New Stanek WND column: "Cut-and-run pro-lifers"

wnd_logo.gif

We will have a pro-life president for only 15 more months.

This is how we must think. The 2008 presidential election could result in a Clinton II or like-minded pro-abort in the White House. It is critical that we treat the next 15 months as critical.

Conjectured is at least one and maybe two Supreme Court justices will retire during these 15 months. Both are pro-abortion.

The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 by a vote of 7-2. If the Supremes were deciding it today, they would vote 5-4 in favor.

We are so close to finally setting the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But the stage stands no chance of being set during the 15-month window if Democrats overtake the Senate....

Pro-lifers planning to punish the Republican Party and Republican pro-life candidates next month for being less than perfect are behaving just like Democrats who advocate a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq....

The Republican Party is our ally. Its leaders and politicians may be imperfect allies, but human history has only ever known one perfect ally (and people still complain about Him).... Meanwhile, the Democrat Party is our sworn enemy.... Here is a recent crystal clear example....

For the 2006 election, we must keep our eyes on Roe v. Wade. Its demise is real if we vote to ensure pro-life justices are appointed to the Supreme Court....

Continue reading my column today, "Cut-and-run pro-lifers," on WND.com.


Comments:

If the liberals win control of the House and Senate and then the Presidency in 2006 and 2008, than the country is finished anyway.

Conservatives must do all that we can to prevent this from happening, but if it does than we will know that the end is near and Christ's return is imminent. The United States is awaiting severe judgment if the liberals regain control and would be completely destroyed after the Rapture.

The Left in this country which hates the Christian Right so much doesn't know that it is the Christian Right that is protecting the United States.

Posted by: Clay B. at October 4, 2006 7:24 AM


It would be nice if you would get real.

First, I disagree that Bush is pro-life. He may be nominally or marginally, but won't sign an executive order preventing tax monies for being used in any place that does abortions (Planned Parenthood would have to buy two buildings, one to give out abortifacients, other contraceptions and counseling, and a separate one for abortions).

Second, I agree that in 15 months things are likely to be worse, but the GOP is likely to push through a Guiliani or Schwartzneggar or some other pro-abort republican looking to fill the "big tent". And then we can see all the "vote for the lesser evil" articles as the differences narrow.

Third, One or two supremes? They can probably remain on life support (no one is going to do to them what was done to Terri Schiavo) until after the election. And so what? We will see what is happening but there is no evidence that either Alito or Roberts is pro-life or even merely honest enough to overturn roe on merits (and they might sustain it on stare decisis or we can get another create your own reality like Kennedy wrote in Casey - wasn't that supposed to overturn instead of entrench Roe?). The existing replacements are wishful thinking, and your anticipation is wishful thinking. Bush could battle for someone clearly pro-life, but hasn't and likely won't, and I'm waiting for stealth mode to be turned off to see how bad the two new ones are - or perhaps not.

Fourth, it is not punishment when I don't return someone who is incompetent or apathetic to (if not outright sabatoging) my pro-life position. Perhaps you keep taking your car to a mechanic that doesn't fix anything and his attempts make things worse, but I don't. And I will reward bravery in the face of opposition. Can you name three tough stands the GOP has taken as a party (i.e. imposed dicipline to vote on the party line)? Many in the GOP are saying to support Liberman in CT! Do you go along with that? I vote for the person, not the party. If all the GOP can provide are mushy moderates who won't vote pro-life with any consistency (and what makes you think they will vote for a Supreme Court nominee - we'll see if Spectre votes for one - if they don't vote pro-life any other time)?

Fifth, you claim "The Republican Party is our Ally" but offer not one bit of evidence. There are a few individuals, but I seemed to miss "culture of life day" during the last convention. They only support stealth judicial nominees (which we still don't know how they will vote on Roe), and will cavil on any meaningful legislation as you have just seen with Frist and the Embryonic vivisection bill. Some wives will also assert the husband who beats them and breaks their bones is still their ally because they pay the bills and sometime treats them nice. I would say no. I only ask you to make the case that the Republicans - as a party and not a handful of individuals or words they ignore - is our ally.

