They Speak It With Their Mouths, But . . .
Here's the problem with so many supposedly "pro-life" politicians, they claim to oppose abortion to get elected, but then don't ever really do anything about it. Today's editorial in the New York times gets at the problem:
Another Republican for Roe?
By FRANCIS WILKINSON
Published: October 6, 2005
STOP me if you've heard this one. A pro-life Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice. The fate of Roe v. Wade, that momentous, muddled law of the land since 1973, hangs in the balance. Despite the best efforts of Democratic senators to force a confession, the elusive nominee remains mum on Roe and rides overwhelming Republican support to confirmation. (A pro-choice group immediately issues a press release that the sky is, in fact, falling.)
But a funny thing happens once the nominee is safely ensconced on the court: instead of sinking Roe, he supports it.
Read the rest . . .
And meanwhile they threaten to veto a bill that insists on respecting the human rights of prisoners of war:
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: October 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime.
Read the rest . . .
Another Republican for Roe?
By FRANCIS WILKINSON
Published: October 6, 2005
STOP me if you've heard this one. A pro-life Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice. The fate of Roe v. Wade, that momentous, muddled law of the land since 1973, hangs in the balance. Despite the best efforts of Democratic senators to force a confession, the elusive nominee remains mum on Roe and rides overwhelming Republican support to confirmation. (A pro-choice group immediately issues a press release that the sky is, in fact, falling.)
But a funny thing happens once the nominee is safely ensconced on the court: instead of sinking Roe, he supports it.
Read the rest . . .
And meanwhile they threaten to veto a bill that insists on respecting the human rights of prisoners of war:
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: October 6, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime.
Read the rest . . .
posted by Mark Mossa, SJ at 8:39 AM
3 Comments:
A lot of people got so excited when Roberts was confirmed. I am not so sure. I have the same problem with him that I have with John Kerry, Joe Biden, and nearly every other Catholic in political office. It's the "My personal beliefs are....but that won't impact the way I vote" disclaimer. He's been touted by many as "The One to help overturn Roe V. Wade" I'll believe it when I see it.
I read in George Weigel's "Letters to a Young Catholic" about Hilaire Belloc, a great Catholic and friend of GK Chesterton. Belloc was an Englishman whose father was French. He was running for a local political office. The opposing party put up signs saying "Don't vote for a Frenchman and a Catholic!"
Belloc had his first rally at a Catholic Church. He said, basically: "I am a Catholic. I go to Mass and pray the Rosary daily. If you choose not to vote for me because of my religion, I thank God that I will not be your representative." He won the election.
If only an American would be so gutsy.
Do you think iIT IS beacause of their religion, or are they just waiting for a legally sound case? They can't just agree to a faulty case because people will say "He is doing this just ecause He or She is a Catholic." So are they waiting for a solid case?
Post a Comment
<< Home