Response: With all due respect, this isn't sound thinking. It is inaccurate
and misleading. First, with respect to abortion trends, this individual
needs to spell out exactly how he comes to these conclusions (abortions
decreasing by 25% when democrats are in office, and proving that this is
BECAUSE they are in office...a very tall order indeed!).

For instance, from the NRLC site, I have the following:
"For example, while the female population of reproductive age (15-44) grew
by 24.4% from 1970 to 1980, abortion totals increased by more than four
times that figure - - a whopping 101% increase from 1973 to 1979"

My note: Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was president from 1976-1980. According
to the CDC, the year before Carter took office, yearly abortions were at
1,034,000. In his first year: 1,180,000. Second year: 1,137,000. Third year:
1,409,600. Fourth year: 1,498,000. That's a 45% INCREASE in abortions during
his presidency.

Additionally, the statistics in later years are largely estimates, and are
undermined by the fact that certain states stopped supplying figures to the
CDC. One might also note that almost without exception, Democrats have
controlled both houses of congress, until the early 1990's....and this is
also when abortion started going down most noticeably. PROOF of a connection
and cause? No.

Second, even if the assertion were true (that abortions decrease greatly
under democrat administrations), which it is not (at least certainly not in
a way consistent enough to establish a sure connection/pattern) that would
prove nothing in regard to causality....i.e. that the decrease was CAUSED by
there being a Democrat in charge. If this individual has proof from any
objective studies of such a causal connection, he should at least cite it.

Personally, I haven't heard of any such studies, but many, many people would
be interested in that one. I think the Democrats would be crowing pretty
loudly if such objective evidence of causal connection existed.

Third, asserting that the REASON abortions decrease (which he has not proven
at all) under democrats is because democrats rid us of poverty is
gratuitous. Where is his support for such a factually stated assertion?
Conversely, this is what the NRLC site actually had to say about these
trends, and see if you think they may have a little more credibility:

"More Truth, Fewer Abortions (1990-1999) Annual abortion totals reached
their peak in 1990, topping the 1.6 million mark, but from that point on
showed a significant and steady decline. By decade's end, the annual figure
was closer to 1.3 million, the lowest in over 20 years. Abortion rates,
which hovered between 23 and 25 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive
age throughout the 1980s, finally dropped to 20 per thousand or fewer by
decade's end. 1 The drop in the abortion ratio was even more striking,
dropping from 344 abortions/1,000 live births to less than 300/1,000 by
1999.2 The last time similarly low figures were recorded was 1976.

In theory, part of the decline in raw annual totals may have been due to
population shifts as the population bubble of the baby boom generation aged
and moved beyond their reproductive years. This would mean fewer women in
the reproductive age range and fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions if all
other factors stayed the same. In the same way, any behavioral or cultural
factors that impacted the basic number of pregnancies could have affected
the number of subsequent abortions.

Available data indicate that such factors may have been responsible for
some, but not all of the decline. The reduction in the abortion rate from
24/1,000 women of reproductive age in 1990 to 20/1,000 or less by the
decade's end indicates that abortion became a less common feature in the
lives of women who could have become pregnant as the decade progressed. The
drop in the abortion ratio from 344 per every thousand live births to less
than 300 per thousand in just 10 years shows the decline in raw numbers was
due not merely to there being fewer pregnancies, but to the fact that a
substantially smaller proportion of pregnant women were choosing to abort
their babies.

So what made the difference? Pro-life legislation, pro-life education, and
pro-life alternatives. Pro-life legislation passed during the decade
certainly contributed to the decline. Eighteen states passed informed
consent or "right to know" laws since 1989, most of them still in effect
despite vigorous legal challenges. All told, 24 states have parental
involvement laws in effect, requiring either that a minor's parents be
notified or that a teen receive her parent's consent to obtain an abortion.
Other states have put waiting periods in place. Many of these laws were
passed in the early 1990s.

Twenty-seven states passed partial-birth abortion bans in the 20th century's
last decade. Congress voted three times to ban the procedure but vetoes and
threats of vetoes by pro-abortion President Bill Clinton assured that no
partial-birth abortion ban became law. Though the Supreme Court struck down
these state bans in June 2000, the debate and passage of these laws was
enormously effective in drawing attention to the humanity of the unborn and
the inhumanity of those who defend this barbaric procedure.

The educational programs of 3,000 right to life chapters throughout the
nation have taught the truth about abortion and the humanity of the unborn
child wherever an audience has gathered in venues as diverse as a school or
a church or a fair booth. This has certainly been a major factor in turning
countless women (and men) away from abortion. This continual grassroots
educational effort has also helped keep abortion from gaining cultural
acceptance, as its proponents had predicted in 1973.The phenomenal growth
and increasing sophistication of pregnancy care centers across the U.S. in
the late 1980s and early 1990s also had an impact.

