My own beliefs attendant to this difficult issue have not simplified my life – certainly not during this year, a year of roiling emotionality and emerging clarity.

There is no doubt: John Kerry’s dual personas concerning abortion were defining (and disillusioning) moments for me. I do not seek to demonize this man, and I still believe he is a very good man in many ways. As a former Catholic, I agonized with him regarding this difficult dilemma. But his speech to a cheering NARAL throng – and his (separate) evocations of his own religious beliefs – were dichotomous and ultimately troubling to this voter.

Yes, I have compromised. The Democratic party needs to do so as well. I’ve accepted that the depictions and attestations of the realities of abortion need to be made public. But let us have compassion and concern for others!

Two months ago, I spoke with a fellow post-abortive woman (who directs a prominent anti-abortion group) about the agony these images inflict on women like us. She allayed any doubts I may harbored that I was the only woman to realize this pain. And yet……

I understand the larger issue here. Today, for the first time, I was able to view that “Munchian scream” photo without devastation. Without callous, to be sure – but without the debility of old.

It’s time for the Democratic party to take stock of its failings. Just like so many of us have done – just like so many more need to do.

for one thing, john kerry has never agonized over abortion. he has a voting record going back about 20 years that is intensely proabortion. that is a matter of record. his speeches during the last year mean little in comparison with the actual votes on life related matters, over a period of many years. as zell miller, a fellow democrat with demonstrably more class than kerry, has said, campaign speeches don’t define the man – but a 20 year voting record does.

secondly, the democratic party is so intertwined with and indebted to the hard-core proabortion lobby, that there is very little chance of them ever coming out with prolife candidates on a national level. in 1992, bob casey, former pennsylvania governor, a prominent democrat, was scheduled to speak at the democrat national convention. his speech was cancelled by the party leadership and he was not allowed to say one word to the delegates. why? because he was prolife, and intended to speak on the issue. they silenced him, rather than allow any prolife sentiment to be expressed.

this year, a group called ‘democrats for life’ was shut out of the democrat convention – not allowed to speak, have a say in the platform, or any influence whatsoever on anything relating to the party or the convention. they were banned from the floor and were forced to set up outside down the street.

this type of thing has been common procedure for many years. the democrats do not want to embrace a prolife position or a prolife candidate on the national level. their platform is radically proabortion, with language indicating that all abortions should be paid for with tax dollars, etc….

it would be great if the democrats would embrace the prolife position, because it would literally make them relevant again nationally, as far as the electorate goes, and definitely give republicans a run for their money on many key races, if both candidates were prolife. it would also force the radical proabortion element of the democrat party to the fringe, where they belong, and marginalize them. that would be wonderful, and i applaud you for expressing the hope that we might see that happen someday.

but based on the extensive voting records of many senators and congressman (such as kerry), and based on the incestuous relationship between the proabortion lobby and the democrat leadership, and the money that exchanges hands every four years from proaborts to the democrat candidates in support of child killing, i would not look for the demonsration of any such conviction on their parts any time soon.

regrettably, there are some republicans who have been bought and paid for by the abortion lobby, and vote accordingly, but thankfully, they are in the extreme minority. still, it goes to show that moral bankruptcy is not exclusive to one party. that being said, the democrats are highly unlikely to embrace any sort of genuine prolife legislation or candidates anytime soon, because they will run the risk of angering their proabortion base, and splitting the coalition of radical groups that deliver the vote for them every four years.

in contrast, the republicans have a strong prolife plank in their platform, and since reagan, have not nominated anyone for the presidency or vice presidency that is not prolife. during the same period of history, the democrats have yet to nominate anyone for the presidency or vice presidency who is not firmly committed to the proabortion point of view. and so the lines are drawn, and it would take a huge shake up for democrats to reject the proabortion position. any candidate from the democratic side who expresses prolife sentiment is immediately disgarded as national material, though he or she is sometimes able to do well on a statewide or local level, because a prolife democrat running against a prolife republican makes for an interesting race, with other issues coming to the forefront and helping to define each candidate. also, despite the conventional wisdom, most americans are prolife, and vote accordingly, if they are sufficiently informed.

but nationally, the democrats, i regret to say, have sold their collective souls to the prodeath side.

I can’t refute the facts you’ve thoroughly documented – and they are regrettable, to be sure. However, let’s not forget: politics is a cut-throat business. And nothing cuts to the quick like defeat – nothing.

The Democrats are smarting – they’re smarting seismically.

Something must be done – and soon. We MUST have a presidential commission regarding the sanctity of life and its inception. We cannot isolate this critical issue to the realm of religion; as we know, there are many conflicting schools of thought at the present time, even from theologians and seminarians. We need to realize a national consensus, and we need to effect this understanding sooner rather than later.

I’m angry, though, at the knowledge that a “Democrats For Life” contingent was excised from this year’s Convention. That was rather Stalin-istic of the party, was it not?

Yes, I’ve tried to refrain from overt criticism here: After all, it was only until recently that I, too, was spewing mewley crap such as this: “I cannot force my religious views on others…….yet, to have another abortion would be tantamount to plunging a knife in my own heart.” In time, I found such paradox to be untenable.

The Democratic party had better clarify its own murky morality – and soon – lest they lose more former patrons like myself. And, as Mr. Newman has stated, President Bush owes a sizeable debt of loyalty to the voters who re-elected him.

