2010: The year of the (Republican) Woman?

In 1992, the election of such political and intellectual giants as Patty Murray, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, and Carol Mosely Braun gave rise to “the year of the woman”. Well, get ready for another year of the Woman with a right-leaning twist:

abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/primary-races-nevada-arkansas-south-carolina-california-measure/story?id=10856058

With victories by Sharon Angle in Nevada, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, the upcoming election might also be called the “year of the woman” - for Republicans.

Four out of the five are pro-life. If they win, this might be called “the year of the pro-life woman”. What a change from 1992 when we elected five pro-abortion women. What can make this the “year of the pro-life woman” ? If Catholics actually vote pro-life, instead of according to party loyalties that were formed decades ago when abortion wasn’t an issue. Catholic Democrats will also have to decide whether protecting the unborn is more important than protecting the welfare state. Will they? Stay tuned.

Ishii

Aren't women statistically more pro-choice than men? I don't have any breakdowns on this so I'm just asking.

Those women you listed who where voted in 1992 are all big time pro abortion. They ran on pro abortion agendas. These women also ran w/ their gender as an issue. The women who won earlier this week are pro-life and did not make gender an issue. Are you serious when you call those 1992 elected gals 'intellectual giants'? Patty Murray? Barbara Boxer?

associatedcontent.com/article/5475242/barbara_boxer_has_vapors_over_carbon.html?cat=58

THE above is a link to B.Boxers statement on the floor today re:CO2 is the USA's next national security risk!

[quote="ProVobis, post:2, topic:201424"]
Aren't women statistically more pro-choice than men? I don't have any breakdowns on this so I'm just asking.

[/quote]

I don't really know. One would think the natural instinct of a woman would be to protect the life growing inside her. I did a little searching, but this is by no means definitive.

abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/abortion_poll030122.html

It looks like women and men came out roughly equal on abortion with women slightly more in favor of its legality. Not surprisingly, people "who profess no religion" are more likely to support legal abortion."

I have a young relative who grew up in a traditional Catholic, pro-life family. She went to college and came back a pro-Obama supporter of Emily's List.

We have our work cut out for us. Maybe if we can elect some of these pro-life Republican women we will make some progress.

Ishii

[quote="MJE, post:3, topic:201424"]
Those women you listed who where voted in 1992 are all big time pro abortion. They ran on pro abortion agendas. These women also ran w/ their gender as an issue. The women who won earlier this week are pro-life and did not make gender an issue. Are you serious when you call those 1992 elected gals 'intellectual giants'? Patty Murray? Barbara Boxer?

associatedcontent.com/article/5475242/barbara_boxer_has_vapors_over_carbon.html?cat=58

THE above is a link to B.Boxers statement on the floor today re:CO2 is the USA's next national security risk!

[/quote]

MJE, I am sorry you missed my point. If the current crop of Republican women candidates won then we could call it the "year of the Republican woman". Since most of them are pro-life we could also call it "the year of the pro-life woman". I am sorry you did not detect the intended sarcasm in my labeling Boxer and Patty Murray as "intellectual giants". I regard both of them as arrogant dim bulbs. Especially Patty Murray - she once criticized America for not doing as much to help Afghanistan as Osama bin Laden did. We didn't "build day care centers" like he did. She is a complete joke of a U.S. senator. It would be funny if she didn't have so much power, but she is, of course, a reliable pro-abortion vote. She might be defeated if Washington state Catholics start taking their faith more seriously and vote for the pro-life candidate instead of the pro- "social justice" candidate.

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:4, topic:201424"]
We have our work cut out for us. Maybe if we can elect some of these pro-life Republican women we will make some progress.

[/quote]

Well, theoretically if we elect more pro-life Democrats, we might make even more progress since that may influence that party's platform. Personally I'm tired of voting for anyone who's a Republican. Locally they just raise property taxes and nationally they just let Roe vs Wade play out.

[quote="ProVobis, post:6, topic:201424"]
Well, theoretically if we elect more pro-life Democrats, we might make even more progress since that may influence that party's platform. Personally I'm tired of voting for anyone who's a Republican. Locally they just raise property taxes and nationally they just let Roe vs Wade play out.

