Cafardi for the NCR: Obama is More Pro-Life than Romney


#1

Discovered this on my Facebook feed.

Which presidential candidate is truly pro-life?

The most relevant part:

There is no doubt Obama is pro-choice. He has said so many times. There is also no doubt Romney is running on what he calls a pro-life platform. But any honest analysis of the facts shows the situation is much more complicated than that.

For example, Obama's Affordable Care Act does not pay for abortions. In Massachusetts, Romney's health care law does. Obama favors, and included in the Affordable Care Act, $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion. This support will make abortions much less likely, since most abortions are economic. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's budget, which will cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the federal plans that support poor women. The undoubted effect: The number of abortions in the United States will increase. On these facts, Obama is much more pro-life than Romney.

But let's not stop there. Obama does not financially profit from the abortion industry. Romney does. Bain Capital, in the time Romney was listed as its legal head and even when he was attending Bain board meetings, was an owner of Stericycle, a major disposer of the dead bodies of aborted children in the United States. (See: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show.) Bain owned a share of Stericycle until 2004, selling its interest for a profit in the tens of millions of dollars. We can parse what Romney's 1999 "retroactive retirement" from Bain means, but he still gets an annual payout from the firm. To the extent those dollars are part of Bain's Stericycle profits, a strong argument exists that Romney is an abortion profiteer. How pro-life is that?

And it has long been known that millions of Bain Capital's original outside funding, solicited by Romney himself, came from wealthy El Salvadorian clans, some of whom, while they were funding Bain, were "linked to right wing death squads." (Salt Lake Tribune, 1999; See also: Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads.) Death squads killed tens of thousands of mostly poor people in El Salvador. They also killed priests, nuns and Archbishop Oscar Romero. How pro-life is that? How pro-life is taking the money of these people and doubling or tripling it for them? And did any of their Bain profits fund more death squads? Before we endorse Romney's "pro-life" claims, isn't it important for us to know that?

So speaking as a temporary, part-time member of the parallel magisterium, I think that if anyone should be disinvited from the Al Smith Dinner, it is Mitt Romney. Based on the above record, he, and not Obama, is the anti-life, "pro-abortion" candidate.

I'm not Catholic, as you can tell from my profile, but I am definitely pro-life. There would have to be a momentous change in my worldview for me to vote for Obama this November, but nevertheless, I wanted to see what my Catholic friends thought of something like this.


#2

Cafardi was on the board of Trustees at Franciscan university, he published his reasons for supporting Obama in 2008, Franciscan university distanced themselves from his views and he resigned

I contacted NCR and Nicholas Carfardi by email and they have not bothered to retract their faulty rubbish on their website.

He is claiming Romney was at Bain when they invested in Stericyle but that is not what the documents claim

On its documentation page, the Stop Stericycle campaign lists documents showing contracts and other information linking the business with abortion clinics. The first document offered as proof comes from 2003 — anywhere from one to four years after Romney and left Bain Capital and coming at the time Bain itself had divested from Stericycle.

Most of the documents cover the period between 2007-2009, making it appear Stericycle launched a concerted effort during those years to drum up business from abortion companies. Again, that time period is well after Romney was no longer involved in the company or Bain Capital, which had sold off its Stericycle holdings three-four years prior.

lifenews.com/2012/07/04/left-wing-blogs-falsely-attack-romney-on-abortion-stericycle

I think some Obama supports are trying to paint Romney as pro abortion so they can feel better about themselves support the pro abortion president in history, Obama


#3

[quote="ironchapman, post:1, topic:295421"]
Discovered this on my Facebook feed.

Which presidential candidate is truly pro-life?

The most relevant part:

I'm not Catholic, as you can tell from my profile, but I am definitely pro-life. There would have to be a momentous change in my worldview for me to vote for Obama this November, but nevertheless, I wanted to see what my Catholic friends thought of something like this.

[/quote]

According to the book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics", Mitt Romney made a decision to be "personally pro-life but publicly pro choice" back when he decided to run for the Senate in 1993. Byron York had the following account:
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

So Mr. Romney was pro-life but decided to set aside that principle for political expediency. And he maintained that view through the time that he ran for governor of Massachusetts. (See this video from the 2002 gubernatorial debate)

According to Romney supporters, he had an epiphany around 2005 or so when considering embryonic stem cell research.

Conveniently, that epiphany happened right around the same time that he would have been mulling a run for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Call me a skeptic.

Sadly, there is not a great history of bills signed, executive orders issued, etc., to where we can verify with actions Mr. Romney's alleged change in heart...

Having said that, Mr. Romney never supported infanticide. His opponent, Mr. Obama, has.

