Our Twitter FeedVist our Facebook PageSearch
 
Idaho Chooses Life | Right to Life  

10/24/13 Breaking NewsRSS subscription options

You are here: Home » Hot Topics » Politics / Campaigns

Politics / Campaigns Print this page E-mail this page

Posted on: 05/03/12
Idaho's pro-Life movement is facing an historic primary election. Not only will the elections on May 15 set the stage for the next legislative session, they will help establish what kind of legislature we'll be dealing with over the next decade.

There are so many open seats, so many inevitable changes coming that we must be diligent and engaged to ensure that solid pro-Life candidates win this crucial contest.

Turn-out is likely to be a problem. That makes it even more critical that pro-Lifers engage. It is not too early to begin talking with friends and fellows at church, your workplace, who share our commitment to protecting the sanctity of human life.

As we come into the closing days, we ask for your prayers and financial support. We are spread far and wide across this beautiful state.

 



Posted on: 10/24/11
Presidential candidate Herman Cain has been under fire in pro-Life circles since an interview on CNN last week, in which he made the following comments:

"It's not the government's role, or anybody's else's role to make that decision [about abortion]," Cain told CNN reporter Piers Morgan.

Naturally, pro-Life folks seeing the interview or reading about it were alarmed about the position Cain staked out - which sounds an awfully lot like a statement Hillary Clinton could make. Some of the campaigns, most notably Rick Santorum, jumped all over the quote - arguing that Herman Cain could not be trusted on abortion.

The problem for Cain is that this comment comes after he took a rather picayune view of the presidential questionnaire sent to him by the Susan B. Anthony List. (Only Cain and Romney refused to sign the four-point pledge). And Cain did not help himself much by rather casually responding to the budding controversy via Twitter with a simplistic: "I am 100% pro-Life".

Concerns began to develop that he was one of those politicians who is "personally pro-Life" - but who would not press to restore legal protections for preborn children.

So - who is Herman Cain and is he pro-Life?

Material has begun to surface since the CNN exchange which confirms that Herman Cain is a solid pro-Life Christian.

The first thing to understand is that the CNN interview included a very strong statement by Cain that he was pro-Life - to the point of opposing exceptions for rape and incest. In fact, the above-quoted statement was in the context of explaining his understanding that pregnancies stemming from rape or incest were intensely personal and difficult situations for women and families to deal with.

Secondly, there is an important column by Leon Wolf on the RedState website. He goes into some detail explaining Cain's historic involvement in the pro-Life movement while offering Cain an apology for initially (and rashly) accusing him to be "pro-choice". Wolf describes that Cain has donated huge amounts of money to the pro-Life movement - particularly a campaign targeting black voters, urging them to vote pro-Life. (We were aware that Cain is especially sensitive to Planned Parenthood's targeting of the black community).

Cain has also committed himself to supporting a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There really isn't much more that can be said about Cain, though some campaigns might try and drag this matter out. Mr. Cain has no doubt gained some valuable experience, and the rest of us have benefited by gaining a deeper understanding of his heart in this most crucial matter.

 



Posted on: 10/11/11
There were a number of interesting developments to come from the Values Voters Summit this past weekend. One of the dominant stories involved the Perry campaign's use of Mitt Romney's religion against him. This is another self-inflicted wound that may prove mortal.

In responding to the national controversy, FRC Chairman Tony Perkins issued a public statement:

"America is a country where religious freedom is constitutionally protected and where we respect the right for people to practice their faith publicly and peacefully in a free nation.... We clearly recognize the fact that Mormon theology includes doctrines that are distinct from Evangelical theology and Catholic theology. At the same time, the goal of the values voter movement is not to build a ‘National Church'. Our goal is to build a national coalition based on the shared values of respecting human life, strengthening natural marriage, defending religious liberty, promoting personal and fiscal responsibility, and maintaining our national security."

Let's be clear: There are many reasons to be concerned about Mitt Romney. His role in pushing abortion rights while governor, his support for socialized medicine in Massachusetts leading the list. But his faith is not an appropriate "wedge issue" for political advantage - such a strategy can only produce fractures in the conservative movement. And, we might add, a more divided nation.

And there are legitimate places to discuss the tenets of LDS theology - in the home, as a matter of personal faith. Or in seminaries, or in public debates between clergy and theologians; or even between friends over a cup of coffee (and orange juice).

