pro-choice losers

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles ) | Jun 22, 2007

Melinda Henneberger believes that...

...a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone.

You've heard that argument before, perhaps. But have you ever read it in a New York Times op-ed before? Not a chance.

When the Times is printing columns with titles like "Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats," it's time for even the slowest-learning Republicans to take notice. No, it is not clever strategy to nominate a "pro-choice" GOP presidential candidate like Rudy Giuliani. No, the Republicans do not lose votes by clinging to a pro-life platform.

For 30 years, Republicans have been gaining votes by opposing abortion, while Democrats have been losing votes by endorsing the slaughter of the unborn. For the same 30 years, the mass media have been doing their utmost to convince us all that the reverse is true. Now the Times, at least, is giving up. Everybody knows the truth. Everybody, that is, except the Republicans who have been profiting from it.

Could we hear that argument again, please?

...a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone.

Did I mention that this is from the New York Times?

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at See full bio.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 9 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Jun. 27, 2007 2:17 PM ET USA

    Re Henneberger's urging “COMPLEXITY” of abortion as clever new Democratic strategy, we should discuss the following on little reported USCCB Retreat Meeting in New Mexico See key bishop indicating USCCB may well remain silent if the two opposing ‘finalists’ are similarly pro-choice. Since McCarrick left meaning of “proportionate reasons” up in the air as did the USCCB since then, there’s USCCB-aided chance for democratic victory

  • Posted by: - Jun. 24, 2007 12:13 AM ET USA

    When we talk amongst ourselves we must avoid viewing abortion as a political issue. It is an issue much, much greater than any US presidential election; it is a moral issue. And if WE as Church, the ones who say "Our" in the Pater Noster, see it too much as a political issue, then WE don't think it is as important as it really is. Be careful, the devil is in the details and the subtleties…

  • Posted by: - Jun. 23, 2007 10:09 AM ET USA

    Phil, you're thinking too much... (which is strange coming from me, "God have mercy...").Even if there was NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT fo supporting a pro-life candidate we are still called to do it. This is a major problem with modernistic thinking...Even C S Lewis, the famous author/philosopher knew this. We try to "figure things out" to make sense out of things And in the process we cripple and even kill obedience and faith. "We are called to faithfulness, not necessarily success." Bl. Moth Theresa

  • Posted by: - Jun. 23, 2007 8:13 AM ET USA

    The devil himself knows the truth and must speak it if directed to do so by Almighty in point the New York Times.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 22, 2007 7:57 PM ET USA

    I myself left the Democrat party over this issue. I don't consider myself a Republican, but do generally vote for candidates from that party. Dole was soft on abortion, and lost. Ford was soft on abortion, and lost. Nominate Giuliani or McCain and kiss the election goodbye, elephants.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 22, 2007 7:30 PM ET USA

    While the Times is correct, the next election won't be about abortion. Yes, Republicans will have lots of pro-life voters stay home if a PC Republican runs, but the next election will be primarily based on "It's the War, stupid!" to paraphrase Clinton. If the war doesn't turn around soon, Republicans will have no hope. The entire government, both Houses AND the White, will be STRONGLY Democrat! If "life" were the primary factor, 2006 wouldn't have happened, esp. races where it was at the crux!

  • Posted by: - Jun. 22, 2007 6:21 PM ET USA

    Pardon my skepticism, but in the NYT, I believe that "gift to the Democrats" translates as "we don't want Rudy to be the nominee". I don't want Rudy to be the nominee either, but for reasons quite different than the New York Times.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 22, 2007 5:43 PM ET USA

    Ronald Reagan, hated by many in his day, is venerated today because he stuck to his guns and did not waffle on basic principles. There are lessons to be learned here if Republicans have any idea they'd like to be back in control of Congress again.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 22, 2007 3:49 PM ET USA

    Many former Democrats have become Republican over this issue alone! We know God has no political affiliation but it is obvious one major political party in the US embraces many Divine precepts while the other repudiates those precepts. I don't want to hear all this "peace and love" prattle from one side of the Democrat mouth while the other side of the mouth espouses killing the unborn and harvesting embryonic stem cells. Without life itself liberty and pursuit of happiness mean nothing.