Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

[ironmonk]

Did John Kerry Lie About Abortion?

by Deal Hudson

http://www.lifenews.com/oped30.html

LifeNews.com Note: Deal Hudson is the editor of Crisis Magazine.

While the Democratic primary has gotten more interesting with Senator John Edwards' strong showing Tuesday in Wisconsin, it still looks like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts will be

going head-to-head with President Bush in this fall's election.

This makes things interesting for voting Catholics -- after all,

Kerry likes to tout his Catholic faith to prospective voters. Of

course, this isn't always an easy thing to do, given the

senator's strong support of abortion.

His strategy for getting away with this, though, is the same one

used by so many "Catholic" politicians: He claims that while he's

personally opposed to abortion, he can't let his religious belief

get in the way of his policy-making.

In fact, he told a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that,

"What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith

is an article of faith. And if it's not shared by a Jew or an

Episcopalian or a Muslim or an agnostic or an atheist or someone

else, it's not appropriate in the United States for a legislator

to legislate your personal religious belief for the rest of the

country."

Furthermore, Kerry's Deputy Communications Director, Dag Vega,

confirmed with us that the senator is "personally opposed" to

abortion while still remaining pro-choice publicly and

politically.

Now, the "personally opposed" nonsense is easy enough to answer, and many have done it before. Obviously, abortion isn't a matter of faith but a matter of the right to life that is promised every

American in the Constitution. You certainly don't have to be

Catholic -- or even religious -- to believe that.

But let's put all that aside for the moment...

What if I told you that John Kerry might not be telling the truth

about being "personally opposed"?

No, I'm not presuming to read Kerry's mind. In this case, I don't

have to... his statements on the matter speak for themselves. Not

only are they not the words of someone who considers abortion a

tragic necessity, but Kerry proves himself an ardent supporter of

the growth of the abortion industry, both here and around the

world.

But don't take my word for it. Have a look at what Kerry said at

last year's NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner:

"I think that tonight we have to make it clear that we are not

going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v.

Wade... There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a

woman's life or health and there are no more cutbacks on

population control efforts around the world. We need to take on

this President and all of the forces of intolerance on this

issue. We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this

issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of

what we stand for."

Did you catch that? Not only should abortion be available to all

American women, all the time, but it should be used as a

population control valve around the world. And this is something

we should "be proud of." Not what you'd expect from someone who's "personally opposed" to abortion.

And this isn't an isolated comment...

From the Boston Herald on January 23, 2001: "I will not back away

from my conviction that international family planning programs

are in America's best interests. We should resist pressures in

this country for heavy-handed Washington mandates that ignore

basic choices that should belong to free people around the

globe."

Kerry's support for "international family planning programs" -- a

standard euphemism for "abortion" -- is an issue he's advocated

for some time. If Kerry is telling the truth about being "personally opposed" to abortion, why is he trying to spread it worldwide? That would be like me saying, "I personally oppose watching television, and it's about time we get a television in every home."

And then there's this gem from the 1994 Congressional record:

"The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they

are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and

any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same

locations as any other medical procedure... [A]bortions need to

be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream

of medical practice. And by the same token, if our children are

to be safe from the danger of fanaticism, tolerance needs to

spread out of the mainstream churches, mosques, and synagogues,

and into the religious fringes."

Abortion is simply "a medical procedure"? If that were true, then

on what grounds could he possibly be personally opposed to it? He

certainly doesn't seem to be struggling with the issue here. And

how exactly does he propose to "spread tolerance" to the

"religious fringes"? Presumably, he's referring to the people

who, as an article of faith, believe abortion to be immoral. But

doesn't he claim to be one of those very people?

It just doesn't look like John Kerry is telling the truth on

this. When he talks to Catholic and Hispanic groups, he plays up

his personal struggle with abortion and his respect for Church

teaching. But when his audience is less religious, he suddenly

turns into a pro-abortion crusader.

In the end, his "personally opposed" rhetoric doesn't fly...

