truth is that, after the Spectercle of McCain-Kennedy, I don’t believe anything any Republican senator says on any issue and I never will again.
Santorum claims he’s against amnesty, but we have seen how the word amnesty can be tortuously redefined to mean whatever you want it to mean. He may not be for amnesty, but what IS he for? I’m sure it’s not deportation, which means either he wants illegal aliens to remain in the country legally (de facto amnesty) or he wants them to remain forever “in the shadows”.
In addition, his campaign website is also in Spanish. Anyone who is speaking to voters should be communicating in English. The multi-language campaign sites only reinforce multicultural beliefs which are inimical to the survival of these United States. If someone can’t speak English he shouldn’t be voting, or is Santorum looking to win over illegal aliens who vote? (And we’re told they are law-abiding!!!!)
As a thoroughly disaffected American, I will be voting anti-incumbent for the rest of my life.
Neither major political party gives a crap about Americans and I will never look to either one again. I gave up on the Democrats back in the eighties. I have finally given up on the Republicans, with but one exception: Tom Tancredo. Since I will never have the pleasure of voting FOR him, I will have to content myself with third parties. It’s not a waste of my vote, as I once believed.
It’s clear to me that voting AGAINST someone gets me nowhere. Since I cannot in good conscience vote FOR either of the two parties, I need to take a third path. I look forward to the demise of both of these parties. Neither one has a right to immortality. The American political system has seen several political parties come and go. It’s time we added these two to the list.
Pat Kunz
New Jersey
I actually agree with you regarding Republicans and their malaise (fear?) about acting on the immigration/border issue. But I was writing specifically on the abortion issue, as you know.
In that regard, the alternative to Republican control of Congress/White House, even though Republicans show somewhat similar malaise (fear?) on the abortion issue, is very bad. Democrats are known as the Party of Death for a reason. They are lustfully bloodthirsty on the abortion issue.
Misunderstanding the Frustration with Santorum
Jill Stanek, writing at WorldNetDaily, thinks that conservatives should quit whining about Santorum helping Specter (you can also read it at her blog. I’ll refrain from quoting it here, primarily because her piece is entirely unoriginal and consists mere
I would like to point out to you that there seems to be more notwithstanding Santorum’s pro-life stance than just his support for Specter. If you click here, you’ll see that Santorum answered a survey in 2000 that he would support “legal protection for unborn children from the moment of conception if Roe v. Wade is overturned”, but in his next response he states that he would “require” exceptions for “life of the mother, rape and incest.”
Now it is true that Santorum supports an unqualified ban on partial birth abortions because he believes “this procedure is never necessary to protect the life or health of the mother,” but for all the rest of the pregnancy, he would be willing to allow abortions (judging from the above survey). I don’t think that is pro-life, do you? We only need to read Ronald Reagan’s writings on his “life of the mother” exception in California’s abortion ban to see how it was twisted and contorted far beyond its original intent (I can provide passages from his writings upon request).
So my question for you is this: when does a person calling themselves “pro-life” become an exercise in semantics? Hillary Clinton wants to make abortions “rare”, so can she call herself “pro-life”? Any specific insight you might have on Santorum regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated, because, as a PA resident, I have no idea how I will cast my vote in November for U.S. Senate (except that it won’t be for Casey).
Hi Pat,
even though there is abundant call for a 3rd option, it is very difficult to envision such as working so you get a two party system like in the States (and Canada) and they call this democracy. [very tongue-in cheek].
So here’s a maybe solution – it is called ‘a floating constitution’. Every 50 years the people inside the country select the rules/laws that will govern their lives for the next 50 years … things like abortion, same sex marriage, and …. can be opened for discussion then … not by court/government fiat. [In the middle of those 50 years (for the next 50 years) the people select the direction of their business/economic interests. It has played havoc with our well-being, trying wild policies to regulate human demographics … and we are about to pay big-time for such tinkering.]
John
Jill,
We finally disagree on something. When we start measuring our support for righteousness (as divinely defined) according to how powerful the players are (humanly determined) we have stepped upon the slippery slope.
Murder of the innocent is murder of the worst kind, and should never be supported. Imagine the lessons to be learned by a Rick who finds that his hypocrisy will not be tolerated. Maybe a season back in the ranks of the working public would do him all kinds of good (as most of the founding forefathers would solemnly attest the same.)
