Uncategorized

I’m a single-issue pro-lifer in a swing state, and I cannot vote for Trump

I’m a pro-lifer. I believe that the term “pro-life” encompasses so much more than abortion; but I also believe, as Flannery O’Connor says, that you can’t be any poorer than dead.

So when I vote, I vote for the candidate whose presidency will result in fewer dead babies, because you have to start somewhere.

Many of my friends who think the same way are voting for Trump. This is something I cannot do.

As a single-issue, pro-life, swing state voter, here’s what I know:

The President doesn’t just rush over from the swearing-in ceremony, wielding a copy of the Constitution and a Sharpie, passing laws or repealing laws by fiat. They are required to work with Congress. A President Hillary can’t just repeal the Hyde Amendment on her own, any more than a President Trump can’t just repeal Obamacare on his own. So if you’re voting for Trump just because you think Hillary will repeal the Hyde Amendment, then think again. The Hyde Amendment comes down to budgetary issues, and who passes the budget? Congress. So if you’re worried about specific legislation, think of who you’re voting for down ticket. They’re the ones who hold that power.

Presidents also don’t just show up at work and decide who’s going to be on the Supreme Court. The president can nominate someone, but then Congress must approve the nomination. Remember? Remember how Obama shamed the GOP by nominating Merrick Garland, who is widely known as a thoughtful, rigorous, non-partisan judge, and the GOP dug in its heels and blocked him out of spite? That’s how that works.

So if you’re voting for Trump just because of potential Supreme Court nominations, think again. The president can’t put anyone in place without congress’ say-so, and congress has shown that they’re more interested in vengeance and grandstanding than in anything to do with Roe v. Wade or any other pro-life legal case. They’ll say yes to any idiot Trump chooses if they think that idiot will grease their palms in matters that are actually important to them, and they’ll say no to any good judge he might accidentally choose if they think that it will impress their constituents to stand up to Trump.

Congress. Doesn’t. Care. About. Abortion.

Speaking of the Hyde Amendment and Obamacare, if the fate of tens of thousands of babies really does come down to funding, as I keep hearing from the “But the Hyde Amendment!” crowd, then riddle me this: The Hyde Amendment (and I keep accidentally typing “Hype Amendment,” which is pretty accurate) means that federal tax dollars can’t go for abortions. And it’s completely bogus. The federal government funnels millions and millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and has done so for years. Planned Parenthood is mainly in the abortion business. Money is fungible. Your tax dollars have been paying for abortions forever. The Hyde Amendment  is there so republicans can point to it and say, “SEE? This is why you have no choice but to vote for me!” That’s its only function.

But what about Obamacare? It’s a huge friggin’ mess. Lots of my friends are suffering because of it. But also, it pays for things like prenatal care for poor people who have no other insurance. It pays for thing like the delivery of babies, and for healthcare that keeps alive already-born babies (and children and teenagers, not to mention pregnant and non-pregnant women, and men). One of the reasons people seek abortion is because they think, “How can I possibly afford a baby?” And . . . Trump has sworn to repeal Obamacare.

So if you really believe that it’s mainly big government funding that makes the difference between life and death, you might as well vote Hillary, because she’s not talking about yanking Obamacare. (But those are ugly, leech-like Obamacare babies, not clean, noble Hyde Amendment babies, so screw ’em, right?)

Where do pro-life laws or pro-choice laws really come from, anyway? The president has all kinds of ways of influencing what kind of laws come before congress. The president can make deals with legislators, appointing people heads of committees, and promising rewards in return for favors done; and the president can occasionally pass executive orders or try to repeal certain laws, if they are extremely important to him and worth making a stand over.

But the political will and clout for big, important, life-changing laws come from the ground up, from the states and from individual communities. That’s where the momentum comes from. That’s how legislatures get the idea and the courage to introduce new bills: if they think their constituents will like it, and if they think someone will put money behind it. That’s also, frankly, how laws come before the Supreme Court: if someone has the stamina to keep challenging it, and if someone puts up the money to keep championing it.

I know you don’t want to hear that our legal system rises and falls on popular opinion and money, but it does. It’s really not mainly about who’s president. That’s simply not how it works.

So what happens (and what’s already happening) when pro-lifers openly support Trump and say that he represents our goals and values? Checks come pouring in to pro-choice candidates. Sane people take one look at him and say, “If that’s what it means to be pro-life, then helllllll, no.” A Trump presidency backed by pro-lifers would energize the pro-choice movement in ways we’ve never seen before, ever. Money, enthusiasm, legislative pressure, local and state election — all, all will go shrieking away from pro-lifers. And this is one thing that you really can pin directly on who’s president.

What happened during the Obama presidency? The pro-life movement was tremendously energized. Dozens and dozens of pro-life laws have been passed. Abortions have gone down. This is what it looks like when pro-lifers look at the president and say, “This is the enemy. Let’s fight back!” The very same thing will happen if Hillary is president.

And the very same thing will happen is Trump is president — only it won’t be pro-lifers saying it; it’ll be pro-choicers, and it will be pro-choice laws being passed, and pro-choice causes gaining clout and energy and donations. If I were pro-choice, I’d vote for Trump.

And now let’s talk about pregnant women in crisis. Let’s talk about how they get that way. Let’s talk about the fact that so very many pregnant women who seek abortion say they felt pressured into it. Where could that pressure possibly come from?

Maybe from men who treat them like sex objects. (This is how Donald Trump treats women, past, present, and future.)

Maybe from men who hear that their wife or girlfriend is pregnant and immediately see it as a problem. (This is how Donald Trump treated his wife.)

Maybe because they think they can’t afford to be pregnant and can’t afford to take care of a child. (Donald Trump doesn’t want poor women to have access to free healthcare.)

Maybe because they’re involved with a man who doesn’t feel any need to honor his promises. (Donald Trump is a rich man because he routinely backs out of his promises, refusing to pay contractors and declaring bankruptcy.)

Maybe because they’re living in a culture where men feel that they have a right to push their way into women’s lives, grab whatever they want from women, blame and shame women for anything that happens next, and leave whenever the relationship becomes inconvenient for him. (Donald Trump Donald Trump Donald Trump Donald Trump.)

Women end up having abortions mainly when they feel like they have no other choice: when they feel that their lives and their identities are only worthwhile if they’re more serviceable to people who have power over them.

And I have just described the world that Donald Trump builds around himself, and will continue to build as president.

Just yesterday, Baby Christian Trump said that a reporter’s accusation of sexual aggression isn’t credible because “look at her.” This is how he operates. This is how he sees women: as either pretty enough to be worthy of his sexual onslaught, or as too ugly to be worth anyone’s time.

Women seek abortion for a reason. Donald Trump, and the people who admire him and imitate him, are that reason. Trump has been telling us who he is. Pro-lifers, let’s believe him.