Interlude - the Iraq war and "cut and run". If the only alternative is to stay and bleed - basically never put enough firepower to win, nor change strategies to those which are effective against insurgencies, nor do anything else which might even show a gain, "cut and run" is a far better alternative. If your idea of "victory" is that our military should be in Iraq so as to be like ducks in a shooting gallery, I can see why you prefer the losing stalemate with the GOP. Instead of making a strategic retreat and then regrouping and finding something that will work, you prefer to sit and take losses slowly in some vain hope that doing the same things with the same people will somehow produce a different result.

Sixth, the Democratic party is the enemy of the Republican party. You wonder why inner-city african americans keep voting democrat in 90%+ majorities while their condition gets worse even if they are christian and often pro-life. The same reason you can't think to vote for anyone but republicans. But at least the democrats have party dicipline, so when something that matters comes up, they will exert their power to vote the party line. Republicans don't. Republicans often ally themselves with democrats (Liberman again). If democrats are "our sworn enemy", and republicans are allies of the democrats (and I think this has a stronger case than saying they are allies of pro-lifers), the reason to support the allies of our sworn enemies is what exactly? I don't understand.

Finally, you state: "The Republican Party is growing more strongly pro-life with every election and is the most effective national political powerhouse to advance the pro-life agenda". You can watch who appears on the stage at the GOP conventions, or who is told to compromise and who is told that their opposing votes are tolerated or accepted. You provide no evidence - please do so if you can find any shred. I think you will find the GOP is growing more pro-abort. It is a bit like saying the GOP is for fiscally responsible while spending baloons (even exclusive of the wars of choice). Who am I going to believe, you or my own eyes? Again, I will retract all this if you simply give me ANY ACTUAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE that the 2006 GOP is more pro-life than the 1986 (or even the 1996) GOP.

If the GOP is the most effective way to advance the pro-life cause, it is utterly lost and we should surrender.

I will not abandon a single truly pro-life candidate, but I won't vote for a tent which is being pulled farther each year toward the culture of death.

The inner city african americans will continue to suffer while they vote 90% democratic but don't demand any real action be taken. And the pro-life cause will continue to lose until we all go up in a nuclear holocaust (Mother Therese prophesied "the end of abortion is nuclear war") or until we demand real action be taken.

Call it "cut and run" if you wish, but, again like Iraq, you have no strategy for victory but refuse to change strategy even when it has produced no gain and many losses. Stay the course where we slide slowly into hell while being drained of blood and treasure.

You have a vain hope that if we can keep the senate in GOP hands one more term that some of the supreme court justices will retire and Bush will appoint a pro-life replacement that will overturn Roe. That strategy failed with Reagan. While the senate (as-is) votes for embryonic vivisection, things like the FACE act (aren't pro-lifers terrorists? See you in GITMO in 2009!), and various pro-abort causes while suppressing pro-life bills.

When Israel did evil, God permitted their enemies to have victory until Israel cried out to God - instead of the Molech, Baal, and Astheroth. The GOP should get a pass on their idolatry, murders, etc. for what reason exactly? I brought up an abusive spouse, but it would equally apply to an addict. They have to have the desire to change and the will to change. If you with to be the Elephant's co-dependent, please do so, but I wish reform.

And I've tried - I was active in the GOP, but the "rockefeller" republicans keep abusing the pro-life base. I know that I'm not welcome in the party (except the first tuesday in november every two years).

And consider the media front. Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest of the "successful" media never cover abortion. It never appears on Fox News. A few covered the slow terroristic torture murder of Terri Schiavo, but that was soon forgotten. Please note we watched a slow death by torture while our beloved GOP discussed exactly how to word their Pontius Pilate Papers so they wouldn't be accused of overstepping their authority. Do you believe it was lack of power, or lack of will. You watched it too. If you wish to reward those who stood around saying what a rotten shame it was they couldn't do anything, go ahead.