Finally, we need more clarity and moral guidance on this deeply divisive issue. My own (current) physician could likely provide invaluable insights – for reasons probably not unrelated to my own.

http://www.sierratimes.com/04/12/31/current123105.htm

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.

Text of and link to We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)

http://lawsforlife.blogspot.com/ explains and justifies the use of Article 3 to save lives.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/June2004/0604Quirk.html

William J. Quirk is a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM

Prepared Statement of Professor Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Law, Notre Dame Law School, submitted by Rep. Steve Chabot

Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum

Oral Testimony

Prepared Statement

Mr. Martin H. Redish, Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern Law School

Oral Testimony

Prepared Statement

The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer, former U.S. Representative

Oral Testimony

Prepared Statement

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the State of Indiana

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1077.html

I read the article you cited, and it’s disspiriting, to say the least.

As I’ve said earlier, it’s one thing for a candidate (any candidate, Republican or Democrat) to declare with heartfelt conviction: “I have given this matter much thought….I’ve convened a panel of experts…..and my position is ________”. It’s quite another to cheerlead for a delirious NARAL crowd, with the only discernible morality a somewhat impotent statement that “we are not going to turn back the clock.”

I don’t want to “turn back the clock,” either.

Rather, I want our leaders to move the pendulum forward – with new knowledge, insights….and the attestations of people like myself, other post-abortive women…… and my own physician. As I’ve stated previously, we must champion the rights and dignity of every human person – abandoning the principle that either gender has the right to squander much of its moral capital upon the altar of individual liberty.

Recently, I listened to a recording of a 1995 debate between two men of faith: one a Catholic priest and the other a Protestant minister. Their individual speeches (and their respectful disagreements) conveyed an enduring paradox of the human condition: The priest, to be sure, adhered to the Roman Catholic position on abortion, a teaching for which I hold obvious respect. His personality, though, was rather austere and stiff; in some ways, he didn’t “speak to me” and my life experiences. The minister, on the other hand, was convivial, witty, charming………

and he made several statements on abortion that nearly stopped my heart.

I “liked” this minister very much – just as I “liked” John Kerry’s personality. But sometimes affection isn’t enough – not when it comes to critical moral issues such as this. I must agree with the priest: one person should not be allowed to decide who shall live and who shall not. We must adhere to and respect a greater morality than our own, especially when difficult circumstances engulf us.

Thirty years ago next month, a very young, very (emotionally) ill person (me) was allowed to make that “choice.” And it was the wrong decision, obviously. I deserved compassion. I deserved guidance. I deserved kindness, to be sure. (I probably also deserved a lobotomist, but that’s another issue.)

I did not, however, deserve the right to make life-or-death decisions such as this.

The Democratic party will sweep this issue under the rug at its own peril. And they will risk the disillusion of others like myself: idealists and forward thinking individuals – yes. Fools – no.

The win was partly a result of Bush compromising to gain the support of pro-abort politicians such as Schwarzenegger and Giulianni. He will continue to compromise, as shown by his recent selection for attorney general, whom you refuse to condemn. How mild mannered you become at times.

The shift is temporary. Any gains will be lost when a Pete Wilson type Republican is elected as president, which is inevitable because people, such as yourself, are willing to choose the lesser of evils. Being from California, you should know this.

We’re merely on the slow road to hell.

I’m not sure if you were addressing me (as my previous post was the latest entry before your own):

I’m not from California – I’m from Hays, Kansas (originally). Although I did live in Los Angeles briefly during the winter of 1982. Alas, the high cost of housing, the low salaries of administrative employees (at that time, at least) and the lifestyle of my none-too-rich-and-famous roommate (an actress) drove me back to the heartland.

Whom do you believe we should have elected? I believe Mr. Bush is a very good and decent man who believes in the sanctity of life as devoutly as he loves his Creator. It was this very conviction which compelled my (agonizing) defection from John Kerry – a decision which seared my soul quite badly.

Let us give ORW and like-minded groups credit where it is abundantly due. Respect for life (and lack thereof) played a significant role in last year’s election – as the Democratic party is surely beginning to realize.

Oh, well – you likely weren’t addressing me, anyway. I am only a woman…..with all the vices, attendant evil and implicit moral turpitude attached therein.

i’m sorry you feel as if you are on the slow road to hell.

one of the sayings of the salvation army is “better to light a candle than curse the darkness”.

i suggest you join hands with people who are trying to light candles rather than standing on the sidelines complaining about the darkness. evils such as abortion are not eradicated overnight – you have to be persistent over years and years.

just ask william wilberforce.

you seem extraordinarily self-absorbed, and if i may, prone to whining.

this post is about the democratic party and the miserable failure of its proabortion advocacy and aversion to any and all prolife sentiments.
it’s also about how ORW and others have slowly but oh so surely helped to change the perception people have of abortion as a ‘good’ thing, to what it really is, which is murder of the smallest members of the human family.

yet, in your rambling posts, you go on and on about president bush. you make zero sense, since president bush has strong prolife sentiments and has supported every piece of prolife legislation that has been proposed, and signed every one that came to his desk.

it’s clear that, among other things, you’re a pessimist, finding only things to whine about, while ignoring the “winds of change” that are blowing all around you.

again, i say – stop complaining and light some candles, or in the words of the old gospel song “don’t point a finger, lend a hand”.