So how to vote, then?
-Vote for Hillary if you think she’ll be better, in the long run, for the unborn. Since I live in a swing state, this is probably what I will do, because I think it’s the least un-pro-life option.
-Vote for a third party candidate if you think he can’t win, but you just can’t stand to vote R or D.
-Vote for a third party candidate , or write in someone if you can, if you think your candidate won’t win, but it will crack open the monstrously dysfunctional two-party system that got us here in the first place.
-Leave your ballot blank, if you think that’s what this election deserves.

But don’t vote for Trump because you’re pro-life. It would be better to hang a millstone on your ballot and throw it into the sea.

196 thoughts on “I’m a single-issue pro-lifer in a swing state, and I cannot vote for Trump

  1. Dear Simcha – stick with food. When it comes to politics, and how a pro-life Catholic with a social conscience should vote, your blog-handle hits the nail on the head – “losing my mind”… Indeed. No Catholic in their right mind can justify voting for a woman who is in bed with Planned Parenthood, who is devoid of integrity and who stuck with a sexual predator so she could ride on his coat tails. Apparently, you are too young to remember the sordid shenanigans of the Clinton machine. I’ll stop in now and then to see how you are feeding the masses but otherwise, dear heart, you’ve lost me.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. My God have mercy on all our souls. Aren’t we all in need of it?

    I’m still(!) not sure who I’ll vote for tomorrow. I feel like I’m being asked to choose between what’s right for the good of my country, i.e., selecting the less evil of these two horrible choices, and what I’d be comfortable with in terms of the state of my soul, i.e., going third party.

    As my pastor described it in confession, it feels like we have Russia 1917 vs. Germany 1934.

    My sincere hope is that, whatever I choose, all of the reading and thinking, my utter despair at all this, the lost sleep, the months of prayer and fasting will make a difference–ideally having led me on the right path or at least witnessing my desire to do right.

    Thank you, Simcha, for your honest searching, for your attempt to do what is right for the right reasons.

    I don’t know what is right here, but I do know that there are no easy answers this time.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Not certain this will help Simcha. Since she prefers to simply tear down Trump and not give any info re: HRC. This video says it all. Seriously this woman HRC does not love anyone except herself. She has done everything possible for years on end (lie, cheat, steal) to reach this point. Now here she is — and you say don’t vote for Mr. Trump? Tell me more about HRC — real stuff! Take my word for it she is not the least penitent for the many crimes she has committed. Again, and you say vote for HRC? All those children must be making you stark raving mad. IF you have time, read the following.

