Abortion: Obama vs. Romney

In 2004, Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama for US Senator in Illinois.  The Obama machine successfully painted Ambassador Keyes (US ambassador to the UN from 1981-1985), who is a devout pro-life Catholic, as a kook and extremist, and took advantage of the fact that he was from out of state to call him a carpetbagger.  Obama won that race, and used that position to run for US President in 2008, just 3 short years after being sworn in as US Senator.  We now have the most inexperienced and at the same time, the most radical President in the White House this country has ever seen.  

Ambassador Keyes has tried to warn us about Barack Obama and the harm he will do to this country.    Below is a video from a debate between Barack Obama and Ambassador Keyes when they were running for senator.

Now Dr. Keyes has written an excellent editorial for Renew America in which he discusses the troubling positions of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the issue of abortion.  I have posted his opinion piece below.

October 22, 2012 

Regarding abortion: what both Obama and Romney want us to forget

By Alan Keyes

A Christiannews.net story reports that "Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has released a new television advertisement underscoring his support for abortion and contraception." According to the report, "the thirty second advertisement, geared toward women voters, features Sarah Minto, who outlines that she had concerns about Romney's 'extreme' abortion views until she realized that he wasn't completely opposed to abortion after all."

When I read reports about a candidate's stand on abortion, I do a little mental exercise that serves as a preliminary test of my judgment about its moral validity. I review the description of their stand, substituting the word "slavery" for the word "abortion." In this case, the result is a television advertisement that has Romney underscoring "his support for slavery..." and a voter relieved because "she had concerns about Romney's abolitionist views until she realized that he wasn't completely opposed to slavery after all."

To anyone who has bothered to review the consistent pattern of Romney's stance on abortion, this report should come as no surprise. But such a Romney campaign advertisement ought to be a wake-up call for all the supposedly pro-life "leaders" and voters comforting themselves with the false pretense that he's "pro-life."

Romney's stand on abortion is very like the stand on slavery taken by Abraham Lincoln's nemesis, Stephen Douglas. Throughout his career, Douglas took care to reassure the proponents of slavery that he was no abolitionist. He supported the rights of slave owners, and the prerogatives of the slave states. Douglas worshiped at the altar of "popular sovereignty." So he held to the view that justice is whatever the will of the majority says it is, even when the majority's will contradicts the premise of God-endowed right that is the basis for the majority's right to make such decisions (i.e., its right to government based upon consent).

It's ironic these days that the very people who clamor for "minority rights" when race or money are the rubric suddenly adopt the Douglas "majority rule" position on an issue like abortion. They are ready to decry the notion that might makes right when the rich and powerful abuse the poor and relatively powerless. But nascent children, bereft of every form of wealth or power but their simple humanity, may be murdered at the whim of individuals who happen to be stronger than they are, so long as a majority can be found willing to support or tolerate such murders.

Because Stephen Douglas was willing to tolerate restrictions on slavery established by majority whim, we could argue that he was not pro-slavery. The problem is, of course, that if one community makes slaves, and another community annuls what they have made, whose view determines when and whether a slave must be treated as such? Or, in the case of abortion, if one community makes human beings, and another denies their humanity, whose will determines when and whether their humanity must be respected? (As we will see, America's answer is that neither community gets to decide, for the Creator has already determined what both must respect.)

People like Mitt Romney assert that in this case or that the will of the majority of the people; or the majority of the judges and justices; or even the majority of one mother and one doctor ready to accept her rule, can strip away every human offspring's title of humanity. Yet the original claim to the title of humanity has the same basis for their offspring as it does for those who claim the right to murder them. If, on this basis, Romney and others hold that people may be treated as non-human for purposes of coldblooded murder, why do they pretend to deny that, on the same "majority rule" basis, people may be treated as non-human for the purposes of slavery, racial perfection, or religious purity? Of course they will indignantly exclaim that "Racism and religious fanaticism are unacceptable grounds for inhumanity." But it's patently absurd to suggest that lust, ambition, and personal convenience are acceptable motives for inhumanity, but not the desire to perfect the species or assure its path to eternal salvation. It's plainly irrational to pretend that humanity may be abused so that perishable individuals can feel free, by all means, to make money and fornicate, but not so that the species as a whole can perfect itself for all eternity.

Eventually, of course, the illogic of this irrational absurdity will give way to the more consistent and plainly evil logic hidden within it. Today, people like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney pretend they are just offering some individuals the right to sweep aside the constraints implied by our respect for common humanity. But we live still in the shadow of fanatical political, social, and religious ideologies who claim that right on behalf of the progress or salvation of humanity itself. When asserted on the strength of these more comprehensive motives, all the imperious reasons for totalitarian inhumanity are again unleashed (as they were in the 20th century), motives such as: perfecting the evolution of the race; fulfilling the project of History; or converting all people to a path that leads humanity to godhood.