But it is hard not to see the Perry camp's use of Mormonism as a heavy-handed attempt to argue that Romney's faith somehow disqualifies him from being president. Can you imagine anyone taking a public podium to argue that a person should not be president because he or she was Catholic or Jewish?

This event is more than presidential politics. It strikes close to home. The pro-Life movement in Idaho is vitally dependent upon the active support of people from different faith backgrounds - but who share a passionate belief in the value of all human life. We are grateful for the generous support we have received over the years from many great folks in the LDS community. It is not too much to say that we would not have achieved the victories we've enjoyed without their help.

Our sympathies go out to our many LDS friends for this sordid public moment, which has surely been hurtful.

As for Mr. Perry: He would be well-advised to quickly and emphatically distance himself from this unseemly misuse of religion. During that press conference he might go on to fix a couple other serious problems as well.

 



Posted on: 10/10/11
The Susan B. Anthony List issued a scorecard on the Republican presidential contenders this past weekend, and issued the following assessment:

The group asked each candidate to sign a pledge relating to four key pro-Life issues:

Appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench; Appointment of persons with pro-Life values to direct the Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Justice and the National Institute of Health; End taxpayer support for abortion and organizations that promote or commit abortions; Support legislation to prohibit abortion after a preborn child is capable of feeling pain.

SBA reports that five of the candidates have signed their pledge, committing themselves to such principles if elected president: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.

All five of those candidates, it should be noted, have legislative and public records to bring real confidence to that pledge, with Congressman Michele Bachmann at the head of the group.

Mr. Cain and Mr. Romney, currently leading national polls, chose not to sign the pledge.

Both men, while articulating pro-Life values, took a rather legalistic view of the specific issues presented by SBA.

Mr. Romney - who already has substantial problems with the pro-Life community because of his support for radical abortion policies while governor of Massachusetts - declined to commit himself to appointing only pro-Life people to the posts at NIH, Justice and HHS. In a national opinion piece, Romney defended his position by arguing that the SBA Pledge "unduly burdens a president's ability to appoint the most qualified individuals...."

Mr. Cain, who is without any kind of record on abortion, declined to sign the pledge because of his reading of the section on fetal pain: "I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues" but the Congress must advance legislation like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. He did indicate that he would sign such legislation if elected president.

 



Posted on: 09/17/10
A story running in today's Idaho Reporter carries a quote from Walt Minnick when he was a challenger back in 2008: "You won't find me lining up 100 percent on anybody's political scorecard." It was a campaign promise that too many Idahoans deposited in the bank.

Mr. Minnick has consistently and defiantly broken that promise, on the most sacred matters before the Congress.

Walt Minnick does indeed have sycophantic relationship with the Abortion Industry. He has a 100 percent voting record for notorious groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League - comprised of those individuals who actually end the lives of preborn children for a living. Likewise, Minnick carries a perfect grade from the folks at Planned Parenthood.

In fact, Mr. Minnick is such a good soldier for the Abortion Industry that he has repeatedly saluted when they demanded he compel all American taxpayers to fund their evil with public dollars.

As part of the national Democrat Party strategy to regain power, they recruited people like Walt Minnick as a ploy to gaining raw numbers in their caucus. The deal was that Minnick would be free to vote against leadership on some key votes - so long as they were loyal when it mattered. Indeed, Minnick has cast a few votes against the Democrat agenda. This is a cynical, carefully orchestrated minuet to deceive the electorate into sending people like Minnick back for a second helping.

But the one area that Mr. Minnick has proven to be a steadfast, "true believer" is in the matter of destroying preborn children. The simple fact is that Mr. Minnick is the most radical abortion advocate Idaho has ever sent to Washington.

 



Posted on: 06/14/10
Florida Governor Charlie Crist has managed, in just a matter of months, to transform himself from a serious contender for the White House to the national symbol of all that is evil and broken in American politics.

While battling the rising star, Marco Rubio, for the Republican nomination to serve Florida in the US Senate, Crist protested that conservatives were misrepresenting his values and record. He cried that some voters didn't appreciate his pro-Life values and commitment to upholding the principles of the Republican Platform. Smelling a rat in the soup, voters turned increasingly to Rubio as a man they could trust to do what he said he would.

The more Crist protested, the more powerful Washington, D.C. power brokers pushed, the lower Crist's numbers fell.

Idahoans were probably more surprised by Crist's departure from the Republican Party than were Floridians. They had the advantage of hands-on experience, and many opportunities to see the shallow self-centeredness which drives Charlie Crist.