        By Richard A. Baer Jr. – – Sunday, November 6, 2016
        ANALYSIS/OPINION:
        Mr. Trump’s flaws are obvious. But Hillary’s are more serious politically, for she has corrupted the very office of secretary of State itself. She colluded with others to sell access and shake down foreign and domestic donors who knew that they were expected, not just to make large gifts to the Clinton Foundation, but also to enrich Bill and Hillary personally. All of this has become a millstone around her neck that could virtually incapacitate her as president.
        But what most decisively tips the balance for me toward Mr. Trump is not his character but his policies. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will turn the Court into a superlegislature. Mr. Trump will not. She will give us an economy that is basically the same — perhaps worse — than the past eight years. She will be soft on religious freedom and will oppose enlightened policies like school choice and charter schools, both of which are important to African-Americans and other minorities. She will jeopardize our safety by keeping the borders wide open, a move than also makes it harder for unskilled American workers to find jobs.
        I know that Mr. Trump’s character makes it difficult for thoughtful and morally-sensitive Americans to vote for him. But voting is not about you or me. It is about the well-being of the nation as a whole. And whether we like it or not, sound morality sometimes requires us to practice damage control by choosing the lesser of two evils.
        Three additional factors make supporting Mr. Trump easier for me. First, he is more impeachable than Hillary. If he gets too far out of line, establishment Republicans would likely join Democrats to give him the boot. Second, Hillary is more “blackmailable” than Mr. Trump. Both domestic and foreign friends and foes with access to her emails could pressure her to act in ways antithetical to America’s interests. And finally, Mr. Trump’s superb choice of Mike Pence for vice president and his intention to to rely heavily on Mr. Pence’s expertise and experience in day-to-day governing is a strong plus.
        Jesus, the Bible tells us, emptied himself and, as the Greek text says, “pitched his tent among us.” He condescended to live in a messy world full of sadness and disappointment, but also a world where, by God’s grace, love and peace and courage can flourish.
        So consider the possibility that voting for Donald Trump on November 8, rather than burdening your conscience, may be one of the ways God makes such good things come to pass.
        Mr. Trump’s flaws are obvious. But Hillary’s are more serious politically, for she has corrupted the very office of secretary of State itself. She colluded with others to sell access and shake down foreign and domestic donors who knew that they were expected, not just to make large gifts to the Clinton Foundation, but also to enrich Bill and Hillary personally. All of this has become a millstone around her neck that could virtually incapacitate her as president.
        But what most decisively tips the balance for me toward Mr. Trump is not his character but his policies. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will turn the Court into a superlegislature. Mr. Trump will not. She will give us an economy that is basically the same — perhaps worse — than the past eight years. She will be soft on religious freedom and will oppose enlightened policies like school choice and charter schools, both of which are important to African-Americans and other minorities. She will jeopardize our safety by keeping the borders wide open, a move than also makes it harder for unskilled American workers to find jobs.
        I know that Mr. Trump’s character makes it difficult for thoughtful and morally-sensitive Americans to vote for him. But voting is not about you or me. It is about the well-being of the nation as a whole. And whether we like it or not, sound morality sometimes requires us to practice damage control by choosing the lesser of two evils.
        Three additional factors make supporting Mr. Trump easier for me. First, he is more impeachable than Hillary. If he gets too far out of line, establishment Republicans would likely join Democrats to give him the boot. Second, Hillary is more “blackmailable” than Mr. Trump. Both domestic and foreign friends and foes with access to her emails could pressure her to act in ways antithetical to America’s interests. And finally, Mr. Trump’s superb choice of Mike Pence for vice president and his intention to to rely heavily on Mr. Pence’s expertise and experience in day-to-day governing is a strong plus.
        Jesus, the Bible tells us, emptied himself and, as the Greek text says, “pitched his tent among us.” He condescended to live in a messy world full of sadness and disappointment, but also a world where, by God’s grace, love and peace and courage can flourish.
        So consider the possibility that voting for Donald Trump on November 8, rather than burdening your conscience, may be one of the ways God makes such good things come to pass.
        After strongly opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, I now plan to vote for him, for I have come to understand that elections are not about demonstrating my moral sensitivity or spiritual maturity. Rather, they entail a very practical decision about what will further the peace (shalom) of the city (Jeremiah 29:7) and most likely enhance the lives of my fellow citizens.
        I am quite clear that Donald Trump is no 21st-century Saint Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa. He is a flawed human being — as indeed we all are. His vulgarity and occasional coarseness rightly bother us, and we reasonably question whether his inability to guard his tongue ought to disqualify him for the presidency.
        But remembering that Jesus consorted with tax collectors and sinners, my advice for Christians on November 8 is: Do not try to be more pious than Jesus.
        Rather than obsess about Mr. Trump’s flaws, Christians should recall that the God of the Bible often uses less than perfect people to do his will. Moses was a murderer; David an adulterer and a murderer; Rahab, who saved the lives of Joshua’s two spies, a prostitute; Paul a persecutor of the nascent Christian church.
        Politics, like marriage, deals with the needs of people in the here and now, not in the life to come. In the realm of politics, to try to be more pious than Jesus is not just impractical; it is also a mixing of categories, a confusion of what is appropriate for the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Neither voting nor not voting will save our soul, but how one votes can either strengthen or weaken the integrity of our governmental institutions and the quality of our life together as citizens. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is one way of fulfilling Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. It is neither an endorsement of every aspect of a candidate’s character, nor, rightly understood, does it need to burden the voter with a bad conscience.
        Similarly, this is not the right time to sit on the sidelines because you believe the election “is all in God’s hands.” To be sure it is, but God works in human affairs most often through your hands and mine, not through miracles. Even if we are deeply frustrated with the alternatives before us, this is the time to act and to do so in good faith and with sober-minded realism.After strongly opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, I now plan to vote for him, for I have come to understand that elections are not about demonstrating my moral sensitivity or spiritual maturity. Rather, they entail a very practical decision about what will further the peace (shalom) of the city (Jeremiah 29:7) and most likely enhance the lives of my fellow citizens.
        I am quite clear that Donald Trump is no 21st-century Saint Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa. He is a flawed human being — as indeed we all are. His vulgarity and occasional coarseness rightly bother us, and we reasonably question whether his inability to guard his tongue ought to disqualify him for the presidency.
        But remembering that Jesus consorted with tax collectors and sinners, my advice for Christians on November 8 is: Do not try to be more pious than Jesus.
        Rather than obsess about Mr. Trump’s flaws, Christians should recall that the God of the Bible often uses less than perfect people to do his will. Moses was a murderer; David an adulterer and a murderer; Rahab, who saved the lives of Joshua’s two spies, a prostitute; Paul a persecutor of the nascent Christian church.
        Politics, like marriage, deals with the needs of people in the here and now, not in the life to come. In the realm of politics, to try to be more pious than Jesus is not just impractical; it is also a mixing of categories, a confusion of what is appropriate for the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Neither voting nor not voting will save our soul, but how one votes can either strengthen or weaken the integrity of our governmental institutions and the quality of our life together as citizens. Voting for the lesser of two evils, is one way of fulfilling Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. It is neither an endorsement of every aspect of a candidate’s character, nor, rightly understood, does it need to burden the voter with a bad conscience.
        Similarly, this is not the right time to sit on the sidelines because you believe the election “is all in God’s hands.” To be sure it is, but God works in human affairs most often through your hands and mine, not through miracles. Even if we are deeply frustrated with the alternatives before us, this is the time to act and to do so in good faith and with sober-minded realism.Mr. Trump’s flaws are obvious. But Hillary’s are more serious politically, for she has corrupted the very office of secretary of State itself. She colluded with others to sell access and shake down foreign and domestic donors who knew that they were expected, not just to make large gifts to the Clinton Foundation, but also to enrich Bill and Hillary personally. All of this has become a millstone around her neck that could virtually incapacitate her as president.
        But what most decisively tips the balance for me toward Mr. Trump is not his character but his policies. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will turn the Court into a superlegislature. Mr. Trump will not. She will give us an economy that is basically the same — perhaps worse — than the past eight years. She will be soft on religious freedom and will oppose enlightened policies like school choice and charter schools, both of which are important to African-Americans and other minorities. She will jeopardize our safety by keeping the borders wide open, a move than also makes it harder for unskilled American workers to find jobs.
        I know that Mr. Trump’s character makes it difficult for thoughtful and morally-sensitive Americans to vote for him. But voting is not about you or me. It is about the well-being of the nation as a whole. And whether we like it or not, sound morality sometimes requires us to practice damage control by choosing the lesser of two evils.
        Three additional factors make supporting Mr. Trump easier for me. First, he is more impeachable than Hillary. If he gets too far out of line, establishment Republicans would likely join Democrats to give him the boot. Second, Hillary is more “blackmailable” than Mr. Trump. Both domestic and foreign friends and foes with access to her emails could pressure her to act in ways antithetical to America’s interests. And finally, Mr. Trump’s superb choice of Mike Pence for vice president and his intention to to rely heavily on Mr. Pence’s expertise and experience in day-to-day governing is a strong plus.
        Jesus, the Bible tells us, emptied himself and, as the Greek text says, “pitched his tent among us.” He condescended to live in a messy world full of sadness and disappointment, but also a world where, by God’s grace, love and peace and courage can flourish.
        So consider the possibility that voting for Donald Trump on November 8, rather than burdening your conscience, may be one of the ways God makes such good things come to pass.
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/6/sometimes-a-christian-has-to-make-an-unholy-choice/

        May need to read this another day — perhaps when you are mulling over your idea of “What possessed me to promote HRC?”

        Sincha, This is a beautiful story that you blog. “Single issue pro-lifer and won’t vote for Donald Trump.” I am extremely happy that you chose life. However, you and I know that the majority of abortions are not for the child’s heath. Here is the question I asked of Google: “What percentage of abortions are for medical reasons?” This was the first statement made at top of page. “Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%.Jan 18, 2016″ Everyone knows that we all pay for Obamacare and I am happy to pay for this your child’s child’s treatment. However I am not willing to pay for the many, many other abortions that are paid for by Obamacare. And I should not be forced to pay for this so called, “medical treatment”. I am a deplorable and i will vote for Trump for many other reasons. For the second amendment, illegal immigrants, but most of all —
        HE IS NOT FROM THE ESTABLISHED POLITICAL PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY RUN OUR COUNTRY. I WILL GIVE HIM A CHANCE & HOPE THAT HE MAKES THE CHANGES TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY GREAT AGAIN AND NOT GIVE IN TO THE WHIMS OF EVERY
        ISSUE SEEKER WHO THINKS THAT WE MUST ALL COWTOW TO THEIR LIFE STYLE. JUST SAYIN’…………….

        Here is more data:

        http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
        ​ AND MORE:

        92% of Women Cite “Social” or “Other” Reasons
        New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions
        By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.