I cringe when I hear the rhetoric (either malicious or simply stupid) that characterizes opposition to all dehumanizing murder as an "extremist" view. So now the people who believe that dehumanizing murder "should be an option," in this case or that, are the "moderates"? With the massive atrocities of the 20th century still fresh in human experience; with the spirit of terrorist atrocity every day overshadowing our lives, what madness possesses those who think that the license thus given to individuals to murder millions of human offspring will not soon again extend itself to renew the open, systematic slaughter aimed generally at all rest of the children of men who refuse some goal of the collective will?

I stand by the principles of America's founding largely because they articulate an understanding of justice that precludes the sick delusion that it can ever be right or optimal to read some people out of the human race so that others may have license to abuse and murder them. Whether they are many or few, whether they are powerful or weak, whether they are spurred by overweening pride and ambition, or by justifiable resentment against the abuses such pride and ambition can cause, people have no authority to take away what it is never in their power to alter or abolish. That authority belongs to the Creator God, and God alone.

It's telling that these days, the loudest complaints against those who invoke God's authority in the way America's founders did, come from people who are, even as they speak, asserting the right to act like God when it comes to authorizing dehumanizing murders. Perhaps the most salutary effect of the founders' acknowledgement of God's authority is that it reveals the lie at the heart of any human claim to wield such authority. To anyone who wishes to usurp the Creator's throne, whether it be a tyrant dictator or a tyrant people; or a tyrant dictator claiming to act for the people, there is one right the American people may always claim with certainty, and with certainty never surrender, and that is the right to tell them, by word and deed, that they are wrong. But what Obama, Romney and all the proponents of dehumanizing murder, in any case, really want us to forget is this: We cannot claim the right, from God, to limit abuses of right by others unless, for God's sake, we first exercise the right by limiting our own abuses.

As I have posted, I will be voting for Mitt Romney, more as a vote against Obama than for Romney.  But I'm not kidding myself as far as Ronney's positions are concerned.  We should not be surprised at Romney's positions on abortion.  Just a few years ago he was completely pro choice, saying he would always support a woman's "right to choose."  We can't be sure if he has truly changed his position or just taken a politically expedient stand on abortion when he now says he would like to see Roe v. Wade  overturned. However, we must be realistic.  Romney has actually told us that the issue of abortion is not part of his agenda.  We need to listen to that and realize that in all probability, nothing in regard to abortion is going to change under a Romney administration.

The reason I am voting is because I am convinced that it is my Catholic obligation to vote.  But I still believe that the only way real and important change will come to this country and that the only salvation for our country is getting on our knees before our Creator, repenting of the evils in our land and begging His forgiveness.

A Catholic's Obligation To Vote

I have been posting throughout this election season that there is no real choice between the two parties, and that it is basically a waste of time to even bother voting.  I have had many discussions with very good and devout Catholics who have tried to convince me just how wrong I am, that it is our Catholic duty to vote.  I have given this subject a good amount of thought and prayer, and after doing some research, I am convinced that as a Catholic, it is our obligation to vote, especially when faced with such blatant evil as we see in Barack Obama and the Democratic party.

So I am here and now doing a "mea culpa", meaning "I was wrong", sort of.  I'm still not convinced that when you take away all the trappings that there is a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and Republicans, but there is no denying that the Republicans at least say all the right things, while the Democrats are so far out that they can't even be considered.  So even though I will have to hold my nose, I am going to vote in this election, and for president, I will, of course, vote the Romney/Ryan ticket, more as a vote against Obama than a vote for Romney, because not to vote at all is the same as casting a vote for Barack Obama.

Catholic Apologetics gives an excellent explanation of why Catholics are obligated to vote:

In an allocution to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues, September 11, 1947, the Pope [Pius XII] spoke of the gravity of the obligation for all. He insisted that those who would not take part would be guilty of serious sin. “There is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case, in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, is a grave and fatal sin of omission. On the contrary, to exercise well, one’s right to vote is to work effectively for the good of the people, as loyal defenders of God and of the Church.”

Catholic Apologetics goes on to give us more examples of prelates who declare voting to be an obligation all all Catholics:

In the important elections of June, 1951, nearly all the bishops of France issued pastoral letters on the duty of voting. In printing a selection of these statements, La Croix said it was impossible to quote them all. They were cast in similar terms, insisting (1) upon the duty of voting and (2) upon the duty of voting only for those candidates who were prepared to support spiritual values and in particular to support a true freedom of choice in education that would make it possible for parents to send their children to Catholic Schools. Such were the statements of Cardinal Gerlier and Cardinal Lienhart. 

Archbishop Feltin of Paris said that to abstain was treason. [82] Archbishop Richaud of Bordeaux declared that no one was free from grave sin for not voting unless it were actually impossible for him to do so.  Archbishop Lefebre of Bourges said there was no excuse for abstaining simply because one had been disappointed with the performance of a party in which he had placed his hopes.  Bishop Jaquin of Moulins reminded his flock that none could do anything that would favor Communism, while Bishop Mathieu of Aire and Dax declared that it was not enough simply to register a vote against Communism, since the French Socialist Party had always shown a constant malevolent opposition to Catholic ideals. 

