Is Scott Brown’s Victory in Massachusetts a Victory for Pro-Life?
January 20, 2010
This morning I read an article from the Washington Post that claims Senator-elect Scott Brown is pro-choice but against partial birth abortions. Well aren’t we blessed to have such a morally upright man represent us in Congress. While I was initially excited as to the signal this win would send to Washington and the far-left leaning agenda promoters, I now question whether the citizens of Massachusetts are sending a man who truly opposes the funding of abortion in the current federal healthcare bill(s) or if he merely opposes it because that is what made him different from his opponent and thus more popular with his Massachusetts constituents. In my humble opinion, Brown’s win may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Magisterium of the Church allows for us to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if both candidates possess the same views but one candidate’s views on other grave matters align more closely with the Church, as is the case with Brown favoring a ban on partial birth abortion and embryonic stem cell research while his opponent does not. Please stand your ground and send a clear message that the lesser of two evils is not good enough for the millions of pre-born infants who’s lives have been terminated in their mothers’ wombs and who will continue to be terminated until we can elect true pro-life candidates.
Comments
3 Responses to “Is Scott Brown’s Victory in Massachusetts a Victory for Pro-Life?”
Got something to say?
Latest Posts
- CHA spent over $1 million lobbying for Obamacare
- CCHD “Stations of the Cross” advertises for pro-gay marriage, pro-abort groups
- Archbishop Chaput: Health care bill doesn’t meet moral standards
- One More Life
- Social Obligations, Charity, and the State
- Archbishop Chaput: health care bill doesn’t meet minimum moral standards
- Planned Parenthood distributes sexually explicit brochures at Girl Scout meeting
- Rhode Island woman who survived earthquake in Haiti says crisis still ‘not over’
- Catholics Urged to Picket Cdl. Mahony’s Faith-Subverting Dissent-Fest
- Project Rachel Founder to speak in Fond du Lac about The Biochemistry of Attraction
Recent Comments
- Mary McCurry:First it was Notre Dame and Ob
- Sallie Ruttan:Sr. Carol Keehan, How could y
- Boyd Stewart:How dare a Catholic side with
- Mary:Ever hear of the bible? His o
- Mary:Ever hear of the bible, idiot?
- Lori Miller:I have Marybeth to thank for t
- Trisha:Lori, This is so good, grea
- Daniel Stockdale:Sister's calls "Americans with
- Robert Boisseree:I would like to thank Sr. Caro
- toni:Nice blog, thanks
Most Popular DFW Catholic Posts
- Links Coming Soon!
Well, I think politicians will say or do just about anything these days to get elected and let’s face it if he is pro-choice then that means he is pro-abortion for those who want it. I don’t think there was really a choice in this matter between the two except for the different party.
For better or for worse, Brown is now a nationally known figure, and some pro-lifers and organizations participated in his ascension. Whether he decides some day to run for president is unknown, but it’s not out of the question. If he decides to run, he’ll need to appeal to the pro-lifers within the GOP, and he can now point to concrete endorsements from pro-life groups to establish his credentials. He may not even need to pull a Romney and switch his views. After all, during the previous Republican primary, Rudy Giuliani’s pro-choice views were much more accepted on the stage than Ron Paul’s anti-war views. Brown’s win enhances that acceptability.
Agreed!