        Why do women have abortions? For over 15 years, those asking that question have had to rely on a 1987 study that some were concerned might have become outdated in light of the declining number of abortions and shifting abortion demographics.

        Now a new study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate, brings our understanding of women’s abortion decisions up to date. While showing that women’s basic reasons have largely remained the same, the study presents some compelling new data that those reaching out to abortion-prone women will want to consider.

        A couple of conclusions are very apparent from this data. First, those who wish to use the so-called “hard cases” of rape, incest, life of the mother, and genetic disability to argue for the necessity of abortion on demand will continue to find it difficult to make that case based on the reasons women offer for their abortions. Ninety-two percent cited what might be termed “social” or “other” reasons, rather than medical reasons or sexual assault, as the primary basis for their abortions.

        And those who cited medical reasons often appear to have been stating their own opinions (fear that drug or alcohol use may have harmed the baby, inability to handle morning sickness, etc.) rather than reporting any formal diagnosis by a doctor. Less than a percent each of women even mentioned rape or incest as a factor in their abortions at all.

        The 2004 study, which appeared in the September 2005 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (formerly Family Planning Perspectives), surveyed 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large abortion centers across the country. The survey was then followed up with in-depth interviews with 38 women at four centers.1

        Women in the first group filled out an eight-page survey identifying their reasons for coming to the clinic, hospital, or doctor’s office to have an abortion, and listed their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, marital status, etc. Women from the first group who agreed to sit for 30–60 minute recorded interviews discussing those decisions in more detail constituted the second group.

        There were a number of responses women gave to the question as to what was “the most important reason” they had their abortions: they were “not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong,” cited by 25%; they “can’t afford a baby now,” cited by 23%; feelings that they had “completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown,” cited by 19%; and “having relationship problems/don’t want to be a single mother” was cited by 8%.

        An additional 7% identified not feeling “mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young,” while 4% cited their view that the child “would interfere with education or career plans.”

        Notably, only 4% cited a “physical problem with my health” as the main factor in their abortions, while 3% identified “possible problems affecting the health of the fetus” as the most important reason behind their decisions.

        Less than 0.5% cited each of the following reasons as most significant: rape, a husband or partner’s desire that a woman have an abortion, parental wishes, or a desire to keep others from knowing the woman had sex or got pregnant. AGI listed the remaining 6% as “other.”

        Authors of both the 1987 and 2004 studies took the long list of reasons that women cited and tried to assign them to general categories, though they did not necessarily combine these in the same way. As a consequence, reasons that were grouped together in one category in 1987 may have ended up in different categories in 2004.

        To try and make comparisons possible, authors of the 2004 study went back and recalculated and re-reported the 1987 reasons as they would have been categorized in 2004. Consequently, numbers would not seem to match up for anyone looking at the original 1987 study and the numbers reported for 1987 in the new study, but this is not necessarily a mistake.

        Economic reasons, a feeling of being unable to afford to have a baby, were cited by 23% as the most important reason in 2004 and 21% in 1987. Those citing childbearing concerns or concerns about other dependents as most important jumped from 8% to 19%, while those identifying relationship issues as primary declined (from 13% to 8%).

        Women who cited immaturity as the most important reason also dropped from 11% in 1987 to 7% in 2004 as did educational and career interference (from 10% to 4%). “Other” reasons jumped from 1% to 6%. For the most part, the remaining primary reasons were close to what they were in the 1987 survey.

        While we have concentrated on women’s most important reason for their abortions, most women in AGI’s survey cited more than one factor in their decisions. Among women citing at least two reasons, the claim of inability to afford the child repeatedly showed up.

        High numbers of women also mentioned concerns for how the baby would change their lives (74%), in regards to education, employment, career (38%), or other family members (32%). Relationship issues–that a woman was unsure about her relationship, didn’t or couldn’t marry the father, etc.–totaled 48%. At least 38% mentioned that they had abortions, at least in part, because they had “completed my childbearing.”

        Note
        1. Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frowirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (September 2005): 110–18.

        Like

      1. I agree with JoAnna. Trump is a man who encouraged at least one woman to abort his child (Marla Maples – thank Heaven she didn’t do it!), described himself as “very pro-choice” for most of his life but also says he’s never needed to ask God for forgiveness, and wants to put his sister, who ruled *against* a partial birth abortion ban, on the SCOTUS. He supports the death penalty and given the way he treats disabled folks and anyone he sees as “less-than”, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s for euthanasia! The man is many things, but pro-life isn’t one of them.

        Vote for Evan Mcmullin – the only REAL pro-life candidate!

        Like

  3. I get the feeling from a lot of Catholic pro-life Trump voters, that it’s less about saving babies, than about saving their own skin. I’ve heard countless pro-lifers give the usual Supreme Court justification, but the discussion usually includes something like “Trump will protect us” vs “Clinton will persecute us!” I talked to a pro-life Trump supporter who basically agreed with all my objections to Trump, but her bottom line was that a Trump presidency would give her time to prepare her kids to be martyrs. Another pro-life woman thought that Trump could turn literally turn everything around and we Catholics could avoid future unpleasantness. Delusional! I don’t relish the idea of suffering anymore than the next person, but voting Trump out of fear is just plain cowardice and lack of trust in Christ.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. As a pro life Catholic Trump supporter I have to push back at your caricature of why we are voting for him. This is not a vote for his canonization. This election is only about two candidates.Two. A die hard leftist and someone who is conservative on a whole host of issues. Is he flawless on all his positions? No of course not but no election is about perfection of a sainthood. The believing and obedient Catholic has no alternative to vote in this and all elections for the one who will do the most to extend Christian values on life.

      Trump has called out Clinton for her defense of abortion and partial birth abortion. He has given his list of Justices who are originalists and would very likely overturn Roe. You dismiss it so flippantly but the Supreme Court is a very real factor in all our lives.

      I cant evaluate your discussions with those Catholics that you spoke to so I dont know if you exaggerated their claims. I agree that overblown claims about what Trump or any candidate can do is unjustified and absurd. That doesnt change the importance about whats at stake here. If what the person said bout time for their children to be martyrs is correct that I also agree that that is absurd.

      Like

  4. The one thing I will enjoy is being able to tell people who voted for Hillary – because they couldn’t stomach Trump – to stop whining when religious freedom is restricted – to stop complaining when the Supreme Court is filled with pro aborts who will force abortion down our throats for the fun of it – to stop crying when euthanasia is actually covered by Medicare.

    Just wait, and watch.

    I spent 15 years on Capitol Hill. I know Her side well enough. The hell that we will be put through could not compare to Trump’s. In point of fact, Trump is so lazy, he would, by and large, accept 90% of the House Republican legislative plan. (And if he won, the R’s would certainly still have the Senate.) Ironically, the House, the Senate and Courts would act as a gigantic check.