When the French people failed to vote in the elections of October 7, 1951, several members of the Hierarchy issued statements condemning such indifference. Cardinal Gerlier, Archbishop of Lyons, and Cardinal Lienart, Bishop of Lille, were particularly outspoken. “To vote,” said Cardinal Lienart, “is a serious obligation, abstention from which would be a sin. Each person has one vote. If he does not express his wishes by casting his ballot, it is equivalent to giving an extra vote to the opposition. One does not escape his responsibilities as a citizen by not voting, he increases them.” 

There is absolutely no way for a Catholic in good conscience to vote for Barack Obama or 99.99% of the Democratic Party in the United States.  As I have shown in other posts, they are the party of death, not only supporting but actually celebrating such issues as abortion, contraception and homosexuality, all in direct defiance of the Catholic Church and the Law of Almighty God.  Whatever good they may promote is completely overshadowed by their anti-morality, anti-God positions.

So we are left with the Republicans.  I have complained mightily here that I feel they are really no different than the Democrats.  They give lip service to what is right and good, but they never seem to follow through.  The GOP Presidential Candidate, while proclaiming to be pro life, says he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother.  He supports homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, he supports same sex civil unions as long as they are not called marriage.  He supports the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the legal right to imprison any American for an indefinite length of time with no charge and no trial.  I find many of Mitt Romney's views to be troubling, to say the least.

BUT, and this is a huge BUT, in contrast to his opponent, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is a breath of fresh air.  Barack Obama is the personification of complete opposition to everything the Catholic Church supports and teaches.  And in no surprise, he is a direct enemy of the Catholic Church, trying to force us to go against our own teachings.  He is surrounded by apostate Catholics, such as Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary who is enforcing the HHS Mandate and Vice President Joe Biden, who publicly supported same sex marriage even before Barack Obama did, and who says that while he supports the pro life teachings of the Church, he cannot impose those views on others.

As Catholics, we have only one choice in this presidential election, and it ain't the Democrats.  Mitt Romney, for all his faults, did pick one of the most pro-life Catholic politicians available as his running mate - Rep. Paul Ryan.  He is a good and devout Catholic who I believe can be counted on to always support the teachings of the Church.  I have certainly disagreed with some of his actions, but when compared to the Democrats, he is like an angel of God.

The Catholic Church itself is restrained from telling us specifically whom we should support.  But as Bishop John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois told us:

I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

To sum up, we are told by the Church that we have a responsibility to vote, and we are also told that our choice could literally affect our own personal salvation.

I am still not totally convinced that there is any real difference among Democratic and GOP leaders. But at least the Republicans do not overtly support anti-life and anti-Catholic values.  And there are most definitely those GOP candidates who have shown great courage in going against the mainstream, such as Todd Akin of Missouri and Joe Walsh of Illinois, who just recently said that abortion is wrong in all situations.

I have looked at the presidential candidates, and have come to the conclusion that despite my misgivings about Mitt Romney, not to vote for him is to vote for Barack Obama, and I cannot do that.  Barack Obama is the personification of everything for which I, as a Catholic, stand in complete opposition.  To give Barack Obama another four years is to condemn our nation to total destruction.  Mitt Romney will not solve all of our problems.  He may not solve any of our problems, but I do believe a Romney/Ryan administration will give us a reprieve and mitigate some of the terrible punishment that is due our nation for turning its back on God.

To quote again from Catholic Apologetics:

In a discourse to the Pastors and Lenten Preachers of Rome March 16, 1946, [Pope Pius XII] gave this advice:

The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is the question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitutions and its laws, particularly those which effect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school, the various phases of social life. It therefore falls to the Church to explain to the faithful their moral duties which derive from their right to vote. [11]

To the same body of clergy he spoke two years later (March 10, 1948) and with even more emphasis. His words were the following:

It is your right and duty to draw the attention of the faithful to the extraordinary importance of the coming elections and to the moral responsibility which follows from it for those who have the right to vote. In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or cowardice, commits thereby a grave sin, a mortal offense.

On November 6, I will be going to the polls along with millions of other Americans to cast my vote.  If you are a Catholic, you are under obligation to do the same.

Hold your nose and get out there and vote.

Can it be? A Politician With Principles?

Back in August, Rep. Todd Akin, who is running for senator in Missouri, was pounded by the media and the Republican elites after he made a comment that pregnancy rarely results from "legitimate rape." It was, to say the least, a poor choice of words and he apologized for it.  His comment was made in the context of saying that abortion should not be the answer in pregnancies resulting from rape. 

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney immediately denounced Akin and said he, Romney, absolutely does support abortion in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape (which, I might add, is in direct opposition to the GOP platform).  Romney called for Akin to immediately resign from his senatorial race.  We also had all the Republican talking heads such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh calling for Akin to give up his senate race not just for the good of the Republican party but for the good of the entire nation.   Limbaugh said, "Akin's Remark was Stupid and Untrue -- Now He Must Put the Nation's Future First."  Coulter wrote a column entitled, "If Akin Loves His Country, He Will Step Aside." 