Rick is also wrong about saying creationism doesn
Specter is a disgrace to the Party. Why should the pro-life community have to do all the backing down? Why doesn’t Santorum admit backing Specter was a mistake, apologize and promise to do what is right at the next opportunity? Personally I’m disgusted with the hyprocrisy of Republicans from President Bush down. They are nothing but the Party of “me too, but a little less” or “me too, but a little more”.
Michael L.
Christian Constitutionalist
For the first time in a long time I completely disagree with you. Pandering to the pro-life movement while selling it down the river is not pro-life. What it is is hypocritical. Santorum is a fraud.
Rick is not the only person in Pennsylvania the LORD can use to protect the unborn. The man compromised on this issue. Having done it once, what prevents him from compromising again on this issue?
Your article makes it sound as though you are looking to Mr. Santorum and not to the LORD on this issue. I don’t mean to sound harsh but the lives of the pre-born are at risk. We need to trust our Sovereign LORD even in the political realm. The arm of the LORD is strong, not so the arm of the flesh.
Dee Galyon
American Heritage Party
Missouri Chapter
You have a good political head, Jill. I commend you for your judgment.
I mean no disrespect, but I must say… What I find particularly objectionable is the concession that, in light of the betrayal being referred to, the “pro-life” label is being used at all in this discussion.
Of all people you should know that the babies are not a political issue to be used or compromised for expediency.
Fighting for, or even placating a voter base of, a candidate that threw the babies under the bus, is not in the baby’s interest, even if it is “pro-life”.
If Santorum has done it once, he will do it again – that makes your Santorum-apology and pro-life reproof, not baby-friendly.
The answer to abortion lies not in politics but more mundane acts like standing in front of clinics. The true saints are virtually ignored on earth but will reap huge benefits in heaven. Politicians have done zilch to change the abortion climate of this country.
Good morning Jill.
I came across your column today while at World Net Daily. I have seen your name mentioned from time to time but this is the first time I have read your column. In 1964 my birth mother made the decision to put me up for adoption. I do not know anything about her and I was indeed adopted a few weeks later on St. Patrick’s Day.
I say this as a piece of background information concerning my pro-life stance. I also have 4 sons and a daughter. There is nothing more precious to me in all the earth than these children.
I have read your bio and read some of your previous columns. You are indeed doing not only yeoman’s work here but God’s work. Blessings to you are absolutely in order.
However…..you are wrong on this issue of Santorum and other Republicans. Barring insufficiently accurate data before 1973, 40 million + babies have been slaughtered….not aborted….not killed…not murdered…but slaughtered. They have been slaughtered in ways that would make terrorist beheadings seem mild and humane. And you know how we in American, both in the media and the public, have the stomach to see the real face of our Islamic enemy…well…we don’t. We even yell, “Too soon, Too soon!” in theatres showing the film Flight 93, much less actual footage of the planes impacting the Twin Towers or the bloodied, burned people jumping to their deaths.
So…my question to you is…who is the real enemy here? At last count we have had a Republican Majority in Congress for close to a decade and a totally Republican Federal Government from the President on down since 2000. Add to these facts that the majority of states are being run by the Republicans and supposedly a majority of Americans professing to be Christians…well…we should have seen abortion banned a while ago. But it hasn’t…not at the Federal level nor at the state level. To wit I ask….
Why?
Sorry…I have two questions piling up here. First…Who is the real enemy here? You as well as Hugh Hewitt and many others seem to think it is a combination of those VILE liberals and their ACTIVIST judges. To a point you are correct. No one has cheered along and has actively supported the right of a woman to slaughter her child in the womb ala Al-Zarqwari, as the the Democrats have, supported by activist judges. However, those Democrats did not magically or by alien space invasion take over their seats of power…they were elected…BY THE PEOPLE. And although most activist judges are not elected, they were appointed by Democrats who were in turn elected…BY THE PEOPLE. Even after these activist judges have been shown to be unrepentant radicals, THE PEOPLE have not revolted by throwing THEIR elected bums out and replacing them with politicians of like mind on abortion who would appoint new less radical judges.
Now…let’s give the Democrats a bit of a break here. Remember my stats from above….Republican Congress for a decade…Republican President for 6 years running…majority of states run by Republicans. And 2 new ostensibly conservative Judges on the Supreme Court.
And still babies are being slaughtered even as I type.
Why?
And now you and others bemoan the fact that many Republicans and/or Pro-Life Christians are claiming that they will not support Rick Santorum for re-election because of his support of Arlen Specter. You as well as others claim that Specter and Santorum were instrumental in getting Roberts on the Supreme Court. All true.