    So go ahead, vote for Her, the one whose name is unmentionable. Then, shut the Hell up.

    Like

    1. Much of what you say about Hillary I agree with. However, if you think Donald Trump cares one bit about stopping abortion, or protecting our religious freedom, or anything other than Donald Trump, I have a bridge to sell you.

      Like

      1. Why would a very rich, famous man of 70 run for office if his only wish was to serve his own interests? The only explanation that makes sense is that, as a businessman (even if he is as some say a bad one) he saw a constituency that was not being served and thought that perhaps he might serve it.

        Few of Trump’s Catholic opponents appear to have noticed that his economic platform was the opposite of a pro-business quasi-libertarian Republican. He is anti-globalization and anti-immigration, views that are inimical to ‘establishment’ Republicans, who favour both (as does Hillary Clinton) and could well have cost him the nomination, if he had not correctly inferred that many Americans wanted a little more economic protectionism. Whether he’ll be able to follow through on any of his program, for good or ill, is anyone’s guess, but the same is true of Hillary.

        Like

  5. I thought you were Catholic!?!?!?! A Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life candidate on the ballot. To do so would be a mortal sin, and to encourage others to do so like you have done here is a VERY, VERY serious mortal sin. My advise is to retract your statements publicly so that you don’t fall into mortal sin and put your salvation at risk. If I were you I’d get myself to confession ASAP! If you choose not to do that, it would be best for you to leave the Church in fact, since you already have in deed.

    Like

    1. “A Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life candidate on the ballot.”

      That’s the problem, there isn’t one, at least not from the major parties.

      Like

  6. Are you writing for George Soros now? Now I can understand why Shea thinks you’ll “make millions” on your own…..Soros can well afford another “useful idiot.”

    Like

  7. I wrangled with myself all day over this. I live in a blue state so I don’t stand to lose anything by writing in a protest vote.

    I hope I wake up on Wednesday morning and find out that Hillary won, but not because less babies will die. No way. Middle class people abort and contracept out of desperation too, and the pie charts show that they are backed up to a wall too. The only reason I hope she wins is because I think that while both she and Donald Trump are just as greedy and power hungry as the other, Donald Trump is mentally unstable, bordering on crazy. She almost has more culpability before God for being greedy and *sane*.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. This is a beautiful story that you sent. I am extremely happy that she chose life. However, you and I know that the majority of abortions are not for the child’s heath. Here is the question I asked of Google: “What percentage of abortions are for medical reasons?” This was the first statement made at top of page. “Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape, 0.3%; in cases of incest, 0.03%; in cases of risk to maternal life, 0.1%; in cases of risk to maternal health, 0.8%; and in cases of fetal health issues, 0.5%.Jan 18, 2016″ Everyone knows that we all pay for Obamacare and I am happy to pay for this young
    woman’s child’s treatment. However I am not willing to pay for the many, many other abortions that are paid for by
    Obamacare. And I should not be forced to pay for this so called, “medical treatment”.
    I am a deplorable and i will vote for Trump for many other reasons. For the second amendment, illegal immigrants, but most of all —
    HE IS NOT FROM THE ESTABLISHED POLITICAL PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY RUN OUR COUNTRY. I WILL GIVE HIM A CHANCE
    & HOPE THAT HE MAKES THE CHANGES TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY GREAT AGAIN AND NOT GIVE IN TO THE WHIMS OF EVERY
    ISSUE SEEKER WHO THINKS THAT WE MUST ALL COWTOW TO THEIR LIFE STYLE. JUST SAYIN’…………….

    Here is more data:

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
    ​ AND MORE:

    92% of Women Cite “Social” or “Other” Reasons
    New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions
    By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.

    Why do women have abortions? For over 15 years, those asking that question have had to rely on a 1987 study that some were concerned might have become outdated in light of the declining number of abortions and shifting abortion demographics.

    Now a new study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate, brings our understanding of women’s abortion decisions up to date. While showing that women’s basic reasons have largely remained the same, the study presents some compelling new data that those reaching out to abortion-prone women will want to consider.

    A couple of conclusions are very apparent from this data. First, those who wish to use the so-called “hard cases” of rape, incest, life of the mother, and genetic disability to argue for the necessity of abortion on demand will continue to find it difficult to make that case based on the reasons women offer for their abortions. Ninety-two percent cited what might be termed “social” or “other” reasons, rather than medical reasons or sexual assault, as the primary basis for their abortions.

    And those who cited medical reasons often appear to have been stating their own opinions (fear that drug or alcohol use may have harmed the baby, inability to handle morning sickness, etc.) rather than reporting any formal diagnosis by a doctor. Less than a percent each of women even mentioned rape or incest as a factor in their abortions at all.

    The 2004 study, which appeared in the September 2005 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (formerly Family Planning Perspectives), surveyed 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large abortion centers across the country. The survey was then followed up with in-depth interviews with 38 women at four centers.1

    Women in the first group filled out an eight-page survey identifying their reasons for coming to the clinic, hospital, or doctor’s office to have an abortion, and listed their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, income, marital status, etc. Women from the first group who agreed to sit for 30–60 minute recorded interviews discussing those decisions in more detail constituted the second group.

    There were a number of responses women gave to the question as to what was “the most important reason” they had their abortions: they were “not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong,” cited by 25%; they “can’t afford a baby now,” cited by 23%; feelings that they had “completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown,” cited by 19%; and “having relationship problems/don’t want to be a single mother” was cited by 8%.

    An additional 7% identified not feeling “mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young,” while 4% cited their view that the child “would interfere with education or career plans.”

    Notably, only 4% cited a “physical problem with my health” as the main factor in their abortions, while 3% identified “possible problems affecting the health of the fetus” as the most important reason behind their decisions.

    Less than 0.5% cited each of the following reasons as most significant: rape, a husband or partner’s desire that a woman have an abortion, parental wishes, or a desire to keep others from knowing the woman had sex or got pregnant. AGI listed the remaining 6% as “other.”

    Authors of both the 1987 and 2004 studies took the long list of reasons that women cited and tried to assign them to general categories, though they did not necessarily combine these in the same way. As a consequence, reasons that were grouped together in one category in 1987 may have ended up in different categories in 2004.

    To try and make comparisons possible, authors of the 2004 study went back and recalculated and re-reported the 1987 reasons as they would have been categorized in 2004. Consequently, numbers would not seem to match up for anyone looking at the original 1987 study and the numbers reported for 1987 in the new study, but this is not necessarily a mistake.

    Economic reasons, a feeling of being unable to afford to have a baby, were cited by 23% as the most important reason in 2004 and 21% in 1987. Those citing childbearing concerns or concerns about other dependents as most important jumped from 8% to 19%, while those identifying relationship issues as primary declined (from 13% to 8%).