There is a large portion of the
GOP elite who still have it in for Akin

The supposedly pro-life GOP did everything it could to kick out its most pro-life candidate.  Their message was winning is everything, dead babies be damned.  Sen. Mitch McConnell, GOP Senate minority leader said, "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."  Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Senate GOP campaign arm, cut off GOP money to Akin's campaign and said, "Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible."  Rep. Paul Ryan, GOP Presidential candidate who also co-sponsored a pro-life bill with Rep. Akin, actually called Akin and told him he should leave the senate race.  And of course, there is the infamous comment by Karl Rove, who "joked" about murdering Akin.  He told a bunch of GOP fundraisers, " “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!”

Well, Todd Akin, to his credit, stood strong in the face of this storm and did not leave the race.  He had until Sept. 25 to take his name off the ballot, and despite pressure from every side, he didn't do it.  After taking a hit in the polls, his numbers are now impressively rising.  As a result, some of the GOP are changing their minds and starting to support Akin. 

Below is a wonderful opinion piece by Jill Stanek as reprinted on Lifesite News.  Like Ms. Stanek, I believe that, along with the presidential contest, this is the most fascinating political race this year, and I find it much more important, at least symbolically, than the presidential race.  In my opinion, our choice in the presidential race is worse and worser.  It won't be great if Romney wins, but it will be a total disaster if Obama gets back in. 

But the Akin race, IMHO, is of real significance because it involves a truly pro-life politician who is willing to fight for his principles, even against his own party.  In fact, it involves the rarest creature of all God's creations - a politician who actually has principles!  Akin even went to jail once for his pro-life activities, as reported in the Huffington Post:

Yesterday I spoke to a group of people who had been in jail with me, you know don’t tell anybody I’m a jail bird, you know, but there were a bunch of us that were years ago involved in the pro-life movement and the question becomes: the Bible says, ‘rescue the innocent that is being led to slaughter,’ so a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while, and you know how it goes, and the question is, is that biblical or not?

I am very reluctant to trust any politician, but I think I am willing to take a chance on Todd Akin.

Here is Jill Stanek's opinion piece:

Big name conservatives rally for Todd Akin; GOP establishment warms

by Jill Stanek

Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:23 EST

October 2, 2012 (JillStanek.com) - The final deadline for Missouri Republican U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin to drop from the race came and went on September 25, and he did not.

The GOP establishment that had stood alongside Democrats and feminists to castigate Akin for his August 19 “legitimate rape” misstep must now eat crow [Yes!!]. The polls and grasp of the U.S. Senate are too close.

Todd Akin

This entire debacle separated pseudo-conservative Republicans who put party above principle from real ones who do the opposite. [Exactly!] They will say they were just being pragmatic. But c’mon, they way overreacted. The other side would never abandon one of its own were the situation reversed. But the other side walks in lockstep on abortion, while our side is afraid of and/or double-minded about it.  [I think the truth is that too many GOP politicians either don't care about the issue of abortion or even actually support abortion.  They obviously consider winning political races far more important than saving the lives of innocent babies.]

 

So we saw Missouri U.S. Senator Ray Blunt write in a statement the morning after the deadline passed, “I’ll be working for the Republican ticket in Missouri, and that includes Todd Akin,” when back in August Blunt was one of five Missouri senators to write in a statement that Akin should “step aside.”

Now the National Republican Senatorial Committee is calling Akin “a far more preferable candidate than liberal Senator Claire McCaskill,” and said that “we will continue to monitor this race closely,” i.e., spend money on Akin if his polls look good. NRSC’s backpedal earned it the “worst week in Washington” award in a Washington Post op ed.  [Well deserved, I might add.]

Even Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super-PAC appears to be equivocating, spokesman Nate Hodson telling ABC, “You kind of know where we are on Missouri. We don’t discuss any strategy moving forward” – tepid opposition at best, this after Rove wished for Akin to sleep with the fishes only a few weeks back.

Meanwhile, social conservative favorites Rick Santorum and U.S. Senator Jim DeMint issued a joint endorsement on September 26, and DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, nemesis to colleague John Cornyn’s NRSC, pledged $290,000. Gary Bauer through his Campaign for Working Families has pledged a “six-figure” expenditure to help Akin.

Phyllis Schlafly also expressed her support and went further to ask people in an email on September 26 to call RNC Chairman Reince Priebus (202-863-8500) and Cornyn (202-675-6000) “and tell them they have an obligation to reverse their decision cutting off Republican money from Todd Akin. They have an obligation to open those bank accounts so Todd Akin and Mitt Romney can carry Missouri, the bellwether state.”

This might be why Preibus, who ludicrously claimed back in August, “He can be tied, we’re not gonna send him a penny,” said on September 28 Akin was “absolutely” a better option than McCaskill.

Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was campaigning for Akin even before the deadline and defended him well on Greta Van Susteran’s show last week.

Next to the presidential race, the Akin/McCaskill race will be the one I most pay attention to on November 6.  [That makes at least two of us.]

Please donate to Akin’s campaign here. Elect an authentic pro-lifer who may also help wrest the U.S. Senate from Harry Reid.