Too many politicians, of course, are driven by ambition and a need to feel valuable. This is a large factor in many of our current problems.

But Governor Crist's recent veto of pro-Life legislation sets him apart as a man worthy of particular public scorn.

Late last week, Crist vetoed legislation which would have required abortionists to inform mothers that they had a right to view an ultrasound of their baby prior to an abortion. This is similar to an Idaho law enacted a couple of sessions ago. Such laws have proven their effectiveness in reducing abortions in state after state.

Moreover, the legislation Crist vetoed contained a provision to prevent tax-payer funding of abortions in Florida under the new ObamaCare regime.

After selling out the Republican Party, which nursed his immense ego for many years, Crist apparently found it no big problem to use preborn children as mere poker chips in his sordid effort to retain public power. After all, now his independent bid for the Senate requires pandering to pro-choice Democrats; it took just a few clicks of his mouse to delete any references on his website to his previously "adamant" pro-Life value system.

His complete disregard for the defenseless babies he would now help destroy is just despicable. In our view, he has now come to personally define the lowest form of office seeker.

May the Lord intervene to prevent his cynical evil from being rewarded this fall. And may the voters of Florida repay him for his faithlessness with banishment from the public square.

 



Posted on: 05/01/10
District Judge John Bradbury is challenging incumbent Justice Roger Burdick in the May Primary Election for a seat on Idaho's Supreme Court.

Bradbury very narrowly lost a similar bid in 2008, challenging Justice Joel Horton in that race.  (As you read on ... give thanks for the bullet we narrowly missed).

There are interesting - indeed, disturbing - backstories to Bradbury's quest for higher office.

Part of that story is the very unusual lawsuit he has pending against the Idaho Supreme Court in federal court, because it had the audacity to require that he live in the judicial district over which he presides - a requirement laid out in Idaho Code. It seems Judge Bradbury doesn't much care to live in Grangeville, and prefers to remain in Lewiston.

After being ordered to move to Grangeville, Bradbury sued the Supreme Court in federal court. Judge Lynn Winmill struck down his lawsuit. Bradbury has an appeal pending before the 9th Circuit.

It seems his back-to-back campaign(s) for the Supreme Court is driven by a mixture of ambition and revenge against the high court. That is a bit disturbing.

What is most important, however, is to realize that Judge Bradbury has a rather long political history.

In the early 1990's John Bradbury sought a seat in the Idaho legislature as a Democrat. During his first quest in May of 1991, Bradbury wanted a nomination from the Democrat Central Committee. He told his fellow Democrats that he was "pro-Life" on abortion. For whatever reason, he failed to get the seat.

Less than a year later, he challenged incumbent Democrat Representative Chuck Cuddy in a primary. By this time, apparently, his views on the most important moral issue of our time had "evolved". He was now a "woman's right to choose" kind of guy.

Bradbury told the Lewiston Tribune (05.15.92), "I personally think forcing women to have children they don't want won't stop abortions." In a later interview (05.23.92), he explained to this same paper that his views had "evolved" to the point where he sought, and earned, the endorsement of "Freedom Means Choice" in that primary election.

On many levels, John Bradbury seems to be a dangerous candidate for the state's highest court.

Justice Burdick appears to be a temperate, conservatively-inclined member of the court - though we cannot absolutely declare him to be "pro-Life" in his moral and judicial philosophy. All we can say with certainty is that pro-Life Idahoans need to make darn certain that Bradbury does not win a seat on the Supreme Court, packing the ACLU's agenda under his robes.

 

 



Posted on: 04/23/10

 

April 23, 2010                                        FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Idaho Chooses Life Endorses Raul Labrador for Congress 

ICL announced today that it has endorsed State Rep. Raul Labrador in his bid for the 1st District congressional nomination.

"We've had the honor of working with Raul for a number of years now, and appreciate his integrity and commitment to pro-Life principles," said ICL Executive Director David Ripley. "What separates the candidates running for Congress is Labrador's proven value under fire."

Labrador has served in the Idaho State House of Representatives since being elected in 2006. During that time he has earned a 100% pro-Life voting record.

This past session, Labrador was co-sponsor of two key pieces of pro-Life legislation.

"Labrador provided leadership in answering the threat of ObamaCare," Ripley said, "which is the most dangerous advance of abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision."

Labrador was one of the House leaders who brought forth the Idaho Health Freedom Act, which is the basis for Idaho's court challenge to federalized health care.

