Does the GOP say they are pro life just to get elected?

I’m not saying that there aren’t pro life members, but honestly, how come we have had five republican presidents since Roe V. Wade and none of them did a thing to get rid of roe vs. wade. We’ve also had a few occasions where we had a republican house and senate, and even recently control of the presidency and the congress, and no meaningful action against abortion.

Anyway, it makes me wonder, do republicans just say this to get elected. I know many are pro life in the sense they don’t like abortion, but do they just mention it to bring out the evangelical and devout catholic voters and then don’t do anything?

Does this also go for other social issues like gay marriage? i’m worried that gay marriage will become like abortion. Eventually it will be passed and every election year the Republicans will say how bad it is, but won’t do anything when it comes down to it.I see this happening in my neighboring state of Iowa, where republicans have control of the state government, but aren’t doing anything to my knowledge to get rid of gay marriage.

So in your opinion do the republicans say this to get elected by their base? or do they actually believe in these things enough to overturn them?

I don’t think it fair to suggest that Presidents or members of congress can overturn supreme court rulings. Neither the President nor Congress have authority to change a US Supreme Court decision. Supreme Court decisions can only be changed in one of two ways: 1) The Court can overturn its own decision, or 2) Congress and the states can ratify a constitutional amendment that eradicates the decision and/or protects an entity from future action.

Well it’d be nice if every state would ratify amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. And that abortion is always murder under any and every circumstance. But I doubt that would happen. Morality isn’t the way of the world anymore.


Nixon supported exceptions for abortion. Gerald Ford said he thoguht went ‘too far’ with Roe and was against ‘abortion on demand’ but was opposed to an anti abortion consitional amendment. First Lady Betty Ford supported abortion

Reagan campaigned promising to elect a woman to the supreme court, he chose Sandra Day O’Connor

White House officials asserted that Judge O’Connor had assured President Reagan in an Oval Office interview last Wednesday that she was personally opposed to abortions. They quoted her as saying that she opposed the anti-abortion measure only because it was not germane to the legislation to which it was attached and the Arizona Constitution forbids nongermane amendments. But those officials also said that she felt the legality of abortions was a legitimate matter for the legislative branch to decide.

Abortion foes, however, also cited votes in which, they said, Mrs. O’Connor supported a 1970 bill to legalize abortion and a 1973 bill permitting Arizona state agencies to participate in family planning.

In response, the White House said that there was no record of the 1970 vote and that, contrary to what the anti-abortion groups say, the 1973 bill was not pro-abortion and made no mention of abortion. The White House also noted that Mrs. O’Connor had sponsored a 1973 bill, which passed, giving hospitals, physicians and other medical personnel the right not to participate in abortion procedures.

Reagan wrote of his concern about her in his diary

Robert Bork, who is on Romney’s judiciary, was rejected by the supreme court and was opposed by pro abortion groups. Kennedy was influenced by the anti life culture of Washington

Reagon supported an amendment to overturn roe so am unsure why it was not reversed. During his presidency the supreme court upheld many parts of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that was based on ‘life of each human being begins at conception.’ Law forbade public facilities for abortion; no state employee could perform an abortion; fetal tests at 20 weeks rather than 24 which was established by roe for abortion

1st presidential debate in 2000 Bush declared that he would not try to overturn roe v Wade

Before Bush was elected as president, he said that he would support Supreme Court judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution. A strict stance on abortion, he indicated, would not rest at the top of his list of requirements for an appointee, though he had voiced strong personal opposition to most forms of the procedure. He said, “I will not have a litmus test for my judges, except for: Will the judge strictly interpret the Constitution, and not use the bench to write social policy?”

Vote democrat. Isn’t that what you’re implying?

Do you realize what the planks are in the democrat party platform?

Monarchy. Cough Monarchy. At least if there’s a tyrant, we won’t be fooled with the false hope of actually thinking we could get something better by voting…

Candidates of either party will say anything to get elected. If you ask many democrats, you’d be surprised at their own personal views on many things.

George Carlin once suggested that if honesty were suddenly introduced into American politics, the whole system would collapse!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I agree.

This is flatly untrue; it is a completely unwarranted interpretation of Bush’s comments. I don’t think people realize just how much the Roe decision has twisted our appreciation of justice. Does anyone really believe that justice is served by electing judges who announce before hand how they will rule on cases to be brought before them in the future? Bush stated that he would have no litmus test commitment to overturn Roe for the very simple reason that it would be (a) inappropriate to choose justices on that basis and (b) no nominee worth sitting on the bench would announce his position anyway.