* * *

The Todd Akin campaign has been a true bellwether in the Republican party.  This incident would seem to say that many in the Republican leadership are much more interested in winning campaigns than in saving the unborn.  For me, Rep. Paul Ryan's reaction was the most stunning and most disappointing.  Rep. Ryan in the past had a very strong pro life record and had stood against abortion even in cases of rape.  He had actually drafted pro life legislation with Rep. Akin.  Yet, he personally called Akin to advise him to drop out of the race.  It seems he has completely sold out in order to be the VP candidate. We know Mitt Romney supports abortion in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape, and now it seems that Rep. Ryan does as well. 

Politics is as cut throat at is gets, and your close friends can become your enemies in a matter of minutes if you are perceived as a loser.  We all like to think that our representatives are there because they really care about us and the country and want to make things better.  I am sure that is true for some.  I do believe it's true for Todd Akin.  But let's face it, folks.  The people in Washington are mainly there for the power and all the perks that come with it.  If you really want change, you are going to have to do it yourself.  And the best place to start is on your knees in supplication to the only real Power there is. 

God Bless Todd Akin.  I admire his tenancity and courage, and I think that alone should qualify him to be Senator, or even more if he should ever choose to pursue it.  I hope the people of Missouri will see how truly genuine he is and give him a chance to prove that he will be a true representative for them.  He is David that stood up to Goliath. 

Take that, Karl Rove.

Ann Romney: Birth Control Mandate and Same Sex Marriage Distract From Real Issues

“This election is going to be about the economy and jobs.”Ann Romney

The Democrats made it very clear at their convention that they consider the most important issues in this 2012 presidential campaign to be the social issues, specifically abortion and same sex marriage.  Almost every speaker at that convention included these topics in their speeches.  Those who support Barack Obama will not be supporting him for his stand on the economy.  It is obvious that he has no idea what he is doing as far as the economy is concerned.  Supporters of Barack Obama stand behind him because he is bringing about the radical social changes that they want.

But now we have the wife of the Republican candidate, Ann Romney, telling us these social issues, such as same sex marriage and the birth control mandate, are "hot button issues" that detract from the "real issues" of the campaign, namely, the economy.  Oh, really?  Maybe someone should tell the Democrats this, because they clearly haven't gotten that message.  They have told us plainly and clearly that if they win the presidency, these "hot button" issues will be front and center as they complete the radical transformation of our society. 

Can we who are pro life really trust Mitt Romney to take on these most important issues? Will he stand up to the Democrats who want to destroy all traditional values and implement a secular humanist society in which belief and obedience to God is thrown into the trash bin? 

As Ann Romney said:  "This election is going to be about the economy and jobs."  Any thinking, alert Catholic knows our Church is under siege by the Democrats.   Yet Mitt Romney and his wife tell us that the only issue we should be looking at is the state of the economy.  Ann Romney would not even touch the question about the contraception mandate. 

Here is the article from LifeSiteNews:

Ann Romney: marriage, birth control mandate ‘distract’ from real voting issues

by Kathleen Gilbert

Tue Sep 11, 2012 09:25 EST

DAVENPORT, Iowa, September 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s wife last week refused to answer questions on the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and the redefinition of marriage, saying such social issues “are not about what this election is going to be about.”



KWQC TV6 of Davenport asked Ann Romney on Friday about the marriage debate, noting that gay ‘marriage’ is currently legal in the Hawkeye State.

Mrs. Romney responded that she would let her husband speak to “the specific issues.” “Those are hot-button issues that distract from what the real voting issue is going to be at this election. That, it’s going to be about the economy and jobs,” she said.

Not to be deterred, KWQC anchor David Nelson asked, “Do you believe that employer-provided health insurance should be required to cover birth control?”

“Again, you’re asking me questions that are not about what this election is going to be about,” replied Romney. “This election is going to be about the economy and jobs.”

Nelson countered that a Pew poll had found that many women called such issues “important” or “very important,” but Mrs. Romney continued to stonewall, saying that wasn’t what she heard on the campaign trail. “If you want to try to pull me off of the other messages it’s not going to work because I know because I’ve been out there,” she said.

* * *

As I have repeatedly said here, nothing will change under Mitt  Romney as president.  Those who think that the moral decline of our society will be halted with a Romney presidency are deluding themselves.  Romney just this past week said on Meet the Press that he "prefers" Roe v. Wade  be overturned.   He also said that there are parts of Obamacare he does support and will not overturn.  Does that sound like someone who is committed to pro life causes?  We know that he supports same sex civil unions as long as they are not called marriage, and that he supports abortion in cases of "rape, incest and the health and life of the mother."  He supports homosexual Boy Scout leaders. 

I've written it so often here that it sounds like a mantra, but nothing will change under a Romney presidency.  We need to stop hearing what we want to hear and face up to reality.  We don't have a choice in this campaign. 