    Women who cited immaturity as the most important reason also dropped from 11% in 1987 to 7% in 2004 as did educational and career interference (from 10% to 4%). “Other” reasons jumped from 1% to 6%. For the most part, the remaining primary reasons were close to what they were in the 1987 survey.

    While we have concentrated on women’s most important reason for their abortions, most women in AGI’s survey cited more than one factor in their decisions. Among women citing at least two reasons, the claim of inability to afford the child repeatedly showed up.

    High numbers of women also mentioned concerns for how the baby would change their lives (74%), in regards to education, employment, career (38%), or other family members (32%). Relationship issues–that a woman was unsure about her relationship, didn’t or couldn’t marry the father, etc.–totaled 48%. At least 38% mentioned that they had abortions, at least in part, because they had “completed my childbearing.”

    Note
    1. Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frowirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh, and Ann M. Moore, “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (September 2005): 110–18.

    Like

  9. Wow. I used to have a lot of respect for you, but this is just extremely misled. Maybe you’ll come to you senses by tomorrow? You and your family are in my prayers.

    Like

  10. I see your game:

    List a bunch of PARTICULAR evil actions, and point out that there is not 100%, metaphysical certitude that Hillary will be able to do each and every one.

    List a bunch of PARTICULAR good actions, and point out that there is not 100%, metaphysical certitude that Trump can accomplish each and every one.

    Result: a phony-baloney “argument” that it just doesn’t matter who wins.

    Hillary will bring about 5,000 pro-abortion people to Washington with her.

    Trump will bring mostly pro-life people with him.

    What makes a vote for Hillary A MORTAL SIN is her decades of pro-abortion fanaticism, not any certainty that she will be able to do EVERY evil thing she wants to do.

    “Pro-life is so much more than abortion.” This is the battle cry of the “Catholic” Yellow-Dog Democrats. From there it’s more of the old “Republicans want to blow up the world,” “Republicans want to throw Grandma into a snow bank,” “Republicans don’t care what happens to babies after they’re born.”

    Then there are the outright LIES: “Trump mocked a reporter’s disability.”

    And the ultimate fallback: “I just don’t FEEL that Trump is TRULY pro-life.”

    Here’s my own totally rational argument for voting for Trump: So-called “Catholics” who concoct sleazy arguments for voting for pro-aborts (or giving pro-aborts HALF a vote by failing to vote for the opponent who can win), make me want to puke.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Father, with all due respect, I have serious doubts about Trump being the pro-life candidate. He’s encouraged at least one woman to abort his child, he described himself as “very pro-choice” until the moment he announced he was running for President, he’s in favor of the death penalty, he encourages violence against his opponent and her supporters, he’s in favor of war crimes like killing terrorists’ families and torturing suspects, and he talks about using nuclear weapons as if he’s discussing his kids’ soccer games. That last one is why I can’t vote for him; whatever damage Hillary might do, it won’t be that!

      Vote Evan McMullin – the only REAL pro-lifer in this race!

      Like

      1. Trump is not the issue; Hillary is. And I find it absurd that anyone can equate Trump to Hillary. HRC has a 35 year record of defending abortion in all circumstances. Trump, until last year, was a private citizen who rarely spent time advocating any position. And his Pro-Abortion stances are well known. But, equating his position to Hillary’s is nonsense.

        Like

  11. Perhaps this is over-simplifyimg this, but perhaps it isn’t. This is from the DNC 2016 platform:

    “We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to
    expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies,
    we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care
    and included as part of America’s global health programming. Therefore, we support the repeal
    of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services,
    including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to
    provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world.”

    That is what they put in their published platform. This is *literally* what you are voting for when you vote for the Democratic candidate.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Obamacare doesn’t pay for babies. It is extremely expensive with high deductibles so you pay for your own baby. We were the uninsured low income family that still couldn’t afford obamacare on the lowest bronze plan and if your on the lowest plan. Your deductible is so high (over $10,000 per year for a family) still can’t afford to go to the doctor. It’s a lie. Birth control is free. Having babies is not. I had 2 babies uninsured and it was expensive but cheaper than if I had been on obamacare. Medicare takes care of the truly poor women for free NOT Obamacare.

    Like

  13. THANK YOU.

    Many will not agree with you (the comments so far have already shown that). But then, doing the right thing and doing the popular thing aren’t always the same … there are plenty of examples of that in Jesus’ life.

    “Good Catholics always vote Republican” or “Good Catholics always vote Conservative”? True faith is not blind faith and I fear we too quickly fall into that trap these days.

    You ask why people might consider an abortion in the first place, rather than rushing to judge them. You look at the way Trump represents everything in our culture that de-values women. You consider how Obamacare helps those truly in need, including pregnant women in distress and babies born into difficult situations. These things matter. They matter so so much more than an empty promise by someone without the power to deliver on it anyway. And these things help pregnant women make a different choice in the first place – imagine a world where abortions don’t happen, not because they are not available, but because there is no demand for them.

    We need more critical thought like you’ve shared here, and we need an environment where it is welcomed. The lack of these spaces, and the rush to judgment, make it difficult to be Catholic sometimes, and I thank you for your courage. It has helped strengthen my faith.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. How about this? If you promise not to vote for Clinton, I will promise not to vote for Trump and cancel out your vote. This way both of us can support a third party without helping either major party. (This will only work if you’re also in Florida as I am…) Please let me know by 6 PM.

    Like

  15. I like Simcha. Quips like “hang a millstone on your ballot and throw it into the sea, remind me why. I don’t read her regularly, but came across this post through Mark Shea’s Blog. I was only going to comment there, but after considering how influential she is, decided copying my post here is worthwhile if it influences either her or her readers away from two bad choices.

    As an initial disclaimer to Simcha and other’s still struggling with an intention to vote for Hillary in a few hours: please don’t take the following personally. This election has tried us all. I could scarce resent you for struggling with the same question I can only come up with futile-seeming answers to, even though I believe it necessary to bluntly challenge your conclusion.

    I whole-heartedly agree that Trump is not the pro-life champion millions of us have spent months trying to deceive ourselves into believing he is, and I will not vote for him (my own efforts at rationalizing such a vote failed), but if she thinks Clinton is the answer, it seems the madness of this election and perhaps the vile of some of the Trump supporters who harass her must have gotten to her; the logic offered here is simply bizarre:

    – Voting for a pro-abortion president is the way to get pro-life laws passed?

    – Choosing a president who’s only consistent political position over the last 2 decades has been killing babies, rather than being treated as a veritable mandate against regulations by the electorate, will instead energize the nation and its representatives against abortion?

