|A Publication of the Republican National Coalition for Life||WINTER 2008 No. 66|
John McCain Will Head Republican Ticket
How is he going to get from the Primaries to the Presidency?
John McCain's victories in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island caused his Delegate tally to reach 1,191, the number necessary to secure the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States. His successes in the Primaries have been due largely to the participation of moderate Republicans, otherwise known as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and Independent voters. Voters who make up the pro-life, social conservative base of the Party have been, and still are, lukewarm about Mr. McCain. Many either didn't bother to participate in the primaries or cast their votes for Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, candidates whose positions on social issues are more consistent with their own.
Now, John McCain has to win the support of conservative Republicans who could make or break his ability to win in November by simply staying home. These are the people who man the phone banks, organize a multitude of activities to promote the candidate, walk miles door-to-door promoting Republican candidates and registering voters, host coffees and meet-and-greet opportunities for candidates and on Election Day participate in the massive get-out-the-vote effort. People who do these things do them because they are enthusiastically committed to getting their man elected President.
How is John McCain going to build that kind of loyalty and
enthusiasm among the Republican Party grassroots activists?
He can start by assuring us that he will not allow the prolife plank in the Republican National Platform (Page 84) to be tampered with in any way. We have reason to be concerned about the Platform because many of the individuals and organizations supporting the McCain campaign have been trying for years without success to weaken or remove the pro-life Platform language. A co-chair of the McCain for President Finance Committee is Lew Eisenberg, former Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Eisenberg teamed up with pro-abortion former Governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman to form the Republican Leadership Council (RLC) for the purpose of raising money to elect pro-abortion-choice candidates to Congress. The RLC lists among its "Strategic Partners" Republicans for Choice, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, Republican Majority for Choice, and The WISH List, all dedicated to supporting anti-life candidates.
John McCain voted to expand taxpayer funding for research that involves the killing of human embryos, which would have made millions of pro-life Americans complicit, through their tax dollars, in the taking of innocent human lives. Pro-life Americans consider embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) to be unethical, immoral and sinful. In order to gain support among skeptical pro-life voters, McCain should walk away from his support of ESCR. Instead, he should publicly embrace what is moral, ethical and effective cord blood and adult stem cell research. It is this research that is yielding success after success in treatment and cures of many serious conditions.
Republicans for Choice names John McCain as their "number two choice" after Rudy Giuliani's defeat. They say that "while he is 'personally pro-life' . . . we know we can work with him to create common ground . . ." John McCain should let us know that he understands there can be no "common ground" between people who think it should be legal to kill babies before they are born and those who wish to protect their lives.
In the 2000 Primary debate in South Carolina broadcast on CNN, McCain attacked then-Texas Governor George Bush for supporting the pro-life plank in the Republican platform because it does not include exceptions for rape and incest. For someone who claims a ˇ°pro-lifeˇ± voting record, his vote to expand taxpayer funding for killing human embryos for research is certainly anti-life. It is not enough for him to say he supports overturning Roe v. Wade. While that is a worthy goal, it would not save one life.
If John McCain wants to unify the Party in order to win in November, he must begin by stating his unequivocal support for the pro-life plank, and announce his intention to respect and protect the lives of innocent human embryos.
The facts are these: Human beings, you and I, have 46 chromosomes in every cell in our bodies, except for the cells capable of generating another human life the male sperm and female ovum, each having 23 chromosomes. When a 23 chromosome sperm penetrates a 23 chromosome ovum, a new, individual 46 chromosome single-cell human being comes into existence. No more egg. No more sperm.
That's it. Simple, isn't it? Simple but miraculously complex as the little boy or girl, with a DNA structure different and independent from the father or mother, develops through several stages from embryo to birth. Anyone who has given even cursory study to the intricate workings of the human body (consider the structure of the human eye alone) has a hard time denying the hand of a Higher Power in the creation of a human life.
Currently, efforts are under way in Colorado, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana and Georgia to bring ballot initiatives before the voters that would recognize the existence of a human person from the moment of conception. In a column for LifeSiteNews.com (11/27/07), Hilary White pointed out that the facts about when a human being comes into existence have been known for more than one hundred and thirty years. In 1875, the German zoologist Oskar Hertwig showed definitively that penetration of a spermatozoon into an ovum was the beginning of independent life and that the terms "conception" and "fertilization" are therefore interchangeable. Human embryologists have shown that once fertilization has taken place, neither the male nor female sex cells (often misnamed "eggs"), continue to exist.
The abortion lobby is keenly aware that the establishment of the personhood of the unborn child would signal the end to legal abortion in this country. Ballot initiatives like those currently being proposed draw intense and well-funded opposition from the abortion industry and the wealthy individuals and foundations that support it. It's always a David vs. Goliath struggle, and oftentimes, the pro-life side does not succeed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to give the voters a chance to hear the arguments. Sometimes you have to lose a few battles before you win the war.
After all, little boys and girls are at stake because there is no such thing as a "fertilized egg."
Never forget that YOU were once an embryo.
On January 22 I participated in my first anti-abortion march in Naples on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade with my children Johnny, age 1, and Victoria, 3.
Pink T-shirted Planned Parenthood people joined my family with signs that read: "Protect Women's Health."
I wished I had engaged one or two in honest discussion, but I was quiet. And so now, I remain honestly befuddled. What could they possibly mean? In all of my research, I've yet to find a shred of scientific evidence showing women's health is enhanced from an abortion. Yet, since 2000 there have been at least 17 studies published in leading medical journals that indicate a significant correlation between abortion and mental and physical problems.
In October 2006, some 15 of Great Britain's leading obstetricians and gynecologists penned an open letter to the London Times acknowledging the psychological consequences of abortion.
Done dragging its heels, the American Psychological Association is convening a task force to study abortion and mental health, following criticism from even the pro-choice researchers.
Consider if you have aborted:
While it's commonly accepted among medical professionals that childbirth protects against cancer of the reproductive system, abortion is turning out to be one of the best predictors of breast cancer, according to Patrick Carroll, director of research at Britain's Pension and Population Institute. Using a mathematical formula, the statistician was able to almost perfectly predict rates of breast cancer in England, Wales, Ireland and other countries based on their varying incidences of abortion! The study came out in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons last October.
This is no news to scientists like pro-abortion choice researcher Janet Daling. She tried to publicize the abortion/breast cancer link back in 1994, only to see it wiped off the National Cancer Institute's Web site. She was quoted in the Los Angeles Daily News as saying, "I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing around with scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is."
Post-abortive teens with a family history of breast cancer are the biggest losers, acknowledges Daling and others. They can just plain expect to get it in their later years.
If you abort you can also expect:
And, of course, you can expect that not-for-profit Planned Parenthood, which sucked in close to $900 million in revenues in 2006 (a third was in taxpayer-funded subsidies) and made upwards of $50 million in profits, will not level with you about any of the above.
Elizabeth Ann Suarez has lived in Naples for six years. She has worked as editor of a small Ohio community newspaper. Abortion, she believes, is "the premier civil rights issue of our time."
Republican National Coalition for Life Box 618 Alton Illinois 62002|
618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 E-mail