Catholics And The Abortion Vote

[Bonnie]

Democratic Strategists Issue Memo on Loss of White Catholics

A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls
the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats "striking" and "a
big part of the 2004 election story." One of the analysis' key findings is
that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life which the authors called
"a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at
least in the Midwest." The data also reveals that young Catholics are more
pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against
pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.

The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called
"Democratic defectors" who either identified themselves as Democrats or
voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last
election. Among this group, "26 percent believe that abortion should be
illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic
Democrats."

The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical
advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville,
Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled "Reclaiming the White Catholic
Vote," it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than a 1,000
white Catholic voters. The decline in the white Catholic vote has been
steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al
Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points.
The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the
much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing
ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.

It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in
the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion
politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would. The
poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were
more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied communion by
the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said
they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.

The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going
away. "Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors,
Catholics current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with
time. While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal,
voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be
illegal in most cases." The pro-life position could be a winning one for
Democrats according to the study. Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics
say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life
and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24
point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life,
a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion
candidate.

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by
presenting themselves as one who "elieves in a woman's right to choose
but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of
preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed,
including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption." This
common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York
Senator and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in
which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a "tragic
choice." In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced
but also called on increased funding for "family planning services," a
euphemism for contraception, abortifacients and abortions.

Copyright 2005---Culture of Life Foundation.

I suppose we can take this with a grain of salt, but still interesting.

 

[theim]

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by
presenting themselves as one who "elieves in a woman's right to choose
but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of
preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed,
including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."

yawn. SSDD.

 

[Avatar4321]

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by
presenting themselves as one who "elieves in a woman's right to choose
but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of
preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed,
including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."

Democrats just don't get it do they? You can't speak both sides of your mouth on this one. You can't on the one hand promote abstinence and the other encouraging them to be promiscious by giving them false assurances that they can do it "safely". Nor can you say you are in favor of choice and then rob innocent children of their choices.

In fact, without consequences to actions there are no choices. By trying to eliminate the consequences you are in effect trying to eliminate choice. But you can only pretend there aren't consequenses to justify bad choices for so long. Eventually, bad choices will leave you miserable and alone.

Pro lifers are pro choice as well. That's what the left doesn't understand. The pro life crowd is in favor of the right choice. Life. If you refuse to choose between whats right and whats wrong then whats the point of having a choice? Can you really be pro choice if you dont exercise that choice? If you are so in favor of choice let the American people choose rather than forcing it on the public through the acts of power hungry judges. Evil wins when good men do nothing.

 

[Bonnie]

Democrats just don't get it do they? You can't speak both sides of your mouth on this one. You can't on the one hand promote abstinence and the other encouraging them to be promiscious by giving them false assurances that they can do it "safely". Nor can you say you are in favor of choice and then rob innocent children of their choices.

In fact, without consequences to actions there are no choices. By trying to eliminate the consequences you are in effect trying to eliminate choice. But you can only pretend there aren't consequenses to justify bad choices for so long. Eventually, bad choices will leave you miserable and alone.

Pro lifers are pro choice as well. That's what the left doesn't understand. The pro life crowd is in favor of the right choice. Life. If you refuse to choose between whats right and whats wrong then whats the point of having a choice? Can you really be pro choice if you dont exercise that choice? If you are so in favor of choice let the American people choose rather than forcing it on the public through the acts of power hungry judges. Evil wins when good men do nothing.

I agree Avatar, but the Democrats are getting away with it to some extent with people who just WANT to believe you can have it both ways....shame

 

[Nienna]

It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in
the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion
politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would. The
poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were
more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that "is denied communion by
the area's bishop for voting to support abortion rights" 49 percent said
they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.

I assume they thought that those denying the Eucharist would be seen as "intolerant." They just don't get it that many people are actually intelligent enough to see through their rhetoric. They really cannot see that people actually disagree with their point of view. Amazing.

 

[MissileMan]

You can't speak both sides of your mouth on this one. You can't on the one hand promote abstinence and the other encouraging them to be promiscious by giving them false assurances that they can do it "safely".

Why do you think that it is wise to keep children ignorant of all things sexual until they are married? It's perfectly fine to suggest abstinence as a strategy to avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease, but if you think that the best policy is to avoid telling kids the dangers involved and the steps needed to avoid the dangers, then you need to have your head examined.