    – Somehow, making a figurehead out of a champion of unfettered abortion, an apologist for a serial perpetrator of workplace sexual harassment, and a proponent of “sexual liberation” will reduce the sexual objectification of women and therefore reduce pressure on pregnant women to use abortion as response to responsibilities created out of this false “liberation”?

    – The Republican establishment is hypocritical in its prolife stance, and therefore, after the self-destructing party miraculously holds on to its four seat Senate majority for the next 4-8 years, we can count on them to block pro-abortion Supreme Court nominations? Even if the nominee is pro-abortion but favorable to a handful of other Republican priorities in order to woo their votes, we won’t see numerous swing votes like with Sotomayor’s confirmation?

    – A candidate renowned for her multi-decade long spree of corruption allegations (consistently dismissed under peculiar circumstances) will fix the waste in our healthcare system, thereby giving low income mothers better access and more hope?

    The last one is the most absurd, narrowly beating out the line preceding it (not that ranking complete fantasies is productive). Are we imagining lower deductibles or lower premiums here, or perhaps as long as we’re daydreaming, both? Clinton is every bit as big-business as Trump and even more lobbyist-oriented (Trump’s offensiveness is a liability to businesses he makes little effort to hide, even to his own detriment – hence why Clinton has unprecedented support among Fortune 100 CEOs and Trump has none).

    Look at the facts. We already know the US spends significantly more per given measure of healthcare (quantified in ways such as doctor and nurse hours, medicine, facilities, and equipment) than any other nation. Despite popular impressions, higher care provider salaries and American oddities like skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates are only a small part of the difference – combined, they’re about 1/10th of all healthcare spending. Drug costs, both legitimate and gouged (Epipens, anyone?) also add slightly less than 1/10th. The main difference is our staggering inefficiency. But money wasted through inefficiency doesn’t actually disappear. People are getting rich off this waste. A lot of them.

    This probably sounds ridiculous (as it should) to any normal, well-adjusted human who hasn’t given in completely to political cynicism. So let me give you some very simple (large, but simple) numbers that start to hint at the real magnitude of what I’m talking about. We spend $3 trillion a year on healthcare in the US (you can easily fact check me). The next closest nation (Norway) spends less than 2/3 as much per person despite being one of the few nations with a higher overall cost of living than the US, and the OECD average is less than half (Again, you can easily fact check me. They also receive more care and achieve better health outcomes). That $1+ trillion pro rata difference works out to roughly $1.2 million per year for each and every one of the 850,000 doctors in our entire country, beyond the salary they actually make and all the other costs that compromise the presumably more justifiable $2 trillion remainder.

    We’re talking about literally hundreds of thousands of one-percenters feeding parasitically off the corpulent financial host that is our healthcare system. The vaunted military industrial complex looks like pathetic amateurs compared to the rate-hike justifying, claims processing, benefits administering, lawsuit filing, merger negotiating, campaign contributing, broken website building middlemen we are mandated by law to do business with.

    If anybody really thinks they can make a convincing argument that Hillary Clinton of all people is going to in any meaningful way harm all those wealthy campaign donors and lobbyists for the sake of the poor, please, share your argument with me. This election has ruined my sense of joy, and I would love the laugh. However, if your argument is that she’ll simply make the US healthcare system more like Europe’s, don’t bother. Her own website defies you and instead promises to further strengthen the status quo that is giving the nation a projected average 24% cost increase for 2017. That’s not funny, and it most certainly doesn’t help the poor feel secure about raising a family.

    Simcha has written a lot of good stuff in the past on why she can not in good conscience vote for Trump, but I’m aghast at her conclusion that voting for Clinton will somehow better the plight of the unborn.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Doesn’t this beg one rather obvious question: if the office of President is really as irrelevant to the rights and protections of the unborn as you suggest it is, then why should a pro-lifer even waste their time voting at all?

    And how could Trump be worse for the unborn than Hillary Clinton if the Presidency is as powerless to effect change as you say it is?

    The only way this line of reasoning – about voting for Hillary Clinton as a way to protect the unborn – actually makes any logical sense is if the role of presidency really does carry with it the power to effect change, and influence outcomes for the unborn.

    And if it does actually carry with it the power to effect change (as your reasoning necessitates that it does), then how could any serious pro-life person ever support a candidate who is so staunchly committed to the most extreme variants of pro-choice ideology?

    Like

    1. If I’ve understood Ms Fisher and Mark Shea correctly, what they mean when they say that a vote for Hillary Clinton is more pro-life is that *she* will offer more social programs for the poor, will not reject or eject refugees and immigrants, and in general will be a more active humanitarian. I do not agree with this approach myself; I see no possible way to make out that Mrs Clinton is more pro-life than Donald Trump, even supposing that he only adopted the pro-life position for cynical reasons. Trump’s stated policies, assuming he is able to implement them, might well benefit more poor Americans than the social policies favored by Mrs Clinton, which have done nothing in the Obama years to stem the rampant drug abuse and declining life expectancy among poor whites. On the other hand, I do think there is a case to be made that Mr Trump is too volatile to be a good President.

      Like

  17. Thank you, Simcha. I feel much the same way and will be voting third party because it’s that or abstain, and if I abstain I won’t make myself go vote for all the local issues that I can actually influence.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. What a great witness it would be to our Catholic faith if the comment thread here was a contrast with those on secular posts. A thread of people disagreeing respectfully, without personal attacks and insults, without judging the state of the blogger’s soul. This election has put many voters between a rock and a hard place. There are no easy answers, and there are valid arguments on each side. If only those arguments could be delivered charitably…

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Always great to have the heretical hose beast perspective. Where’s Shea to give us the 4K calorie in one sitting perspective?
    You’re both symbols of the fat, perverted, dying America. It’s no wonder that you hate the Church.

    Like

  20. Dear Simcha Fisher,
    I do not blame you for refraining from voting for Trump. However, I would beg you to reconsider your vote for Hillary simply for your own soul’s sake. It is not morally permissable to do evil so that good may come of it. Being in a swing state is irrelevant. Vote for someone you know to be pro-life regardless of their chances. You are not responsible for how other people vote, only for yourself. God bless.

    Like

  21. Anyone who openly espouses the pro-abortion position (i.e. that it is acceptable to allow an innocent unborn child to be killed) is not worthy of a Catholic’s vote. Period. Full stop. Even IF Killary caused abortion rates to go down more than Trump (very dubious), you are voting for a candidate who is using the bully pulpit to advocate for baby slaughtering and is in bed with a horrendously evil organization, Planned Parenthood. Trump, at least, would not do that. The Democrat platform is explicitly anti-life, anti-family, and anti-God…and you are going to vote for their leader.

    I’m voting third party, but I cannot understand the calculus that would lead a Catholic to consider a vote for Killary. I can understand those voting for Trump.