Doesn’t matter.
Why?
I’ve asked this one word question now three times. Here’s the answer…because WE THE PEOPLE…want abortion. WE THE PEOPLE elected all these guys into power…who in turn appoint the judges. WE THE PEOPLE elect Democrats in power who make it legal for women to slaughter their babies and not face the death penalty. And it is also WE THE PEOPLE who have elected ALL THESE REPUBLICANS from the Federal level all the way down to the states and even the local level…who have stated one thing about abortion but who have either acted another way, not acted at all, or have been powerless or totally ineffective to do anything about it.
The reason we have abortion in this country as a legal right for 33 years with not one person getting the chair, the gas, the needle, a life sentence or even a parking ticket….is because WE THE PEOPLE want it that way.
Even if you and Hugh and Rush and the others are correct and that we NEED Santorum in Congress to get yet ONE MORE supposedly conservative judge on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade, this issue will still come back to the STATES for ratification as a constitutional amendment. And all this hand-wringing over Santorum will have been for naught because once this issue gets in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE, you will see the true face of America….that being… WE THE PEOPLE…want our abortions.
Not true you say? Really? Then how come have the states who have had the power to pass their own anti-abortion laws not done so in 33 years? WE THE PEOPLE. Yes, I know what’s going on in Soth Dakota and Mississippi (my birth state) and in other states. But it has been 33 years and even South Dakota is not a sure thing.
No…Jill…the enemy is not Democrats or Judges or Liberals or Mad, Frustrated Republicans/Pro-Life Christians. All these groups share one commonality…they are all PEOPLE…..WE THE PEOPLE.
Which is why Santorum has to go. Because he helped Specter get elected.
And if and when the abortion issue becomes a constitutional issue then Specter will be the first to vote it down in the Senate as representative of Pennsylvania. Because WE THE PEOPLE voted him in and WE THE PEOPLE did not take a stand and punish Santorum for his short sighted political expediency over the lives of unborn children.
WE THE PEOPLE have been the enemy of unborn children, Jill. And the only thing to change that, barring a miracle from God in the changing of people’s hearts en masse, is civil war or Judgement from God. Not one more judge on the Supreme court or the re-election of Rick Santorum.
Even in dissagreement on this issue, I still commend you from the bottom of my heart for what you are doing and the sacrifices you have made on behalf of the ones who have no voice, no legal protection and no representation in this country. God bless you Jill…God bless you indeed.
All,
I will respond to all negative comments at the same time in a new blog post.
Danny,
I somewhat agree with your analysis but would specify the Church is to blame for not standing against the conception of the abortion issue way back in the 1930s when it began to condone contraception
Ms Stanek – the one thing you have never even tried to demonstrate is how voting for Republicans, even those who honor the position with their lips, has any effect on Abortion. Reagan was right, but we got Casey. We now have two new justices – will Roe v. Wade be overturned or will they avoid it or simply reaffirm it again (doing to the other justices on the court precisely what Santorum did to Spectre v.s. Toomey).
Santorum is pro-life one minute, pro-abort (at least in action or effect) another minute. But Spectre was a critical minute – when it became a matter of principle he chose to be a party player.
And if his daugher was pregnant and wanted an Abortion, would he be Dr. Jekyll or drink the RU486 laced Kool Aid and become something opposite to Henry Hyde? Just for the moment, please understand. For really important reasons.
The Martyrs during the Roman times merely needed to burn a pinch of incense at an altar to Casear but preferred to DIE instead. And what would have happened to Santorum if he supported Toomey?
Mr. Santorum claimed (at the Detroit Catholic Men’s conference) the wonders of Divine Providence overcame extreme odds when he ran for the house and senate. Santorum said he had practically no chance of winning Apparently he lost his faith in God and/or Providence in 2004 since God couldn’t possibly do the same for Pat Toomey. He has lost his soul and his faith but can still remember when he believed.
So, Ms Stanek – is the way to win this spiritual battle to do the right thing (including ending contraception – which was considered a form or sodomy by the old time religion founters so I find opposition to “gay” marriage by protestants who condone birth control rather ironic)? Or is it to do the politically expedient thing and hope our compromises and cowardice and idolatry will be blessed by the Almighty?
I apologize for “revising and extending”, but I thought of something further.
Santorum’s excuse was basically:
We need to keep a republican senate majority so it is necessary for me to support an enemy of the pro-life cause in order to further it.
