BELIEVERS, ABORTION, AND THE 2016 ELECTION
In a few weeks, Americans will cast votes for President, Vice President, and U. S. Senators, among others. The destinies of millions of unborn human beings will be determined by this election, for the new President will nominate, and the new Senate will confirm, as many as four Justices to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Abortion law in our country is largely made by the Supreme Court, like it or not. That's why pro-life majorities in Congress have not been able to turn off the abortion holocaust in this country. The Court's rulings on abortion purport to announce what the Constitution requires and thus take precedence over ordinary laws made by Congress.
When Abraham Lincoln was first sworn in as President in 1861, he warned us about rule by the Supreme Court: “[T]the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.“ But now that we are stuck with such rule despite Lincoln's warning, the power to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court has become one of the most important factors voters must consider as they weigh the candidates on Election Day.
The rulings of the Supreme Court cost the lives of over a million innocents every year because our legislatures are limited in what they can do. No “unreasonable burden” on the “right” to abortion is allowed, and the Court reserves the power to tell us what an “unreasonable burden” is. In other words, five lawyers make the rules according to their own value systems.
One of the candidates for President believes that the Supreme Court's current abortion decisions do not go far enough. That candidate has stated that more pro-abortion Justices should be appointed to the Court so that it will make all health insurance programs cover abortions and make all abortions eligible for government payments. That candidate even says, “[D]eep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” in regard to “reproductive rights” (abortion). National Review Online, April 24, 2016.
Think about the implications of that last statement: deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed. This candidate thinks the First Amendment should not protect believers who object to abortion. So much for the Constitution. God help us, because the federal government under that candidate will be against us.
The other candidate has proposed to nominate judges to the Supreme Court that are dedicated to what the Constitution actually says. That candidate has publicly provided a list of lower court judges who are potential nominees to the Supreme Court. The men and women on that list are outstanding jurists who will be likely to apply the Constitution as it has been handed down to us from the Founders and not create novel “interpretations” of a “living” Constitution.
The preeminence of protecting innocent human life has been reaffirmed by many religious leaders in recent years.
"Yet this defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be." Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, no. 213 (2013) (emphasis supplied).
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, no. 28 (2016).
"Some actions are what the Church calls 'intrinsically evil acts.' Please understand that term. It doesn't mean the people who do them are intrinsically evil. It means that these acts never are morally good. . . . Among these actions are abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, acts of racism, and same-sex marriage. . . . In terms of giving each issue proper weight, intrinsically evil actions have extra weight because they represent direct assaults on human dignity." Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, "Not all election issues carry same weight," St. Louis Review, September 5-11, 2016, p. 5.
The destruction of over one million unborn humans every year in America is a concession to death and despair. We should rather assist pregnant women to keep their babies. When you vote for President in November, carefully consider which candidate vows to appoint pro-abortion Justices to the Supreme Court who will expand death and destruction for the unborn and force us all to pay for abortions whatever our religious beliefs may say, and which candidate stands against such unworthy intolerance.
PRAY FOR OUR NATION - VOTE PRO-LIFE
Are You Registered to Vote?
Pro-life candidates need your vote!