    (Oh, and by the way, Catholic social teaching does not require either huge government handouts or a huge federal government. It simply requires supporting the common good, and the best way to accomplish that is a matter for prudential judgment. Catholic social teaching does suggest that actions should be taken at the most local level possible. If you think the federal government has proven itself to be an effective, efficient steward at helping the poor, sick, etc., I have a bridge to sell you….)

    Like

  22. Here’s a memorable quote from the woman you support, Hillary Clinton:
    “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”
    Yeah, no red flags there, right?
    Did you happen to notice that under this Democrat administration, the U.S. spent $23 million dollars to get the new constitution of Kenya written to include legalized abortion? But tell us again how who is president doesn’t affect the number of unborn being killed.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Trump’s not pro-life. I’ve never believed him for a second. Thank you for bravely and insightfully giving a voice to those of us who are Catholic and who believe that a Clinton presidency (like Obama’s presidency) will continue to reduce abortion rates. God bless you, Simcha Fisher. You are a treasure!

    Like

  24. I see a pattern here that is being commonly used these days and has also been used by those associated with Liberation Theology, and Marxism. You set up a situation whereby you attack the good of a person or movement as not being really good or perfect enough! Samantha and Shea, who I think are good people, are actually being used as tools to help maintain the status of abortion. The Communist called these types useful fools. People who do the bidding of the communist while not being actually communist themselves. They set up an impossible standard to meet. Anything short and you are not truly pro-life at all. So I would like to ask, just what person would meet the Shea and Simcha standard for pro-life? You guys didn’t like any of the candidates like Santorum, or Bush, or McCain, or Romney. So just who? The package she lists above would be great, but that ain’t happen in the near future. Saint John Paul II said it was permissible to vote to move the agenda forward, even in small steps. Is it not moving the agenda backwards, maybe for a long time, to allow the Democrats control? And where in the history of mankind have we found one perfect person to lead a movement, short of Jesus Christ? Constantine? Nope, we should not have followed him. Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor? Nope, he was not perfect? How about St. Joan of Arc’s King Charles? Nope, he betrayed Joan, and yet God desired he rule France. This most imperfect person, was hand picked by God. How about World War II? We beat the Evil of Hitler with very flawed men using very flawed tactics at times. Should we have not done so? Should my father not have fought in the South Pacific because McArthur was not a perfect man. Neither was Eisenhower, nor war Roosevelt. I could go on and on. So just who is a viable person to lead the pro-lie movement? and the Country? You guys throw stones, but there is nobody, at this moment to lead the charge other than this one person. If you don’t vote for him, you permit a greater evil, not a greater good, to take control for maybe all our life times. Instead of throwing stones, give us real answers this side of Heaven. We have to live here and now while looking toward Heaven. We will never reach perfection on this side. We will never feed all the poor. We will never completely overcome our sins, we will never do away with suffering and death on this side. Not until He comes again! This will never be a utopia! The Marxist promise the Utopia here. The Christian knows that will never happen here, only in the next life. So until then we have to work with what we have, the imperfect.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Simcha, thanks for saying this and I’m sorry for all the horrible comments you are getting. No matter who you said you were voting for, no one deserves to be told they are going to hell (and all the other nasty things assumed). I mean gosh, we can’t read other’s souls. This comment thread makes me feel sick to my stomach. Anyway, I appreciate your writing (even when I’ve disagreed with it) and have found a lot of wisdom in it over the years. I’m glad you are carrying on despite the haters.

    Like

      1. Normally I disagree the term “haters” for the reasons you mention. However, in Beth’s defense, she’s not using it on people who disagree with her. There are truly hateful comments on this thread, and I’m assuming it’s those commenters she’s referring to when she uses the term.

        Like

  26. Shame on you, Simcha. Hillary is the most pro-baby-murder candidate for president we have ever had. May your irrational public defense of your murderous vote help you sleep at night.

    Like

  27. Simcha – you are the only reason I haven’t lost every shred of respect for the conservative anti-abortion movement, which I can no longer call pro life, because it isn’t. The comments on this post show that clearly. I almost hope you don’t read this, because you would have to wade through PRIESTS calling people names.
    Guys…scandal much? I was raised traditional-style Catholic, Baltimore catechism and all. I am no longer practicing. Every comment I’ve seen on *this post alone* drives me farther from even considering returning to Catholicism.

    Like

  28. That was a lot of cerebral muscle gymnastics that you did. Not convincing one bit, because it lacks logic. Yes, it does. At best, your “logic” consists of a pretty wild bet. You are really losing your mind. As a somehow well-known catholic blogger you should know better than to publicly announce your vote for someone like Hillary. At least you wouldn’t scandalize any souls, just your own. Don’t want to vote for Trump? Don’t do it! But that doesn’t make voting for Hillary a moral decision. Hillary, by the way, is married to a Trump-like herself. You are indeed losing your mind, and dare I say, your soul. Hopefully God will give you plenty of extra years in this life to reflect more on what you did, maybe history will show you, if you let that be, hopefully you will eventually repent and learn not to publicly lead others through ways that are not moral,, in the future. I only came here to check what was the latest of you on this Election Day and I won’t be coming back after this, sadly!
    Maybe one day you will realize life is grander than politics. Don’t compromise your life, soul and work because of unworthy candidates.

    Like

  29. Simcha –

    Do you really think it is better to vote for the party machine and candidate who think our Church needs a “Catholic Spring”? These people, Clinton’s closest associates and handlers, have admitted in private that they think our holy Church is in need of upheaval in order to conform to their view of what constitutes an acceptable religious organization, and that they have the right to push for it.

    And Hillary NEVER apologized or distanced herself from these statements.

    I cannot understand your line of thinking on this, and how you can justify backing such people. How can you support people who want to undermine our sacred beliefs and principals? The Nazis tried to do the same, and failed, thanks to the grace of our good God.

    The vote is over now. Trump is very far from ideal presidential material, but at least we have been saved from a worse fate.

    I hope you reconsider your view of American politics. From following your blog, I can tell you are an exemplary mother and wife, and that, like the rest of us, you are trying to be a good Catholic.

    God bless you and your family, sister.

    Like

  30. “Speaking of the Hyde Amendment and Obamacare, if the fate of tens of thousands of babies really does come down to funding, as I keep hearing from the “But the Hyde Amendment!” crowd, then riddle me this: The Hyde Amendment (and I keep accidentally typing “Hype Amendment,” which is pretty accurate) means that federal tax dollars can’t go for abortions. And it’s completely bogus. ”

    The lion’s share of federal money going to the abortion industry comes via an annual half billion block grant via HHS and ObamaCare. There is only one recipient: Planned Parenthood. Otherwise, much smaller sums may go towards abortion via indirect funding via The United Way grants, or other federal contributions. But, by far the Planned Parenthood grant is the largest.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s