The following is a Collaborative Effort between Ann Marie Curling and Vic Lundquist
In the history of America, the Republican Party has never nominated a pro-abortion candidate for President. Will 2008 be the first year to set such a stunning precedent?
Are we as a party going to ignore our platform? Are we going to alter the platform to suit Rudy Giuliani’s opinions on the subject? Is the issue of human life going to be relegated to a marginal, inconsequential issue? Have we decided that the issue of abortion is now unimportant? Are we effectively conceding victory to all pro-abortion forces in America?
I’m speaking to all Republicans here: Do you really want a candidate who is pro-choice for the Republican nomination for President? Think about this long and hard. Do you reallysee Rudy Giuliani nominating a justice to the Supreme Court that will be of the same cloth as Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, or Clarance Thomas? Do you really want to take that chance with someone who professes to be pro-choice?
When mayor of NYC, the vast majority of judges nominated by RG were Democrats. Today, RG tells America, if elected President, he will nominate to the Supreme Court the most conservative of constructionist judges in the mold of an Alito or Roberts. And we are to believe that he will based on what experience or reference? We really do not know what a President will do until the President actually nominates a person to the Court and we have been surprised many times in the past. Based on the fact that RG is pro-choice and the fact that his history shows us that he favors nominating “progressive” judges to the bench, why are we now to believe that he will take a totally different path? What is the probability that RG will do a 180 now? I suggest that the probability is almost nil. Do we want to take that chance with a court tilting vacancy likely during the next administration?
Look at this section from the Republican Party Platform of 2004:
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.
We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is considered a person under federal law.
We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously defending it in the courts.
In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that “the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.” We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of are or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society.
We support President Bush’s decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration’s policy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaud Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the care of terminally ill patients.
Can we as Republicans nominate for the highest office in the land who goes against one of the fundamental cores of our platform? We say no.
We need Mitt Romney. He’s staunchly pro-life, he’s analyzed this in greater detail than any candidate out there. He saw up close and personal with the stem cell matter, and is absolutely and categorically pro-life. Have full confidence that Governor Romney will appoint justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. We are at a critical point right now, if there is even one retirement or death Rowe V Wade will be cemented even further. Do we want to take chances with Guiliani, or do we want Pro-Life Romney? We believe the choice in clear.
Share on Facebook
Share This