[/quote]

I understand your frustration with Republicans. However, this is how I see the political reality: We have four likely Roe V. Wade overturners in Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. We need one more. A Democrat will only nominate Roe V. Wade upholders because they are owned by the abortion lobby. Therefore we need to elect pro-life Republicans if overturning Roe V. Wade is a goal.

Ishii

[quote="ishii, post:1, topic:201424"]
such political and intellectual giants as Patty Murray, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, and Carol Mosely Braun

With victories by Sharon Angle in Nevada, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California,

Ishii

[/quote]

Have the Republican women proven themselves to be great intellectual giants? Fiorina has already shown herself to be shallow by concentrating on that minor gaffe by Boxer and by making catty remarks about SoS Clinton.

I'm not claiming that all those Dems have superior minds, but do all those GOP women?

[quote="ishii, post:7, topic:201424"]
We have four likely Roe V. Wade overturners in Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. We need one more. A Democrat will only nominate Roe V. Wade upholders because they are owned by the abortion lobby. Therefore we need to elect pro-life Republicans if overturning Roe V. Wade is a goal.

Ishii

[/quote]

Don't count your chickens. What makes you so sure that a Republican joining the Supremes will be pro-life? He or she could be neutral on it or even pro-choice as are a percentage of other Republicans.

[quote="ProVobis, post:6, topic:201424"]
Well, theoretically if we elect more pro-life Democrats, we might make even more progress since that may influence that party's platform. Personally I'm tired of voting for anyone who's a Republican. Locally they just raise property taxes and nationally they just let Roe vs Wade play out.

[/quote]

Personally, I do not believe there are any informed pro-life Democrats. There are plenty of Democrats claiming to be prolife, while also supporting the culture of death that their party ceaselessly pushes. One cannot support an agenda that include abortion and than at the same time call themselves prolife.

Stupak proves my point. He was a man claiming to be prolife, yet he proved to be just another wolf in sheep's clothing.

[quote="ProVobis, post:6, topic:201424"]
Well, theoretically if we elect more pro-life Democrats, we might make even more progress since that may influence that party's platform. Personally I'm tired of voting for anyone who's a Republican. Locally they just raise property taxes and nationally they just let Roe vs Wade play out.

[/quote]

The Health care vote put that theory to rest. When push comes to shove "Pro-life" Democrats put Party first

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:9, topic:201424"]
Don't count your chickens. What makes you so sure that a Republican joining the Supremes will be pro-life? He or she could be neutral on it or even pro-choice as are a percentage of other Republicans.

[/quote]

Very true, it has happened before that people in the GOP have been appointed to the SC, only to than side with the left. There are no gaurantees at all. However, there is far more likelihood that a person in the GOP will be prolife...seeing as I do NOT believe any informed person in the Democratic Party can be truly prolife.

Abortion is not a grey area. One is either 100% against the killing of innocents, or they are not. If a person tries to ride the fence, then they prove they are not prolife.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:8, topic:201424"]
Have the Republican women proven themselves to be great intellectual giants? Fiorina has already shown herself to be shallow by concentrating on that minor gaffe by Boxer and by making catty remarks about SoS Clinton.

I'm not claiming that all those Dems have superior minds, but do all those GOP women?

[/quote]

I guess we'll have elect them and see. I am impressed with the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina. I don't think it will take much to eclipse Patty Murray's (the "Mom in tennis shoes") towering intellect.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:9, topic:201424"]
Don't count your chickens. What makes you so sure that a Republican joining the Supremes will be pro-life? He or she could be neutral on it or even pro-choice as are a percentage of other Republicans.

[/quote]

You are right to be skeptical of the Republicans. However, I will take my chances on a nominee from a Republican being pro-life over the nominee of a Democrat.

Ishii

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:8, topic:201424"]
Have the Republican women proven themselves to be great intellectual giants? Fiorina has already shown herself to be shallow by concentrating on that minor gaffe by Boxer and by making catty remarks about SoS Clinton.

I'm not claiming that all those Dems have superior minds, but do all those GOP women?

[/quote]

Seriously? Who is shallow by "concentrating" gaffes, Fiorina, or the HuffPo mouth-breathers?

You're statement is a little ironic.

I'm sure politicians have been caught saying far worse on a "hot mike". Shallow? Not that I can see. Proof that a woman is still....a woman? You betcha!

[quote="scipio337, post:15, topic:201424"]
Fiorina, or the HuffPo mouth-breathers?