While there were just a handful in operation when Roe became the law of the
land, current estimates are that there were some 3,000 such centers in
operation by 2000.Pregnancy care centers offer women real alternatives to
abortion, giving information, encouragement, and practical assistance that
allow both woman and child a better life. One trend seen at centers during
the 1990s was the increasing addition of medical services, such as
ultrasound, to the pregnancy center's offerings.

Ultrasounds, considered a technology of unknown safety and efficacy by the
National Institutes of Health as late as 1984, became commonplace in the
1990s, so that nearly every woman (or man) in the country with a pregnant
relative, friend, or office mate saw for themselves the humanity of the
developing child. Detailed sonograms, showing the baby active and moving,
along with fetal heartbeat stethoscopes, picking up the "whoosh-whoosh" of a
heart that began beating as early as the third week of pregnancy, exposed
truths the abortion industry had suppressed for years.

While the decade began with the highest annual figure of abortions ever
recorded in the U.S., the final tally for the 1990s shows that, in the end,
the truth was finally beginning to win out." End Quote.

Fourth, (and to be clear, here we are dealing with a mix of opinions and
facts, not Catholic doctrine etc.) I dispute the contention that Democrats
are better at eliminating poverty. The most obvious case in point is the
"war on poverty" begun by President Johnson. The welfare state that was
intended to eradicate poverty created a semi-permanent class of those
dependent upon the government, perpetually mired in a cycle of poverty. Even
the DEMOCRATS eventually recognized this (after finally realizing that
FEELING GOOD about INTENTIONS is not the same thing as actually ACHEIVING
THE ACTUAL GOAL)....and Bill Clinton himself radically altered welfare,
implicitly acknowledging the fact that Republicans had been right about the
destructive nature of their "good intentions" all along.

Regarding Poverty, visit
link.....with a simple
calculator and a visit to presidentsusa/presvplist.html to figure out who
was president when, you come up with the following: (I will list the
president and the average number the U.S. Census Bureau itself lists as "in
poverty" for their term, all numbers are in "thousands"): a) Kennedy: 7,796;
b)Johnson: 5805; c) Nixon: 5,155; d) Nixon/Ford: 5,128; e)Carter: 5,567;
f)Reagan (1st term): 7,322; g) Reagan (2nd term): 7,031; h) Bush (father):
7,117; i) Clinton (1st term): 7,922; j) Clinton 2nd term: 6,926; k) Bush
(son): 7,216 END STATS

These figures certainly don't help prove the case that Democrats are better
at reducing poverty. The highest poverty rate for a president was Democrat
Bill Clinton. The lowest poverty rate for a president was Nixon, a
Republican.

>From Board, continued (from Fr. Tom): "Abortions reached an annual high of
1.6 million in 1988 under President George H.W. Bush. During Republican
administrations in the last 30 years, they have never dipped below 1.55
million. They reached their lowest point since 1977 under President Clinton
with a low of 1.31 million in 2000, and averaged around 1.36 million during
every year of his administration, roughly 25% fewer. END

Response: This is both inaccurate and misleading. Just take a moment to
visit abortiontv/abortionstatistics.htm and look at the ENTIRE picture. You
will note that there are two figures on abortion presented, AGI (Alan
Guttmacher....part of Planned Barrenhood....that's not a typo...it was
intentional) and CDC (U.S. Center for Disease Control).

If one wants to use numbers to prove "facts", we can do this: According to
AGI, abortion was at its lowest, about 745,000, in 1973 under Nixon....a
REPUBLICAN. Then, in 1980, it was at 1,554,000 under Jimmy Carter, a
DEMOCRAT. That's a 109% increase in just 7 years! Therefore, that PROVES
Democrats are TERRIBLE for abortion. Right? Of course not.

>From Board, continued (Fr. Tom): " it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat
or a Republican - neither party supports Catholic values and Catholic social
teaching." END

Response: I disagree and consider this very misleading. Only ONE of these
parties has so enthroned the killing of unborn children as a central tenet
of its political platform. They regularly REFUSE to allow those who are
pro-life to even SPEAK.

Conversely, the Republican platform is pro-life.

If one follows the votes, the general rule is as follows:
Democrats tend to support: a) abortion in all forms; b) euthanasia; c) fetal
stem cell research; d) the homosexual agenda (from civil unions, to
marriage, to homosexual adoption,) e) pornography, under the guise of
"freedom of speech" and on and on the list goes. In general, Republicans
tend to be against all of these. (Again, IN GENERAL).

Am I the cheerleader for the Republican Party? Absolutely not. I'm a
registered Independent. Yet, I'm incredulous at the notion that there's no
real difference between the parties, that it doesn't matter whether one
supports the Democrat Party of the Republican Party.