Mitt Romney Disagrees with GOP Pro Life Platform

If you have  been paying attention to the news this past week, you are well aware of the fact that GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has attacked Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri for saying that abortion should not be used in pregnancies resulting from rape.  Romney and others have used the convenient excuse of attacking Akin because he made the faux pas of using the words "legitimate rape", an admittedly stupid thing to do, and for which  Akin has apologized profusely.  But Romney's real disagreement with Akin has to do with the fact that Romney supports abortion in cases of rape, as he made very plain in an interview with CBS news.  This is in contradiction to the GOP Platform which opposes abortion in all cases, including rape or incest.  This is also in complete contradiction to the plain teaching of the Catholic Church, which teaches that abortion, the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child, is always intrinsically evil and should never be used. 

I have been told by good, devout Catholics that I must vote for Romney because he is our best chance of overturning Roe v. Wade.  Really?  This is what Romney said in this CBS interview.  ""Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court," he said. "The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It's been settled for some time in the courts."  Romney says the matter is settled.  That doesn't sound like someone who wants to overturn this decision.  In fact, Romney says this matter is no more than a "distraction", just like the Chick-Fil-A matter was a distraction and not part of his campaign.

Here is an article from Life Site News regarding this interview:

Romney: ‘I’m in favor of legal abortion for health and life of mother,’ rape, incest

by Kathleen Gilbert

Tue Aug 28, 2012 09:19 EST
Comments (75)
Tags: abortion, election 2012, mitt romney

MICHIGAN, August 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney told an interviewer this week that he supports legal abortion in cases that threaten either life or health of mother, as well as rape and incest.

The former Massachusetts governor emphasized his differences with the GOP platform position on abortion, which embraces a pro-life position without exceptions, during a CBS interview at a campaign stop in Michigan.

“The platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?” asked CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley.

“No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother,” said Romney.
  [What does "health and life of the mother" mean?  This is completely consistent with the pro abortion forces.]

The candidate, expected to receive the Republican nomination on Thursday, said the abortion issue does not belong in the political arena and is a question for the courts: “But recognize, this is a decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.”

“I’ve come down on the side of life [Really?  I hadn't noticed]. I respect people who have a different point of view. ... But this issue of life is an important one. And we have different views on this and people should consider them,” he said.  [A beautiful example of double speak.  Thank you, Mitt.]

The relevant portion of the interview is below.  If Romney is elected, ain't nothing gonna change.

Religion and Politics: A Deadly Mix For Religion

Mixing politics and religion makes me a little queasy.  Politics are always corrupt, so I'm not worried about any harm to politicians, but why would someone whose purpose is to serve God and save souls want to get involved in the matters of this world other than preaching the Word of God and showing people the way to salvation. 

Things have always been different in Europe since the times of Constantine in the fourth century when the Roman Emperor decided it was better to join forces with the Christians as opposed to fighting them, which only seemed to give the Christians even more strength.  Europe became Catholic in nature and the Church always had great influence in those who governed.  Many feel that Christendom ended with the French Revolution in the 18th Century.  Certainly the history of Europe since that time has been one bloody fight after another reaching a climax in the 20th Century with WWII.  Europe's slide into atheistic secularism has been on a fast track since then.

John F. Kennedy and Pope Paul VI

The Catholic Church has never had the influence in America that it had in Europe.  Despite the fact that many point to the Judeo-Christian ethic that this country was supposedly founded upon, Catholics have always been viewed with suspicion and were actively persecuted in most of the 19th Century.  Governor Al Smith of New York, who lived from 1873 to 1944, was rejected as a presidential candidate when he ran in 1928 because of his Catholicism.  Even in 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran for president, Catholicism was still viewed as a danger to the country and he was forced to distance himself from the Catholic Church. 

But despite all of this, politicians have always and continue to court the Catholic vote just because there are so many of us.  And in this 2012 presidential election both the Democrats and Republicans are trying to cozy up to the Catholic vote. 

I have just recently posted on the scandal involving Cardinal Dolan's invitation to pro-abortion President Barack Obama.  His Eminence says he is doing this:

[T]o show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.

Cardinal Dolan is living in a fantasy world if he thinks that he can "make nice" with any politician whose avowed purpose is to destroy the Catholic Church.   No politician ever shows his true face, especially to those whom he considers to be his enemy.  And have no doubt, Barack Hussein Obama considers the Catholic Church to be his worst enemy. Personally, I don't think Mitt Romney has a whole lot of love for the Catholic Church, either. 

The New York Times just recently ran an article focusing on how the Republicans are pushing for the Catholic Vote by trying to make nice with Cardinal Dolan, head of the US Bishops, and that Cardinal Dolan seems to be positively responding to them.  The article also cites the Democrats as pursuing the Catholic vote as well.

Invitation to Cardinal Shows G.O.P.’s Catholic Push

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

August 24, 2012

Some benedictions bestow a bigger blessing than others, and Mitt Romney hit the jackpot by signing up Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, to deliver the closing prayer at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., next week.
 