If you are so in favor of choice let the American people choose rather than forcing it on the public through the acts of power hungry judges. Evil wins when good men do nothing.

No, let the individual choose within guidelines. What an individual does with their body is none of your business. As noone is busting down anyone's door and dragging them off for a forced abortion, your argument holds no water.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you think that it is wise to keep children ignorant of all things sexual until they are married? It's perfectly fine to suggest abstinence as a strategy to avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease, but if you think that the best policy is to avoid telling kids the dangers involved and the steps needed to avoid the dangers, then you need to have your head examined..

On what planet is teaching teens to be responsible by refraining from sexual activities outside marriage keeping them ignorant? It's quite the opposite of ignorant. In order to be responsible you have to have knowledge. Why do you want to give them a condom and keeping them ignorant of the dangers involved in sex when its misused?

No, let the individual choose within guidelines. What an individual does with their body is none of your business. As noone is busting down anyone's door and dragging them off for a forced abortion, your argument holds no water

I have no problem letting people do what they want with their own body. The problem is abortion has nothing to do with doing what you want with your own body. its about killing an another person because you were irresponsible with your own body. You made your choice when you put yourself in a position to become pregnant.

Let the people decide whether we should allow abortion or not. What exactly are you afraid of? I understand you might not like the Democratic process, but the people have a right to make their own laws. And btw contrary to what you are trying to assert, it definately is my business to protect those who are innocent. It definately is my business to stand up for what's right. It definately is my business to see my tax money doesn't go to murdering children. I definately is my business to encourage people to be responsible because no man or woman is an island. The actions of individuals effect society as a whole. and as part of society I have a right and responsibility to advocate for making society better.

I must admit it's always a good sign when the only argument the opposition has is to try argue that I don't have a right to voice my opinion. When people have to silence their opponents from speaking out, that means they know they are on the losing end of the argument and can't defend their position. Beauty is you can't silence the opposition. That's the beauty of the United States. God bless America.

Oh and btw, the abortions by their very support of abortion have dictated that their movement will die out. No movement can survive more than a generation or two when you are actively killing the people who are likely to replace you in the population.

 

[MissileMan]

On what planet is teaching teens to be responsible by refraining from sexual activities outside marriage keeping them ignorant? It's quite the opposite of ignorant. In order to be responsible you have to have knowledge. Why do you want to give them a condom and keeping them ignorant of the dangers involved in sex when its misused?

You're the one who said that you can't teach abstinence and contraception together, not me.

I have no problem letting people do what they want with their own body.

As long as it's something you agree with.... :blah2:

The problem is abortion has nothing to do with doing what you want with your own body. its about killing an another person because you were irresponsible with your own body. You made your choice when you put yourself in a position to become pregnant.

Notice I added within guidelines...I think a woman should be able to have an abortion for whatever reason within the first trimester...after that she should carry to term unless her life is in danger.

Let the people decide whether we should allow abortion or not. What exactly are you afraid of? I understand you might not like the Democratic process, but the people have a right to make their own laws.

Quote me once where I said anything to support this bullshit statement. Just because you disagree with my stand is no excuse for you to start making up your own ideas of my ideologies.

And btw contrary to what you are trying to assert, it definately is my business to protect those who are innocent. It definately is my business to stand up for what's right. It definately is my business to see my tax money doesn't go to murdering children. I definately is my business to encourage people to be responsible because no man or woman is an island. The actions of individuals effect society as a whole. and as part of society I have a right and responsibility to advocate for making society better.

All those rights and you're still wrong!

I must admit it's always a good sign when the only argument the opposition has is to try argue that I don't have a right to voice my opinion. When people have to silence their opponents from speaking out, that means they know they are on the losing end of the argument and can't defend their position. Beauty is you can't silence the opposition. That's the beauty of the United States.

I must admit that it's always a good sign when the only argument the opposition has it to accuse me of trying to shut them up....:blah2: :blah2:

God bless America.

Agreed, kinda.

Oh and btw, the abortions by their very support of abortion have dictated that their movement will die out. No movement can survive more than a generation or two when you are actively killing the people who are likely to replace you in the population.

Too ridiculous to dignify a response!