If one were alive just before the Civil War, would we say,"hey, it doesn't
matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, just work against slavery
in your party?" Of course not. The Republicans were the ONLY party that had
any realistic hope of eradicating slavery.....and they did.

Were they perfect on slavery? Absolutely not. Heck, Lincoln even advocated
a kind of Apartheid....putting all the Africans in one area of the country,
leaving the whites alone, without them! He even once said that if he could
have kept the union together without freeing a single slave, he would have.

The point is, we've got what we've got at this particular time, and ignoring
or disputing the real differences between the viable parties is illogical
and counterproductive, in my opinion (again, IN MY OPINION!....we're not
talking doctrine/dogma on this precise point).

There are times when a particular group is so attached to their
perversion/sin that they are not really reformable by persuasion. If there
are any signs that the Democrat party can be reformed on life and sexuality
issues, I'll be darned if I can see them. END

>From Board Continued (Fr. Tom): " Catholics make up the single largest
voting block in the country. Twenty-five percent of the electorate are
Catholic. The problem is that we don't vote our faith; we don't vote as a
block. If we, as a group, said that being truly pro-life is important to us,
there is no way that all parties wouldn't listen to us.

The sad reality is that we simply don't do that. The solution - if you're a
Republican, lobby your representatives, lobby your candidates - tell them
that being half pro-life isn't enough. They need to truly support a culture
of life. If you're a Democrat, lobby your representatives, lobby your
candidates - tell them that their support for abortion has got to go, that
they need to bring all their political thought in line with something that
is truly pro-life. We have lived in this middle ground for too long; we've
been forced to make poor choice after poor choice for too long. We have to
become the change. To the youth reading this - consider becoming politically
active." END

Response: THIS I agree with. However, I would argue that the problem is
that, as we are a hierarchical Church, we would be much more effective if
the HIERARCHY took the lead on this. We need them to give better and clearer
direction. There is a reason they are called shepherds and we are called
sheep. When sheep try to get out in front and lead the flock, it doesn't
tend to work very well. END

>From Board (Fr. Tom) : I merely pointed out that we can't be so naive as to
believe that George Bush will (reduce abortions). The facts speak for
themselves. END

Response: I don't agree. "Facts" do not self-interpret, anymore than Sacred
Scripture self-interprets. Sola Scriptura (all we need is the Bible) is a
protestant error, not a Catholic one. If anyone wants a list of the
practical, real-world things that George Bush has done at the service of
unborn human life, simply email me at forrest@ifriendly. I in turn received
it from Father Peter West of Priests for Life.

>From reinstituting the Mexico City Policy to not funding the United Nations
Population Fund because it promotes abortion, his policies have not merely
been theoretical, but a real-world practicalities that help to reduce
abortion world-wide.....not just in our country. The fact is, the Vatican
and President Bush have a significant respect for one another on these
issues and they confer with one another about them.

Honestly, I am confused as to why anyone would find it difficult to
differentiate between the apostate, pro-abortion Catholic John Kerry and
George Bush. One need not say that Bush is "great" in order to recognize a
real difference between the two. Abortion providers know very well who is on
their side. Notorious abortionists like Martin Haskell, George Tiller and
Warren Hern have contributed large sums to the Kerry campaign. Kerry has
been told who they are, and doesn't care. He has received a 100%
pro-abortion rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Bush? 0%.

I think sometimes we can get a little TOO nuanced and sophisticated on these
things. It isn't as complicated as Fr. Tom makes out......one need not be
paralyzed with indecision, waiting for the perfect guy to become viable. Of
course, I would NEVER accuse someone who votes for Peroutka of sin or
anything close to it. But I do personally believe it is imprudent....at
least at this point in time.

Yet, there may well come a time when things are so pervasively bad, that
even the "lesser" of two evils is SO evil that it is no longer acceptable to
compromise. There ARE limits, and we may be fast approaching them, in my
opinion. But voting for Kerry? On the basis that one believes Democrats
are responsible for somehow lowering abortions on the belief that they are
"better on poverty"? No.

If we are to change hearts and minds, it is irrational, in my opinion, to
assert that the primary proponents of a particular evil are the best ones to
eradicate it END

>From the board (Fr. Tom) : Again, I really don't know how much clearer I can
be. I'm not saying that President Bush has done nothing, or will do
nothing." END

Response: Honestly, I've read these posts pretty carefully, and I think
people are understandably confused by this statement. In the very last
post, Fr. Tom wrote: "I merely pointed out that we can't be so naive as to
believe that George Bush will (reduce abortions). The facts speak for
themselves." and "I don't pretend for a second that John Kerry will forward
the pro-life cause. What I'm saying is don't pretend that George Bush will
either. The numbers don't support the rhetoric." That certainly looks to me
like Fr. Tom was asserting that Bush hasn't and won't really do anything to
help the pro-life cause. END

1 2 3 4