Read this embarrassing headline and think about it

because it’s the future of the “prolife” movement if it continues to sell its soul for the sake of power:

Brown stresses prochoice stance as abortion foes offer backing

Leading antiabortion group to support Scott Brown, calling him a ‘a senator who votes pro-life’

But he is Republican. So even though he squirms like a cat in the arms of Pepe LePew to insist on his absolute devotion to abortion, “prolifers” are enthusiastically prostituting everything they stand for to back him over his contemptuous rejection of them.

For the love of God, have some self-respect Massachusetts Citizens for Life. It profits a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose his own soul. But for Massachusetts?

  • SpasticHedgehog

    As someone who sees these ads routinely, I can attest to at least 2 Brown ads that go out of the way to point out he supports Roe v. Wade.

    That article is a few months old, has MCfL changed their stance?

    • Dan

      I don’t think so, I just got a letter last week from MCfL supporting Brown. Warren’s ads say he will allow a supreme court that will overturn roe v wade and then Brown does an ad blitz on how much he supports PP and abortion and choice…disgusting.

  • http://www.distributistreview.com Richard Aleman

    “We consider him a senator who votes prolife,” said Anne Fox, president of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. “We have to take his word for it when he says he is prochoice. But what we’re looking for is someone who votes prolife, and he does.”

    I think this is leftover dialogue from the movie “Airplane”.

    • http://lolbamas.com/ DRH

      No, it’s something very basic : “How will he vote?” He can *say* he’s The Prince of Chichester fro all I care, as long as he casts the correct *votes*.

  • http://pewlady.blogspot.com Kelly Thatcher

    No way has MCFL changed its stance. They’re Brown, Brown, Brown. Last I checked, he *still* hasn’t made up his mind about Question 2 (Mark, that’s the Physician Assisted Suicide ballot question.)

  • http://lolbamas.com/ DRH

    … actually, if you *read* the article, it points out that he votes prolife 80% of the time. (As opposed to the 0% likely for his opponent). It makes little sense to escew the 80% for the sake of 20% that the good people of Massachusetts have no way of getting.

    Now, you can say that Brown is “for” Roe v Wade…. but the Senate will never vote on Roe v Wade.

    • B.E. Ward

      Why doesn’t he vote pro-life 100% of the time?

    • Blog Goliard

      Choosing someone who votes with you 80% of the time over someone who votes with you 0% of the time is how participating in politics works…for those of us who choose to participate.

      I do wish that Ms. Fox & co. had a little less talent for beclowning themselves in making this call though.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      But what, exactly, are the 20% of votes that he isn’t pro-life about? That’s a pretty critical question, don’t you think?

      • Blog Goliard

        No, I don’t. Not if his opponent would vote the same way on that 20%.

    • Richard Johnson

      “Now, you can say that Brown is “for” Roe v Wade…. but the Senate will never vote on Roe v Wade.”

      No, but they could vote on the Human Life Amendment if it were ever allowed to the floor. But of course when the GOP gets control of the Senate we all know they will bring that amendment right out of committee on the first week, just like they did when they took control of both houses back in 1994.

      Honestly, folks…this is what happens when to turn the Savior into a prostitute for the GOP. You end up justifying supporting evil by saying “it’s much better than the alternative.”

  • Irenist

    “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales!”
    –St. Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons.”

  • Frank Doyle

    MCFL has a long history of endorsing poor candidates. They endorsed Mitt Romney in 1994.

  • Frank Doyle

    Unfortunately, MCFL has a history of making bad endorsements. They endorsed Mitt Romney in 1994 who
    unequivocally stated his support for abortion. I did not vote for Scott Brown in 2010 nor will I vote for him
    now. Scott Brown’s ads highlight his position on abortion including his support for Planned Parenthood.
    Brown also voted for the NDAA. Catholics are only deluding themselves if they think Brown is any better
    than his opponent. If Massachusetts were a truly Catholic state, neither of these frauds would be candidates
    for elected office.

  • Richard Johnson

    “It makes little sense to escew the 80% for the sake of 20% that the good people of Massachusetts have no way of getting.”

    Follow that logic to its natural conclusion. It makes little sense to eschew the 25% for the sake of the 75% that the good people of Massachusetts have no way of getting.

    Where do you draw the line? 10% 5% When does pragmatism give way to holiness?

  • Sus

    Should we leave the ballot blank for senator? There are only 2 choices on the ballot. Not voting for Brown is a vote for Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts.

    • Ghosty

      No, it’s not a vote for either one.

      Here’s what will continue to happen: today it’s 80% pro-life, and since the GOP sees that it can get pro-life votes while pulling back on actual pro-life action it will be 70% next time. Then it will be 60%, and so on until you get to the level of the Democratic Party which already went through this process.

      Peace and God bless!

    • Richard Johnson

      Again, Sus…where do you draw the line? Is 1% better than Elizabeth Warren good enough? 5%? How many dead children can your candidate sanction and still get your vote?

  • Renee

    Brown votes like Ted Kennedy, which yes is indeed more prolife then Warren. It is that bad in Massachusetts. Most Ds are more prolife then Rs here. When I say prolife, in the sense an exemption is made for us. Under Warren (D) and many Republicans we have none.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X