If the GOP was not willing to take action on a visible slow death by torture (other than to cover their rears with an "I'm not guilty of the blood of that woman" statement) what makes you think they will do anything about abortion even if Roe is overturned. It is their only protection - they can claim "I'm personally against abortion but I wouldn't dream of interfering with anything the supreme court decides". And yes, I've intentionally worded it in the weasel-normal form.

And I don't think you are even demanding promises you know will be broken to vote pro-life. You say "Don't vote for the pro-life democrat" (PA Senate). You sound like a GOP shill. Who cares if babies are murdered in the millions over the next decade as long as the Republicans retain control?

The end is the end of abortion. The means of the GOP has proven ineffective if not counterproductive. Time to find a different means, even if it requires voting for individual candidates including cultivating pro-life democrats (a democrat who would vote their conscience like Ron Paul does). Or vote 3rd party. If the GOP wouldn't save Terri, time to find someone who would (Nader or Peroutka would have).

And there is the bigger picture. If the GOP loses the house and/or senate, they might nominate a real, true pro-life presidential candidate to reenergize their base. Another Reagan. Right now they are romancing pro-aborts. If they lose their base now, they will work hard to get it back for the 2008 election. If you are a compliant little bushbot, they know you will still vote for the pro-abort republican (as the party continues to slouch toward Ghomorrah - considering Foley it might be literal) in 2008.

Decide if you want a GOP who nominates a notorious big-tent pro-abort in 2008 because their base is captive, or if you want to send them a message you will hold them responsible and they can't take you for granted. And that they will only win if they are willing to take significant and meaningful action against the culture of death.

Your choice. Be a bushbot or be a person of integrity.

Posted by: tz at October 4, 2006 8:26 AM


Let me condense all the above verbage into one simple question:

If the GOP nominee for president in 2008 is a pro-abort, just as bad as the democrat, will you say we should vote for them anyway?

I do believe that the GOP party hierarchy thinks they can get away with it and will get more votes and retain control with a "big tent" strategy - you will not dissuade them of that notion, so this is not an academic question.

The fruit of not holding someone accountable is even worse behavior. If the parents won't, usually the police will. And your ideas very likely will lead to the consequences above.

Just like an earlier vote for Churchill over the pro-peace Chaimberlain might have prolonged the peace in their time.

So put another way, how bad can the GOP actually act until you will stop supporting them?

If Foley was still running would you vote for him or even campaign for him?

Posted by: tz at October 4, 2006 8:41 AM


1. If Bush is not pro-life, he's a strange pro-abort. He may not do everything we want, but he signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, withdrew funding from UNFPA, obstructed federal funding of embryonic stem cell experimentation, and reinstated the Mexico City Policy, to name some.

2. I said in my piece that this strategy was for the 2006 election only. I won't speculate on 2008. I'll just work hard to make sure the GOP puts forth a pro-life presidential candidate.

3. Roberts, Alito: We'll see who's right after the Supremes wrestle the merits of the pba ban November 8.

4 & 5. Ok, pursue your strategy of promoting Democrats and see if it gets you further. And I gave in my column a very recent example of the GOP taking a strong stand on a pro-life issue.

6. Re: the sanctity of life I would honestly prefer a GOP dictatorship, but not normally.

7. And your solution is... ? And how will your solution work?

8. Your advocating Chamberlain over Churchill demonstrates your propensity for dictatorships.

9. Your Foley scenario didn't and would never happen. Republicans ditch sexual perverts.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 4, 2006 9:22 AM


I read your column today on the importance of retaining the Senate for President Bush.

Thank you so much for that reiteration of common sense. He cannot get 'his kind' of judges without the Senate.

Every pro-lifer, regardless of their 'personal emphasis' (be they sidewalk counselor or prolific writer, like yourself) should understand that the Supreme Court brought us Roe and all its dark and destructive emanations; it is the Supreme Court that must now side with us if we are to prevail in the re-establishmnet of the Culture of Life.