Kerry clearly isn't personally opposed to abortion. It's just a

dodge he's using to pander to religious voters.

I wonder how many Catholics will fall for it.

-------------------------------------------------------

john kerry is a crook. Typical of all politicians in the demo party.

Killing babies for population control... next they'll be pushing for a Logan's Run soceity.

-ironmonk

Edited February 23, 2004 by ironmonk

[Lounge Daddy]

john kerry is a crook. Typical of all politicians in the demo party.

Killing babies for population control... next they'll be pushing for a Logan's Run soceity.

--ironmonk

Amen, brother

[Mateo el Feo]

Thanks, Ironmonk. Looking on Sen. Kerry's website, regarding his protecting a "woman's right to choose [abortion]":

John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies.  He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God.  He will defend this right as President.  He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.  Kerry also believes that we should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage.

Not only are his alleged "personal beliefs" not mentioned, he plans use a litmus test to prohibit all faithful Catholics (and others who oppose abortion) from the Supreme Court.

When ever I see politicians like Sen. Kerry, I can't help but imagine them years before, following the example of Doctor Faustus and making their own deal with the devil so that they can pursue their ambition to obtain power. "Just leave your soul at the door..."

Matthew 16:26-28

"What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?  For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.  Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

The only solution is prayer.

[hermit]

Also come election time get out there and vote...

[bluengold]

Quoting Fr. Benedict Groeschel:

The democrats are evil, and the republicans are stupid!

:D

I love it!

[dairygirl4u2c]

Or if he were Catholic the way Catholics are taught today (though this may change), he would vote for what he thought was moral based on his faith instead of what is democratic. ie only able to do things that aren't hurting other people

Next thing you know everyone's going to be voting their specific morals and we're going to regress to a society that is simply run by the moral majority vote instead of the majority vote for the moral truth of true democracy. ie again being able to do anything as long as it isn't hurting other people.

Isn't that what America was created for? Freedom? To stop countries from being run by majority rule?

That is all.

Edited February 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mateo el Feo]

The only solution is prayer.

Opps...I meant that prayer is the only solution for the conversion of Sen. Kerry's heart for the salvation of his soul and those like him.

:)

[Dave]

Or if he were Catholic the way Catholics are taught today (though this may change), he would vote for what he thought was moral based on his faith instead of what is democratic.

Next thing you know everyone's going to be voting their morals and we're going to regress to a society that is simply run by the moral majority vote instead of the majority vote for the moral truth of true democracy.

Isn't that what America was created for? Freedom? To stop countries from being run by majority rule?

That is all.

What, pray tell, is wrong with countries voting their morals (just so long as they're good morals)? Right now, with abortion legalized, America is showing itself to have very bad morals.

And this stuff about democracy you give is a cop-out. Every law that has ever been passed has reflected on the morality or lack thereof of our country.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Isn't that what America was created for? Freedom? To stop countries from being run by majority rule?

That is all.

Freedom to murder unborn babies? No, thats NOT what America was created for.

[dUSt]

Or if he were Catholic the way Catholics are taught today (though this may change), he would vote for what he thought was moral based on his faith instead of what is democratic.  ie  only able to do things that aren't hurting other people

Morality is based on religion, not democracy. How does democracy define morality?

Next thing you know everyone's going to be voting their specific morals and we're going to regress to a society that is simply run by the moral majority vote instead of the majority vote for the moral truth of true democracy. ie again being able to do anything as long as it isn't hurting other people.

You think that voting based on morality is regression? I call it progression. Your logic is really scary to me.

"Being able to do anything as long as it isn't hurting people" is your definition of democratic morality? Okay, I agree. Abortion hurts people (ie babies), so we should vote against pro-choice politicians.

Isn't that what America was created for? Freedom? To stop countries from being run by majority rule?

Stop them being run by a majority rule? What? Is it better to have countries run by a minority rule? What point are you trying to make?

