Aftermath of GOP loss of Senate majority
I received this note from an Albert Bryson on election day:
Sorry, Jill. Santorum has to go. I will vote for Casey. Santorum backing of Spector in 2004 primary is a betrayal to us pro-life voters. I can not vote for him period. I know it may harm the pro-life cause. Principle is more important than political party. Besides the irresponsible Republicans in Washington have to go. Unfortunately Santorum is a big spending conservative senator.
I sent Albert this response today:
Albert, Well, actually you’ve given me relief. If and when a Supreme Court position opens within the next 14 months, it is now your responsibility to ensure a pro-lifer fills the spot, not mine. Thanks.
I also wonder about principles that admit one’s decision may harm the pro-life cause. What sort of principles are those?
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.
Do the Democrats indeed control the Senate, or is that still up in the air?
If they don’t there will still be a chance when John Paul Stevens retires.
Hi Jill,
I very much agree with Albert. I am not weary of a ‘pro-life loss’ in this election but I do hope the severance of abortion with any political-party has been born. Halelluia!
We must disengage from alignment with any political party. My rights (any-ones’ rights) exist … independent of party affiliation (( and independent of religiosity … although they are reliant on God)).
I, as a Canadian, saw far too much rhetoric claiming that any anti-abortion was reduced to ‘which political-party wins’. We all lose if rights are considered as ‘freedom from’ an imposition.
Abortion most often occurs because of emotional challenges/depression during pregnancy … these depressive periods exactly coincide with emotional depressions … 80% for the first and ??? for the 3rd-trimester abortion phenomenon called partial-birth abortion. After the euphoria of birth (release of endorphins) the 3rd-trimester depression continues with the famous postpartum depression. ALL these are linked to the specific need for zinc by a growing child.
The simplicity of this ‘solution’ makes this so non-political, it ain’t funny! No matter which political party won (at any time), the call for abortion would still be there, because the depressions are still there. Remove, the cause and the reasons-for-an-abortion vanish!
Are YOU listening? Is anyone in the pro-life movement listening?
Hi Jill,
I’ll tell you what kind of principles those are. They are the principles that will ensure that any future politician who is not perfect loses.
The bottom line in all of this pious moralizing about the whether or not to vote for Santorum had the net effect of us losing the Senate, the only thing we really needed to keep in order to ensure a smooth transition to a Supreme Court appointee that was pro-life. That is no longer a possibility, thanks to the people who wanted to teach Santorum a lesson.
Hey, with a base like that, who needs Democrats?
Wake up folks, Jesus Christ is not on the ballot!
You’re absolutely right Andrew Smith. Jesus is NOT on the ballot. Since we know that, should Christians really be putting their faith in a court system or a particular political party?
I would simply note we do not know if the existing two appointments are pro-lifers, or are Santorum type judges who would rather leave things as they are – Spectre in the senate because he already was there and Roe v. Wade as law because it already is.
And what will you say if the existing two judges betray the pro-life side? If your existing prior strategy with Santorum in the Senate proves a failure, will you go around in sackcloth and ashes until the next election cycle?
Bush can appoint whom he wants – and he can leave the seat open or send up a pro-life judge. At least now he knows there might be consequence for the party if he fails. He may not care, but other republicans should.
Also, you mistake that I expect politicians to be perfect (though explain Ron Paul). I do expect them to know what side they are on and do the right thing WHEN IT MATTERS. I’ve also stated I won’t vote based on what they do in the closet – even Foley passed pro-family legislation (and he was a pederast, not a pedophile – any actual act would have been with a person above the age of consent, but that is why it is homosexuality and not child-abuse).
Santorum showed he puts politics above principle when he endorsed Spectre. How do you expect to hold us accountable when you don’t hold him accountable?
I would be more gracious if he admitted he made a mistake, but I’ve never heard he thought he did anything wrong. You can’t have non-negotiables and then make exceptions. And as far as I know, Santorum would do the exact same thing again.
And now with the current article you are basically saying we should throw out anyone who votes even more pro-life than Santorum did if they are found to be a closet homosexual. Who is asking for perfection?
I only ask for a good record on issues, and I’m willing to forgive mistakes if the mistakes are admitted. And I’m willing to pick battles. But Spectre was one of those times when principles were more important.
You would keep Judas and throw out Peter?