[/quote]

Don't recognize your reference.

[quote="ishii, post:7, topic:201424"]
I understand your frustration with Republicans. However, this is how I see the political reality: We have four likely Roe V. Wade overturners in Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. We need one more.

[/quote]

We need to use our words carefully. If "overturn" means the reversal of Blackmun's ruling that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment and therefore not entitled to equal protection of the laws, none of the four you mentioned would do that. Scalia and Thomas are on record that Roe should be "overturned". But they don't mean the unborn are entitled to equal protection of the laws. They don't mean state legislatures should be required to restrict abortion. They mean that state legislatures should be allowed to restrict abortion or not. Roberts and Alito view Roe as "settled law". Don't look to them to "overturn" Roe. Significantly, they did not join Scalia and Thomas' clarifying concurrence in Carhart (the partial birth abortion ruling) reiterating their previous position that Roe should be "overturned".

[quote="ishii, post:7, topic:201424"]
A Democrat will only nominate Roe V. Wade upholders because they are owned by the abortion lobby.

[/quote]

This is a given.

[quote="ishii, post:7, topic:201424"]
Therefore we need to elect pro-life Republicans if overturning Roe V. Wade is a goal.

Ishii

[/quote]

If that is a pro-life voter's strategy, the voter needs to discern if the "pro-life" Republican really means it (i.e., will use the office to protect innocent lives) or is just giving lip service to get votes.

[quote="ProVobis, post:6, topic:201424"]
Well, theoretically if we elect more pro-life Democrats, we might make even more progress since that may influence that party's platform. Personally I'm tired of voting for anyone who's a Republican. Locally they just raise property taxes and nationally they just let Roe vs Wade play out.

[/quote]

Let's see now, was it not the "pro-life" Dems that bowed to party pressure and voted for the health plan after making such a big todo about not voting for it because it had an abortion factor? RvW will be defeated when the right case is allowed to be heard before the SC. That ain't gona' happen with Mr. Obama appointing judges.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:8, topic:201424"]
Have the Republican women proven themselves to be great intellectual giants? Fiorina has already shown herself to be shallow by concentrating on that minor gaffe by Boxer and by making catty remarks about SoS Clinton.

I'm not claiming that all those Dems have superior minds, but do all those GOP women?

[/quote]

Surely you jest. What accomplishments can Boxer and Murray point to other than being politicians? What business experience do they have? If we had a few more business people in Congress, the budget might not be in the shape it is in now.

[quote="miguel, post:17, topic:201424"]
We need to use our words carefully. If "overturn" means the reversal of Blackmun's ruling that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment and therefore not entitled to equal protection of the laws, none of the four you mentioned would do that. Scalia and Thomas are on record that Roe should be "overturned". But they don't mean the unborn are entitled to equal protection of the laws. They don't mean state legislatures should be required to restrict abortion. They mean that state legislatures should be allowed to restrict abortion or not. Roberts and Alito view Roe as "settled law". Don't look to them to "overturn" Roe. Significantly, they did not join Scalia and Thomas' clarifying concurrence in Carhart (the partial birth abortion ruling) reiterating their previous position that Roe should be "overturned".
This is a given.
If that is a pro-life voter's strategy, the voter needs to discern if the "pro-life" Republican really means it (i.e., will use the office to protect innocent lives) or is just giving lip service to get votes.

[/quote]

Miguel, with a Republican nominating supreme court justices you have a solid chance of getting someone in there who will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade if it got challenged again. With the Democrats nominating, you get zero chance. Obama, less than two years into his presidency, has his second opportunity to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. If enough Catholics had voted for the pro-life candidate, I think we'd have the "solid chance" that I'm talking about. As it is, we have the "zero chance". Even if its true that Alito and Roberts might not be a slam dunk to vote to overturn Roe V Wade, wouldn't you agree that we should go with the "solid chance" over the "zero chance"? Obama gets to fill two vacancies! That could have been McCain nominating two justices but too many Catholics blew it and voted for "hope and change" and the most pro-abortion candidate in history.

Of course there has to be more to a pro-life voters strategy as you say, but would't you agree that overturning Roe v Wade would be a huge victory and allow some states to outlaw abortions? Even if "overturning" merely meant that states would be free to restrict or outlaw abortion, then lives would be saved.

Ishii

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.