The move is perhaps the clearest sign of a more aggressive push by Republicans to win over Roman Catholic voters this election cycle. Four years ago, Barack Obama won the votes of a majority of Catholics, assisted in part by his Catholic running mate, Joseph R. Biden Jr. [I would have to take exception to this statement.  I highly doubt that any Catholic, practicing or not, voted for Barack Obama on the basis of his presidential candidate, Joe Biden.]

But this time the Republicans sense an opportunity to cut into that advantage, at least with moderate and independent Catholics, because of two recent developments: President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage and the standoff between the Obama administration and Catholic bishops over the requirement that Catholic hospitals and schools must provide coverage for birth control in their employee health insurance plans. The issue has become the centerpiece of a campaign by the bishops to defend what they consider a matter of religious liberty. [I have stated previously that this is a losing strategy on the part of the bishops.  By making this issue one of "religious liberty" instead of what it is, which is one of good versus evil, they are denying the reality of what is actually happening and turning it into a secular issue.] 

The Obama campaign is aggressively contending for Catholic voters too, and the rivalry has been sharpened this year because Catholics are in the vice-presidential slot on both tickets.  [This is a very debatable statement.  Everything Joe Biden does and says is in complete opposition to the teachings of the Church.  To call him "Catholic" is like calling a wax flower a plant.]  Mr. Biden and the Republican challenger, Representative Paul D. Ryan, represent competing factions within their own church: Mr. Biden places a premium on the church’s social justice tradition of caring for the needy, while Mr. Ryan champions church teaching against abortion and same-sex marriage. Both are accused by their critics of being “cafeteria Catholics” willing to abandon the church teachings they do not politically support.

Mr. Romney had been courting Cardinal Dolan since April. That month, the two had a private meeting, previously undisclosed, at the chancery in New York, across from St. Patrick’s Cathedral, said Peter G. Flaherty, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign who is Catholic and who served as Mr. Romney’s liaison to the religious community when he was governor of Massachusetts.

“We’re going to have outreach to Catholics in a coordinated, organized effort — state by state, diocese by diocese, parish by parish and pew by pew,” Mr. Flaherty said in an interview.  [And they're going to conveniently leave out all of Romney's past anti-
Catholic positions.]

 

He added that Mr. Romney, a Mormon, had close ties with Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston and traveled to Rome for the ceremony at which the prelate was made a cardinal. But Mr. Romney sought out Cardinal Dolan to give the benediction at the convention, Mr. Flaherty said, because of his stature as president of the bishops’ conference and his proclamations that religious liberty is at risk because of Obama administration policies. Mr. Romney has echoed this theme on the campaign trail and in a television advertisement. [This video is a bit of a joke.  It talks about the assault on religious freedom by Obama, then includes a clip of Romney quoting JPII as saying "Be Not Afraid."  But it doesn't tell us what Romney plans to do about the "assault on religious freedom."]

It is also the message of a slickly produced video aimed at religious voters that the Romney campaign says it did not produce but that clearly helps its cause. The video juxtaposes people entering a voting booth with a blacksmith forging the words “life,” “marriage” and “freedom” in a raging fire, and it ends by asking, “Will you vote the values that will stand the test of fire?” There are two versions of the video, one for Catholics and one for evangelicals. The evangelical version has been viewed fewer than 30,000 times, while the Catholic version has been seen more than 1.9 million times.

 

Here is the video if you want to watch it.  Frankly, I feel insulted by it.  This video names the important issues, but gives no promises that the Republicans will do things any differently than the Democrats have done.

Catholics make up about a quarter of the electorate, but they hardly vote as a bloc any longer [this shows how the Church herself has become fragmented, some still following Church teaching, but the vast majority becoming their own magesterium and deciding what is right or wrong]. The Catholic vote is instead a bellwether that mirrors the general electorate. Exit polls showed that in 2008 Mr. Obama prevailed among Catholic voters by nine percentage points.

This time, Gallup’s daily tracking poll, taken from July 30 to Aug. 19, showed Mr. Romney with a slight edge among registered voters who are Catholic.

“Since 1972, the candidate who has won the Catholic vote has won the popular vote as well,” said Robert P. Jones, chief executive and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington. “The Catholic vote does tend to be on the side of the winning candidate. It’s the quintessential religious swing group.”  [This is the only reason the political parties are paying attention to the Catholics.]

But Mr. Jones said he did not see evidence of major shifts among Catholic voters this time — not among white Catholics, who tend to favor the Republican, and not among Latino Catholics, who tend to favor the Democrat. Neither the bishops’ religious liberty campaign nor the president’s initiative to lift some restrictions for illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children has resulted in much of a change, Mr. Jones said.

Both campaigns are organizing Catholic leadership teams in the states, and they have announced slates of prominent Catholics to serve as national co-chairmen and surrogates. The Romney campaign has enlisted six former American ambassadors to the Holy See as national co-chairmen of Catholics for Romney.
 

The co-chairmen of Catholics for Obama are scholars, prominent laypeople like Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of Senator Ted Kennedy, and politicians like Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. [None of these people should be allowed to call themselves "Catholic" as they stand against the Church in every issue.]