[Aloysius]

you have a flawed view of what democracy and freedom in the country are supposed to stand for. it IS about the country being ruled by the moral majority. hello? democratically doesn't mean JUST DOESNT HURT ANYONE. democratic has always meant every citizen has a voice. it means that people who live in this country are to be given oppurtunities of education and vote based on what they believe is moral for the country. of course we should vote our morality. to say we are to vote based on what 'democracy' is is bs... that would mean we can only vote for what will make sure we can vote. VOTING is OUR VOICE to have control over our own governement. if we were only supposed to vote for "what didn't hurt anyone" that'd be the dumbest thing ever, i could not follow a system like that cause it RESTRICTS OUR AMERICAN FREEDOM. we have the freedom to believe what we want without the gov't' imposing on our beliefs, in fact we have the freedom to bring our beliefs upon the government, that's what democracy has ALWAYS been about. for it to be anything else would spit in the face of freedom

[FX2]

I do agree with all of Dust's points. Especially the minority rule part. This post is all over the place, but try to follow me here.

Iraq was rulled by the minority

ca 1938-1945 Germany was rulled by minority

North Korea is being rulled by a minority...need i go on?...Majority rule is the way to go, as long as it doesnt infringe on the minoritys rights. (I use "rights" even though some people believe they have rights in some aspects when they actually dont)

If minoritiy parties had their way with recent decisions made in America

-There would be no Pledge of Alligiance

-The woman on the feeding tube (sorry i forget her name) in Florida would be dead by now

-Much more government funding (your taxes) would go to abortions

..once again, i could go on

The constitution was made not to stop "majority rule" It was made to have the minority have an equal say in everything. It makes me really angry when ONE PERSON can almost change the pledge of alligiance and it took ONE PERSON to get the court to legalize abortions. But this is America, and the little guy gets as much say as the majority.

Oh, and about John Kerry. Out of all the major dems, i like him the least. I have never been able to trust him or what he says.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

democracy has the potential for disaster. hitler was democratically voted into office -- and look what happened! it's a risk that americans agree to take by joining in this great political experiment called democracy. it does not guarantee that no one will get hurt or that some people's rights will not be stepped on (slavery existed once with democracy, so did jim crow and japanese interment camps) -- it just means that laws are based on the majority. whether or not that majority bases its vote on religion is the beauty of democracy -- it does not matter what they base their vote on as long as they vote b/c ALL citizens of this country have a voice. hopefully this makes sense cuz it does in my head.

anyway, the problem with john kerry is that everybody seems to like him! if dean were running, i wouldn't be so scared b/c he's weird and wouldn't get as many votes as kerry. he's slick and you get the feeling that he's lying...especially if he's changing his abortion stance depending on his audience. i wouldn't want him to run the country! i'd prefer an honest idiot over a conartist

[smeagol]

let me ask a simple question and see if it provides any results: what has bush done while in office to further the stance of pro-life (or as one user put it "anti-abortion")? what advances has he made to make abortion illegal ?

edit: we cant just settle for majority rule because sometimes the majority is wrong (a la Hitler). that's why we have a 'liberal democracy' - rule by the people but we need protected liberties in the constitution and bill of rights. govt has to protect our inalienable rights. (but this is beside the point of this thread really.)

Edited February 23, 2004 by smeagol

[marielapin]

let me ask a simple question and see if it provides any results: what has bush done while in office to further the stance of pro-life (or as one user put it "anti-abortion")? what advances has he made to make abortion illegal ?

edit: we cant just settle for majority rule because sometimes the majority is wrong (a la Hitler). that's why we have a 'liberal democracy' - rule by the people but we need protected liberties in the constitution and bill of rights. govt has to protect our inalienable rights. (but this is beside the point of this thread really.)

Here's an answer to your question:

http://www.righttoliferoch.org/nbushlist.htm

The abortion laws are not going to be overturned overnight. Small things like defining a fetus as an unborn child go a long way in trying to battle people who think a baby is a glob of tissue.