Thank you for that great analysis and all your contributions to the cause of Life.

Posted by: Brian J. at October 5, 2006 7:49 AM


I'm sorry, Jill, the Republican party is not really an "ally" of family values voters.

I have had problems with the Bush administration for quite a while now. They throw us something they think will shut conservatives up, but then it's business as usual. The usual business is hold on to power - live morally bankrupt lives, smile and wink and tell us you're conservative and then pull an Arnold!

Or worse, change the reason we went to war 15 times; or worse, fail to take out 190 assembled Taliban; or worse, have our borders open as you build a superhighway to connect Mexico to America and Canada. We're being duped, sold a pack of lies, and you want me to stay?

Jill, the GOP does not really care about turning over abortion. They may SAY they do, but they won't. This Foley case is just the tip of the iceberg. Do you know what that means? More fallout, more "GOP coming out of the closet," more revelations that the Republicans are just as debased as the Democrats, more kicks in the teeth and the guts by people who are supposed to be conservative.

We cannot continue to "rally for the party" to overturn abortion. We're facing cloning in the state of Missouri. Do you think abortion will be overturned once cloning passes? We've passed the line. It really is the final descent of America. We can fight the good fight of faith, but I am doing it for my family. The only safe place is under the protection and the Blood of Christ.

The merging of Canada and Mexico is going to strip us of our Constitution anway. In Canada it's a crime to preach against homosexuality, and they have socialized medicine. All soon coming to America. We're in the wrap-up of Bible history.

I used to think America could have one more national revival. I do not think that anymore. I am walking in personal revival. But the church in America is a fat, lukewarm, coddled, programmed into apathy mess. We do not have prayer meetings. We have circuses and "illusionists" come into our churches. The gospel is a feel good, prosperity message. Why, we even left a church because the same day I was hearing Jesus is "my Chief CEO" my kids were downstairs being shown the movie "The Incredibles"!

Yes, it's incredible - that many are praying like crazy (myself included) for abortion to be overturned. Our family did the Life Chain this past Sunday. Hardly anyone showed up. Nobody cares. The church is loaded with abortions, divorces, adultery, porn - the list goes on and on....

You know what? I HAD an abortion at 26 from a foolish one night stand, But I was not serving Christ. And now I am. And I am not living anything the way I was before. But most Christians are. They have not repented, turned from their sins. So thus, America looks like it does. Sadly, I think abortion will not be overturned because even the church does not care anymore.

Not Voting in November

Posted by: T. B. at October 5, 2006 8:34 AM


You guys sounds desperate. The GOP is gone for ahile, 2006 and 2008 for sure. Abortion will always be legal because free citizens will always want it. It will be rare, as birth control gets better, but it will always be here. Choose another cause perhaps, because the fork is in this one.

Posted by: tzz at October 11, 2006 12:37 PM


I don't agree with anything youhave to say about the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative.

It may be helpful to understand why this has been raised to the level of a constitutional amendment: for the past several years, Matt Bartle, a state representative from Lee's Summit (Kansas City suburb)has introduced a bill to criminalize embryonic stem cell research, thearpy, and receiving any subsequent thearpy.

The effect of his repeated actions has been to chill the medical research community to the extent that no research facility or researcher is willing to invest their time, money, or career in the potentially hostile environment in Missouri.

The Bartle legislation would also criminalize receiving any embryonic stem cell cure or thearpy (although this would be very difficult to enforce. What Mr. Bartle would like to see is people being arrested in the airports after returning from other states or countries where embryonic stem research and thearapies are not criminalized.

You and I will never agree on anything regarding this issue. But we can be sure of one thing...the research will be done. If not in Missouri, then in another state or perhaps another country. Nothing can stop the march of science. The church and reactionary social conservatives will be no more successful at stopping embryonic stem cell research than they were in stopping contrception or the notion that the Earth is not the center of our solar system. Remember that on? Bring out the racks.

Father of a Type One Diabetic

Posted by: Missouri Stem Cell Boy at October 11, 2006 8:23 PM