Your position is very similar:
We need to keep a republican senate majority so it is necessary to support a traitor to the pro-life cause in order to further it.
And what if it turns out Alito (who ruled to overturn a partial-birth abortion ban) is more Souter than Scalia? Or Roberts? John Lofton (theamericanview.com) has pointed out there is NO evidence that Bush’s appointees would overturn Roe. It is all “Trust Bush”.
I might trust him if he would sign the executive order banning use of federal funds in any building where abortion occurs (this was signed originally by Reagan, taken to court which eventually ruled in the waning days of Bush41 that it was legal). Bush the younger refuses to sign this – it wouldn’t prevent abortion, but would seriously inconvienience Planned Parenthood (they couldn’t give out condoms or birth control in the same place) and make them go through greater expense.
Please, if you know Jill, why doesn’t Bush use his pen? Or why should we trust him when he won’t take this simple, basic, constitutional step totally within his power. If he did, maybe I could trust other republicans like Santorum.
For me, until this happens, or the Supreme Court actually votes to overturn Roe, or there is some ACTUAL EVIDENCE or ACTION, I’m not lifting a finger to help any republican unless they are fighting their party.
Instead of bleating about how we should support someone who hasn’t even asked to be forgiven because he doesn’t think anything is wrong, maybe you should see if he can do a penance and publicly try to convince Bush to sign that executive order. Or something else which would show action over talk.
The elections are a few months away – he has time to act and demonstrate something. Instead of asking for several more years of “trust us”.
Since 9/11/01, how many unborn victims? 5 million? Bush said “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”. and “Justice and cruelty are always at war and God is not neutral between the two”. I doubt anyone wants to apply these to abortion but there is no reason they should not apply. Even to Santorum and yourself.
Or as Mike Crutcher of Life Dynamics puts it: Democrats stab you in the chest, Republicans stab you in the back.
Dear TZ,
I appreciate your obvious dedication to the pro-life cause. I do not want to fight a brother. I want abortion to stop, as do you.
I think that between the two candidates in the Pennsylvania Senate race, Santorum is the better choice, as I have laid out in my column and follow-up comments.
You disagree. You are “not lifting a finger to help any republican” because you believe Santorum and the Republican Party are not really pro-life, or have become traitors.
I agree there is so much more the President and Republicans could do to help the pro-live endeavor.
I think you and I disagree on how to get them to do that. Or perhaps you and I disagree that they can be depended on to carry water any longer, or that they should even be asked.
Meanwhile, dear brother, you and I are fighting in the same trench. We may be shooting at different enemies, but you are not one, and I will always have your back.
Thanks,
Jill
You don’t have my back. You will help those who will stab me in the back get into power saying they are better than those who will stab me face-to-face.
I’ve asked for any correlation between electing republicans and reducing or ending abortion. You’ve given none. At least with prayer, I have hope even when I don’t see anything happening as it is God I’m supporting.
But when you support men they must be judged on what they do.
You are also not saying Santorum is a better choice because of Santorum as much as for the same reasons Spectre was alleged to be a better choice than Toomey – We need a republican majority (are we supposed to care if it is a pro-abort or pro-life majority), so it doesn’t matter what the candidate actually believes or does as long as his name has the proper suffix. By that measure I think you would support Spectre if he was the candidate running against a pro-life democrat.
You say we disagree on how to get them to do what we want. Perhaps, but your method is an abject failure – you’ve not cited any successes, only the same wishful thinking stated over 15 million abortions ago. They may carry water, but only in small amounts and grudgingly.
And perhaps Spectre was merely a strategic retreat – I’m merely suggesting such on a larger scale.
Even now, they are bringing up two ammendments that will fail. Neither are the human life ammendment. Even Ann Coulter says that when Republicans make Abortion an issue they win (when they are pro-life). They could very easily hold another otherwise irrelevant symbolic vote to force sides on abortion like on gay marriage, but they won’t.
Reward inaction? Do you do this with your children? When you ask them nicely to take out the trash and say they can’t right now, but maybe when a new supreme court opening comes it they might consider it, do you simply ask nicely again in a few hours? Or if one of their playmates brought some pornography into your house – would you listen to your child’s pleas that the more friends the better? He needs more people on his side on the playground?
If Republicans refuse to make Abortion an issue in this election who am I to disagree? I’m not for the wink-wink-nod politics – we may have another Souter or two on the court even now and may get another Casey or worse. If they wan’t to make it an issue, then they have to run on a record, which is as barren as many wombs.