It is fair to judge the people Bush put on the Court; it is unfair to interpret his comments as saying he didn’t care about overturning Roe. It seems to me that Roberts and Alito are exactly the kind of people who should be justices. Whatever else Bush might have done, right or wrong, his Supreme Court nominees were excellent. It goes without saying that to this day no one has any idea how either justice would vote should an abortion case be taken up by the Court.


*YOUR morality isn’t the way of the world anymore.

Then why hasn’t the court done it? I mean we have enough justices who would agree to it. Especially now, although it might change if BHO gets a second term

I’m hardly advocating voting for the dems. To be honest i’m to the point i don’t want to vote. I’ll give the democrats that they are honest about their objectives usually. I just feel the GOP has all these oppurtunities to stick it to the babykillers and outlaw abortion, but they do nothing. Same with Gay marriage. I’ll probably vote for Romney though just because there is more of a chance

I put what Bush has said. Mrs Bush said roe v wade should not be overturned and that her husband and herself believe abortion should be reduced

NARAL looked at Bush’s judicial picks and found 2 of the more than 200 people he picked might have supported abortion. Why did the supreme court not reverse roe v wade then? No lawsuit must have challenged the law

Because the court doesn’t overturn itself on a whim or based on new appointees. A case has to be presented to the court which supports a strong argument in favor of RvW being overturned. Besides, I believe that you may be too optimistic in saying that “we have enough justices…”. It is rare when the court will overturn itself.

Then get a case in there. I’m sure it can be done. I know the state of South Dakota banned a abortion. MAybe another state should try just so it can go to the court. Oh well, it will never happen unfortunately. I feel sad about it, and want to try to end it, but unfortunately we got screwed by having it go through the courts instead of through congress or by the states

This is more for us voters to **examine ourselves, rather than to rationalize our votes away **through abstention like the man who buried his talent …

… or to back the WORSE of two evils because “there’s hardly any difference” - and one can see a bit of personal advantage in backing the “more honestly” evil than the "more duplicitously or accidentally or moderately evil … " even if the latter promises the good (but one suspects they might not be so committed).

The question will be - what is that narrow gate?

Luke 13:23 Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few people be saved?” He answered them,

24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.

25 After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are from.’

26 And you will say, ‘We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.’

27 Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where (you) are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!’

28 And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.

29 And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God.

IMO, yes, some in the GOP do say they are pro-life just to be elected. I have voted for some of these because the opposition was pro-abortion (ALSO 'just to be elected" IMO).

It was the best I could do at the time. I would never have voted for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one - in fear of committing a mortal sin. Let alone justifying it ever after as I see some people do (otherwise “good people” who never can seem to give a good answer for what they do … possibly because there IS none).

For verse 26 try " but Lord, I went to Mass every Sunday and Communion too!" That is to say - the reason this is IN the New Testament is that it has relevance to US. NOT just to the first century Jews who did NOT follow Jesus.

The headline of this thread comes off as a leading question. One that leads one to a “what’s the difference in the end?” sort of a conclusion. THEN (if there is no difference) why can’t a person vote … (fill in the blank) instead.

Well, with our free will we CAN (“Yes, we CAN!”) vote “NOT pro-life”.

But I have posted that scripture as a warning. The warning goes far beyond just our voting to be sure … but I personally would be afraid to vote other than pro-life EVER.

I find it scandalous to hear people justifying it … doubly so when such are leaders in the Church (clergy and otherwise). And that’s why I found Luke 13:23-29 appropriate to post.

In love brothers and sisters, let’s do all we can to get rid of the stink of abortion. Not ending with that, but continuing on to healing of those who stumbled in big and small ways over this sin. Whether it be voting for pro-abortion candidates or parties, giving money to pro-abortion groups, paying for an actual abortion, counseling someone to do it, having it done (either under duress or ignorance or even with full knowledge of the evil) … and even unto the PERFORMING of the abortion for money.

NO SIN is greater than the sacrifice of Jesus on His cross. And I hope these words find
someone in need of the encouragement to have their sins put “as far as the east is to the west …” through the holy sacrament of Penance.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool.

19 If you are willing, and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land;

20 But if you refuse and resist, the sword shall consume you: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken!

To the OP question, the answer is…

“about as much as the Democrats say they are pro-immigration reform and say they want to help the poor become self-supporting just to get elected!”

I think it depends. There are some who truly do care and some who give lip service and won’t do anything to further our cause. But the sad thing is that a GOP candidate doing nothing will further the culture of life cause more than any Democrat.

Not for individual Republicans. Yes to the establishment.

This court overturned more than 100 years worth of precedent when it ruled in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in 2010.

I’m unaware of any rule that prohibits the SCOTUS from hearing any case they choose, for any reason. I’m unaware of any requirement that either side of a case has to present a strong argument prior to being heard before the court.

If six Catholic justices isn’t enough, how many would it take?

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