Then he assisted Idaho Chooses Life in getting a strong conscience protection bill enacted into law.

"Conscience protection for doctors and nurses is part of a larger strategy to resist death panels and the rationing of health care for seniors and vulnerable Idahoans," Ripley added.

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life reviewed candidate answers to an extensive survey on pro-Life issues. Labrador, Vaughn Ward and Harley Brown all scored well on the questionnaire. The other candidates did not respond.

"We acknowledge the candidates' positions on critical pro-Life issues," Ripley said. "But we've learned through hard experience that there is just no substitute for being there. Raul has stood his ground time after time, when politics and the Abortion Lobby have exerted tremendous pressure to abandon principle."

"Our endorsement is meant to honor Raul Labrador's record and service to Idaho," Ripley concluded.

--30--

 



Posted on: 04/21/10
As the primary election gets ever closer, we are becoming concerned about a relatively low turn-out among rank-and-file conservatives.

There is plenty of anger among voters - but it is an anger waiting to explode against liberal Democrats, the allies of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. And the thing about anger is that it's mighty - but negative. The challenge facing conservative legislative candidates on the ballot next month is turning that negative energy into a positive energy. Will rank-and-file conservatives turn out in strong numbers to protect their friends?

In other words - if conservatives sit on their resentments waiting for a crack at Walt Minnick, they may find a number of legislative friends mysteriously absent from the general election and next year's Legislature.

The danger is heightened by the fact that liberal Democrats are mobilizing to take full advantage of Idaho's ridiculous Open Primary System.

Union members at the IEA are hopping mad about budget cuts to schools and, potentially, their paychecks. They want to dump those conservative legislators they see as blocking their demand for a big tax increase next year.

Just last week, the Idaho Public Employees Association - representing disgruntled state employees - published a newsletter instructing their members on the how and whys of "strategic cross-over voting".

Here is a startling quote:

"Voting in the primary is the best way to influence a party's platform, and it is a great way to bring about change. Idaho primaries are open primaries. That means you don't have to register as a member of a party."

Wait, there are additional details provided for the more dim-witted of their readers:

"Here's a possible scenario: You're leaning toward the Democrat in the general election, but the Democrats don't have a contested primary in your district. So you vote for the Republican that most closely represents your views and that person wins the primary .... But then in the fall you realize that the Democrat still looks better to you, so you vote for the Democrat."

If rank-and-file Republicans do not participate next month, it will not take many Democrat cross-over votes to flip a number of crucial legislative elections.

That portends not only tax increases next session - it will mean a devastating blow to the pro-Life movement.

Help us spread the word: Let's get out and vote on May 25th.

 



Posted on: 04/19/10
Most folks were shocked to learn that the national Tea Party Express decided to endorse Idaho's Walt Minnick - including Walt Minnick. After all, the combustion of grassroots Americans driving the tea party movement is largely aimed at an arrogant Democrat majority in control of Congress.

As Vaughn Ward correctly pointed out, Walt Minnick is partly responsible for putting Nancy Pelosi in charge of the most arrogant Congress in history.

Yet the endorsement of Minnick makes sense from a different perspective: Last week the Tea Party Express issued its "manifesto" or statement of principles. Called the "Contract From America", it demands a new national leadership which is fiscally responsible.

It offers a ten-point plan intended to defend the principles of Liberty, Limited Government and Economic Freedom.

The document is sound - as far as it goes.

The problem is that it does not contain a moral vision for the nation; specifically it fails to call for the defense of Life - which obviously precedes any meaningful talk about liberty or economic prosperity. Their endorsement of Walt Minnick is the first poisonous fruit of a politics decoupled from moral and spiritual principles.

Tea Party Express is, seemingly, unconcerned about Walt Minnick's rabid support of abortion - including a consistent demand that taxpayers pay for abortion at any time, for any reason.

Now we know that many people involved in the Tea Party movement are pro-Life. And we also recognize that economic freedom is rooted in moral principle.

But an agenda for governance which fails to account for God's Natural Law - particularly His demand that we protect the gift of Life - can easily run amok. The worship of money is, after all, identified in Scripture as a form of idolatry.

 




Next page: Endorsements

Subscribe to Idaho Chooses Life commentaries.

Enter your email address:

RSS subscription options RSS

Add to Google

Add to My AOL

   

Heroes of the pro-life movement | This month in history | Links to other pro-life organizations            Legal | Site Map