Discussing what's right till there's nothing left.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Scott Brown for Senate - with Reservations

I am endorsing Scott Brown for Senate in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. But I do so with reservations. He is not pro-life and that pains me a great deal. Worse still, he is Catholic which means he must turn his back on the foremost teaching on life of our Church. This is disappointing to say the least.

A few years ago, this writer attended an event called Proud2BCatholic, a music fest and Mass for Catholic youth. A guest entertainer at the event was Scott Brown's daughter, Ayla. I think Scott was there as well. What a sad thing that there can't be a Catholic pro-life role model for the young people.

His website reads as follows:

"While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion."

This is really no different than the stated position of most pro-abortion politicians. Equally puzzling to his position on abortion is his position on marriage. He says:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives."

But of course in Massachusetts, neither the elected representatives nor the legislature decided the issue. Since marriage and a strong family are proven to be the foundation for a strong nation and are in the public interest, a Constitutional amendment at the federal level should make sense to any conservative with the public interest at heart.

But the reason Brown must be elected is that his election is immediate and has a chance to disrupt, slow and even thwart the extreme left wing agenda of the Democrats. Those who have placed their faith in so-called "moderate" Democrats should realize by now there aren't any, at least in the Senate. And those who take solace in the closeness of the vote in the House also should know that the final count was arranged to give cover to the 40 most vulnerable Democrats and that any one of them could be called upon to reverse their votes if needed.

So Brown represents the best hope for forcing at least some amount of compromise and bipartisanship in the big votes ahead on healthcare, cap and trade, stimulus and jobs. For that reason I endorse him but with a heavy heart. I look forward to the day that the GOP comes up with candidates who value life over death, family over special interests, and God over expediency.

5 comments:

  1. Abortion is the only health care procedure where two otherwise perfectly healthy people go in, one is killed and the other emerges with an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility, internal bleeding, depression and subsequent premature births.

    The cost to society for abortion goes way beyond the subsidies the government (taxpayers)pays to Planned Parenthood. Combined with artificial birth control, the resultant lower birthrate leads to an aging population, lower tax and entitlement fee base, and a greater burden non the young. This in turn leads to greater pressure on society to adopt euthanasia and health care rationing to the aging.

    Abortion needs to be opposed at all levels by people of goodwill. It is not an individual choice with no consequences to the rest of society as some would have you believe. And it is NOT health care.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I take exception to the idea "there are people of goodwill on both side" of the abortion issue. There is no moral equivalence in the abortion debate. People of "good will" do not kill their own pre-born children before they've taken a single breath. The Church calls abortion "intrinsically evil" meaning there are no conditions under which abortion is not evil.

    The previous comment also dispels the idea that it is an individual's choice as though it has no effect on the rest of society. For abortion to be a "choice' requires there to be an abortion industry. To survive, like any business, it must promote its service, increase profits, or rely on government assistance.

    The abortion industry is one of the most corrupt in the world. It funnels large sums of money into political campaigns to ensure its very survival. And in return, it gets hundreds of millions of dollars back. It has infiltrated schools and poor neighborhoods. It breaks countless laws on reporting rape, incest and child abuse. It is a corrosive influence in society.

    The concept of choice is also false. Most abortions are coerced by boyfriends, husbands, parents, siblings or friends. They are often used to cover up other crimes.

    The only moral position on abortion is to work to eliminate it once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just received a call from Mass Citizens for Life urging me to vote for Scott Brown. They clearly state that he is pro-life. I just don't see how that squares with his statement. If someone from the Brown campaign wants to clarify his position, please do so here and I'll shout it from the rooftops.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For Tea Partiers, the constitutional issue with abortion should be obvious. When the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in the Constitution, they usurped their authority and violated the separation of powers. If you aren't for reversal of Roe vs. Wade, you simply don't get how badly it has damaged our laws and processes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Received this clarification from Mass Citizens for Life:

    While Scott Brown is not technically pro-life, he VOTES pro-life.
    We can count on him to vote for any pro-life legislation with which
    he is likely to be confronted during his time in office.
    The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is still a real danger,
    Scott Brown will help to defeat it.

    Scott Brown sponsored MCFL's Woman's Right to Know Act.
    All informed consent laws would be nullified if FOCA is passed.

    Scott Brown also sponsored and helped pass Cord Blood legislation as an alternative to embryonic stem cell research.

    Martha Coakley is about as rabid a pro-abort as you can imagine.

    She supports Partial-Birth Abortion (Brown opposes it)

    She supports minor girls getting abortions without parental consent (Brown opposes it)

    She supports tax-payer funding of abortion (Brown opposes it)

    She supports embryonic stem cell research (Brown opposes it)

    She supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

    She supports current health care "reform" which mandates massive funding for abortion, rationing, denial of care based on age or disability, and elimination of conscience protection for doctors (Brown opposes it)

    She opposes the Infants Born Alive Protection Act (Brown supports it)
    Martha Coakley marched into the State House under State Trooper protection to testify in favor of the current Buffer Zone Bill which increased the amount of space that pro-lifers had to stay away from abortion facilities to 35 feet. While pro-life free speech was restricted, clinic "escorts" were free to approach abortion-minded women and bring them (and their wallets) into the facility.
    Martha Coakley's testimony implied that all pro-lifers were dangerous John Salvi types, impugning the good name of our cause and the brave people who bear prayerful witness.

    What kind of damage to our rights would Martha Coakley inflict if she's making laws on the national stage?

    ReplyDelete