The Obama campaign is counting on the social justice Catholics who are concerned that the Romney-Ryan team would cut the safety net for the needy and the elderly. Polls have also shown that many Catholics support same-sex marriage and do not accept the bishops’ assertions that religious liberty is at risk. [This is why making the war with Obama about "religious liberty" is such a terrible mistake.  Even Catholics don't understand why Obama is wrong because no one is explaining it to them.  Maybe if the bishops would actually teach the beliefs of the Church, more people would understand why Obama's actions are evil and must be opposed.]

Staff members with the Obama campaign who did not want to be quoted said it would be highlighting the fact that the bishops had repeatedly issued letters criticizing the budget proposed by Mr. Ryan over its failure to protect what the Bible calls “the least of these.” [There is a much more vulnerable group that needs the bishops' attention - the unborn, who are being killed by the millions in our country.  In the City of New York, which is a major part of Cardinal Dolan's archdiocese, there are 89,000 babies killed every year.  41% of all pregnancies in this city end in abortion, and over 60% of all pregnancies in the minority communities are aborted.  That is where the bishops' focus should be.]

The invitation to Cardinal Dolan circumvented church protocol, said the cardinal’s spokesman, Joseph Zwilling. Usually, the local bishop gives the prayer at the convention. So when the Romney campaign asked Cardinal Dolan to deliver the benediction, the cardinal first checked with Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., who gave his approval, Mr. Zwilling said.

Cardinal Dolan accepted but said that he would be giving only a prayer, not an endorsement, Mr. Zwilling said. The cardinal also said that he had informed the Democratic Party that he would accept a similar invitation from it. A spokesman for the Obama campaign said that it had not offered one but suggested that it was close to announcing its religious lineup. [The Democratic party has since said they will not be inviting Cardinal Dolan to their convention.  Why Cardinal Dolan would even want to go this convention, which will be a celebration of abortion and same sex marriage, is beyond my understanding.]

* * * 

Raymond Arroyo of EWTN just did an interview with Mitt Romney in which he asked Romney what, as president, he will do about the HHS Mandate.  Father Z has a partial written transcript on his blog:

Raymond Arroyo: The Catholic community in this country and people across the faith spectrum were outraged by President Obama’s HHS Mandate – requiring abortifacients and contraceptives to be made available to employees. It set off protests by the Catholic bishops and individual people of faith. What will you do as president about that HHS Mandate?

Gov. Romney: Well, first of all I’ll continue to meet with to Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan [of New York and President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] – who by the way is going to offer the benediction on the last evening of the Republican Convention after my acceptance speak. So I am making it very clear that the interest of religious freedom is something I support wholeheartedly and will work with him and with others to assure that each piece of legislation that we consider is thought also in terms of its impact on religious freedom and tolerance. This is a nation where our first freedom is the right to worship God as we choose, and any effort on the part of the federal government to intrude on religious liberty and to reject tolerance in favor of a government mandate is a violation of that first freedom.

Did you notice something missing from Romney's answer?  He talks about the importance of freedom and assures us that he supports religious freedom.  He also promises that he will continue to meet with Cardinal Dolan.  Romney tells us "the interest of religious freedom is something I support wholeheartedly and will work with him [Cardinal Dolan] and with others to assure that each piece of legislation that we consider is thought also in terms of its impact on religious freedom and tolerance."  But he does not say what he will do about the mandate.  Catholics, are you listening?
 

Remember there was a politician in 2008 who made big promises during his campaign.  Barack Obama said the first thing he would do if elected president would be to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.  He actually even signed an executive order that it be closed.  Yet, it is still open, almost four years into his presidency, and in fact, Obama doesn't even mention it anymore.  Politicians lie, folks, and when a politician couches his words as Romney did in answering Raymond Arroyo's question, it would be foolhardy to believe any of what he is saying. 

I watched all of Raymond Arroyo's interview with Mitt Romney, and it was basically one softball question after another.  One of Arroyo's "pressing" questions was why Paul Ryan has stopped wearing ties since he began campaigning with Romney.  Arroyo never once questioned Romney on his changing positions regarding abortion, on the fact that he supports abortion in cases of rape, that he supports homosexuals as leaders of the Boy Scouts, that he supports same sex civil unions, that he supports the adoption of children by homosexuals, the fact that RomneyCare was the basis of ObamaCare and that Romney covered abortions in his healthcare plan, or any of a myriad of other issues that are of importance to any thinking Catholic. 

I can only repeat one more time:  we have no choice in this election.  Barack Obama and Mitt Romney look different from each other and may even sound different, but they are one and the same person.  Nothing will change under Mitt Romney.  I would love to be wrong, but I have no choice but to face reality and admit the sad reality that American voters, and particularly Catholics, are screwed in this election.

From thetruthisnow.com:

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.

4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.

5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.

6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.

7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.

8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.

9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.

10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.

12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.

13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.

14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.

15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.

16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.

17. Both candidates are “open” to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.

18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.

23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.

24. Both candidates support the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

25. They both support the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the global elite.

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.

28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.

29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.

30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.

32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.

35. They both believe that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements” to bills when he signs them into law.

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.

40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.