Presidential Message: Think about the clear choice, consequences after November 7

The front page headlines in the Detroit News screamed, “ Happy Days Ahead, Democratic Women.” On the other side of the state, a Grand Rapids Press article proclaimed, “We can do it: List backs women.”

What both of these articles had in common was the enthusiasm of these women for those candidates, but especially for Al Gore and Debbie Stabenow, who stand strongly for abortion without any restrictions.

I know that the women featured in the articles are a vocal minority. Polls demonstrate that the majority of women oppose abortion; they understand it is the killing of an innocent life. The vast majority of women and men are horrified over the legal killing of an almost born baby by partial birth abortion. The public is also in favor of such common sense measures as abortionists being required to secure a parent’s consent before their minor daughter has an abortion or that women be informed of the potential risks to their health in this slogan filled surgery.

While in the minority, these women who campaign for this legal right to kill will be well represented by both Al Gore and Debbie Stabenow if they are elected on November 7. Al Gore to the Presidency and Debbie Stabenow to the U.S. Senate. Both of these candidates stand among the minority of our citizens. Both would do nothing to change abortion without restrictions. Both would fight to preserve partial birth abortions; both would elevate a teen’s right to a secret abortion above parents’ rights to know; and both would ensure that public tax dollars pay for abortions. Both Al Gore and Debbie Stabenow are the abortion candidates.

As proclaimed in the newspaper headlines, the proabortion advocates understand the importance of electing men and women who will defend abortion without limitations. They understand the power of the presidency in preserving abortion. They know that a President who is proabortion:

•will veto any law passed by Congress that protects the unborn
•will fight for tax-funded abortions and veto any appropriation bill that does not include money for abortion
•will use our state department to promote abortions in foreign countries
•will ensure the distribution of RU 486, the abortion pill
•will encourage the experimentation on living human embryos using tax dollars
•will appoint justices that will refuse any protection for the unborn
•will use the highest office of our land to justify abortion as a liberty and right.

Are the November 7th elections important? Is the protection of the unborn important enough for prolife citizens to cross party lines and vote for candidates who are opposed to the killing of the unborn? Should we put aside the old stereotypes about the party of the rich versus the party of the poor and look at the stances of the individual candidates on partial birth abortion? You know that my answer to these questions is a “yes for life.”

In thinking about the clear choice at the top of the ticket and the consequences of the outcome of the presidential election on the future of protection for the unborn, I am reminded of former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, who died this year. He championed the unborn and often chided his party’s leaders on their abortion stance.

Casey eloquently stated the case for protecting the unborn and voting for prolife candidates with these words, “We will never reach the full potential of America if our progress comes at the expense of the most helpless and vulnerable members of the human family. Of course the economy is of urgent concern to everyone that thinks about it....It’s an issue of how we make our livelihood, pay our bills, invest in our future. But this question is just as urgent. For here we are dealing not just with livelihoods but with lives; not just how comfortably we will live, but how comfortably we will live with our consciences.”

Back to Table Of Contents