He voted twice against the bill proposing an Illinois Born Alive Protection Act. From a transcript of the 2001 legislative session (page 86), he outlines his reasons:

...whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

He has consistently maintained this radical position ever since that time. He has done everything in his power, either as a State Senator, US Senator, or US President, to advance the cause of abortion.

So while I do not, unlike some of my fellow posters on CAF and fellow conservatives, feel comfortable calling Mr. Romney a staunch pro-life person, I have no question whatsoever that Mr. Obama is the most radically pro-abortion President in US history. There is no way that anybody could seriously state otherwise.

(Oh, and for the record, I expect nothing less than this kind of fantasy coming from the Fishwrap...condemned by its local Ordinary as heretical since 1968)


#4

[quote="markomalley, post:3, topic:295421"]
According to the book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics", Mitt Romney made a decision to be "personally pro-life but publicly pro choice" back when he decided to run for the Senate in 1993. Byron York had the following account:
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.

In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."

So Mr. Romney was pro-life but decided to set aside that principle for political expediency. And he maintained that view through the time that he ran for governor of Massachusetts. (See this video from the 2002 gubernatorial debate)

According to Romney supporters, he had an epiphany around 2005 or so when considering embryonic stem cell research.

Conveniently, that epiphany happened right around the same time that he would have been mulling a run for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Call me a skeptic.

Sadly, there is not a great history of bills signed, executive orders issued, etc., to where we can verify with actions Mr. Romney's alleged change in heart...

Having said that, Mr. Romney never supported infanticide. His opponent, Mr. Obama, has.

He voted twice against the bill proposing an Illinois Born Alive Protection Act. From a transcript of the 2001 legislative session (page 86), he outlines his reasons:

...whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

He has consistently maintained this radical position ever since that time. He has done everything in his power, either as a State Senator, US Senator, or US President, to advance the cause of abortion.

So while I do not, unlike some of my fellow posters on CAF and fellow conservatives, feel comfortable calling Mr. Romney a staunch pro-life person, I have no question whatsoever that Mr. Obama is the most radically pro-abortion President in US history. There is no way that anybody could seriously state otherwise.

(Oh, and for the record, I expect nothing less than this kind of fantasy coming from the Fishwrap...condemned by its local Ordinary as heretical since 1968)

[/quote]

That's basically my opinion. Mitt's no champion of pro-life virtues, but look what he's up against.


#5

[quote="ironchapman, post:4, topic:295421"]
That's basically my opinion. Mitt's no champion of pro-life virtues, but look what he's up against.

[/quote]

Champion of pro life virtues is someone who has a pro life record and Romney does as governor. Selection of Paul Ryan validates his pro life views


#6

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:5, topic:295421"]
Champion of pro life virtues is someone who has a pro life record and Romney does as governor. Selection of Paul Ryan validates his pro life views

[/quote]

This verifies what I stated. He had his "epiphany" since making the decision to run for President.

From the Boston Globe piece cited in your PDF:

Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.

(snip)

Except on matters of the starkest clarity like the issue of banning partial-birth abortions, there is not now a decisive national consensus on abortion. Some parts of the country have prolife majorities, others have prochoice majorities. People of good faith on both sides of the issue should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums -- with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that democratic majorities will prevail. We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.

Rather than just parroting Romney propaganda, which you have done consistently since the beginning of the primaries, you ought to actually provide quotes and links.


#7

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


#8

For example, Obama's Affordable Care Act does not pay for abortions.

That was all I had to read to know the person is either lying or ignorant of the facts. Either discounts his opinion to point of wasted bandwidth.


#9

I’ve never seen someone criticize another poster for not providing quotes and links right after he/she used a link provided by that person.


#10

Realize that the NCR is not directly affiliated with the Catholic Church, so their opinions do not reflect that of the Church. Also, their statement is also false, because Obama's plan includes the coverage of contraceptives, including the birth control pill, which can cause abortions. And think of how many more people use the pill over those who have abortions, the number is sure to be higher because the moral understanding for the majority of society on the issue of the pill is completely gray.


#11

What silliness!

Obama does not financially profit from the abortion industry.

I guess NARAL donating $339,097 directly to the Obama campaign, not to mention contributing $101,970 to PACs opposed to Romney isn't a financial gain?

influenceexplorer.com/organization/naral-pro-choice-america/d0e1db0affab41e3a844af69cb54077c

Don't believe the hype, ironchapman. The National Catholic Reporter is practically a wing of the DNC.

NCR has at times denied Church teachings on homosexual acts and marriage,[14] ordination of women,[15] stem cell research,[16] and Catholic-identifying politicians who support abortion.[17]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Catholic_Reporter#Position_of_the_Church

If you want to read a publication faithful to Church teaching, and representative of Catholic beliefs, avoid the National Catholic Reporter at all costs, and go with the National Catholic Register


#12

commentary


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.