RU-486 abortion drug kills two more women
The FDA reported Friday that the abortion drug/pill RU-486 killed two more women. Check out the AZRTL website for a story off the presses.
When will the FDA pull this killer drug?
How long must we live with the effects of the Clinton administration's betrayal of American women and their willingness to follow the extremist agenda of Planned Parenthood? The FDA needs to pull this drug from the market immediately.Call the FDA
and contact your congressman today.
Tell them no more women should die at the hands of the abortion industry.
Then call your media outlet and ask them if they plan on telling the story
Munsil Campaign Calls for Grassroots Activism
Len Munsil is running to be the Republican candidate for governor of Arizona. Len is a strong advocate for the family, for the preservation and the protection of the all persons, born and unborn, and for a strong productive Arizona.
Arizona Right to Life PAC has endorsed Len Munsil because AzRTL-PAC knows that Len Munsil shares the values and goals of Arizona Right to Life. In addition to Len’s strong pro-life credentials, Len is a fine attorney and an experienced public policy advocate. As a third generation Arizonan, Len and his wife Tracy are raising their eight children here in this state. His commitment to the future of this state is not seen in just his words, but more important in his actions.
Len Munsil is running as a clean elections candidate. He needs the support of the people of Arizona. You can support his candidacy by contributing $5 to his campaign
. This effort is important to show the grassroots believe in the family values that need to be honored by Government now and in the future. As a clean elections candidate, Len Munsil wants to raise his goal as soon as possible. Such an effort would underline the broad-based support for his candidacy.
Join other pro-life Arizonans who want to see Len Munsil governor of the state of Arizona.
Click the link above to go to his site and participate in grassroots activism.
Where have all the Judges gone?
A year ago the U.S. Senate was in a fit. Some Senators were obstructing the confirmation process for the appointment of federal and appellate judges to the bench. Certain Republican leaders were so outraged that the notion of amending the rules, called at various times the “constitutional option” or the “nuclear option” was an almost foregone conclusion. Then the famous or infamous “Gang of 14” announced a compromise and the “crisis” was averted. Some among the conservatives wanted the vote on the rules change and warned that the Democrats were waiting until they could successfully use the filibuster. A small number of appellate judges were confirmed and then the focus on the Supreme Court vacancies absorbed the attention of almost everyone. In the meantime vacancies have remained and the Senate has failed to take up this very important constitutional function, thus placing these additional pressure on an already burdened federal judiciary.Columnist Robert Novak spoke to this issue in his March 16, 2006 article, “Not Confirming Judges”
and noted that
“On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle of Edenton, N.C., to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. It took nearly four years for the Judiciary Committee to send his nomination to the Senate floor. It has languished there for more than a year with no prospect for Senate confirmation and no apparent interest by the Republican leadership.”
Novak continued to explain that Boyle has been on the federal bench for 22 years. So why has the Senate not acted. And why has the Senate leadership not taken this important responsibility to heart? Where is the Republican leadership that heard quite clearly from the American people during the Alito hearings that fair and prompt hearings are in the interest of the nation?
Novak did not just list Boyle who has been waiting for confirmation the longest. Ten other prospective appeals judges are caught in the mire of Senate inaction. No one seems the bit interested in addressing the problem. He mentioned a number of important candidates. The liability of these judges appears to be that they are all conservative.
For example Novak lists in his column the following nominees:
“Brett Kavanaugh, White House staff secretary. First named to the District of Columbia Circuit by Bush on July 25, 2003, Democrats blocked the routine retention of his nomination at the end of the last Congress and now demand a second hearing to delay any hopes for him. His liability is being a senior Bush aide and a former assistant to independent counsel Kenneth Starr.
-- William Haynes, general counsel of the Defense Department. A former General Dynamics executive nominated to the 4th Circuit, he has been blocked by Democrats for his association with the Pentagon's enemy combatant policies as a protégé of vice presidential chief of staff David Addington.
-- Michael Wallace, a Jackson, Miss. lawyer. He was named to the 5th Circuit six weeks ago to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Judge Charles Pickering. A former aide to Sen. Trent Lott, Wallace faces the same opposition from the Left that filibustered Pickering until he reached the bench on a Bush recess appointment.”
Novak’s concerns are well taken and Pro-Life activists need to call their Senators now and remind them that this situation must change immediately. Those who wish to see the status of nominees can check the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy website.
Senator Frist may be happy he won a meaningless straw poll in his home state of Tennessee, but if he ever wishes to show folks beyond the Beltway his leadership skills, he should get these nominees confirmed.
As for my own Senator John McCain, he should call for immediate floor votes on those candidates passed by the committee and for hearings on the balance of the president’s nominees. Republicans who consider themselves as leaders of their party need to speak out on this very important duty of the Senate.
Qualified judicial candidates who subject themselves to the process of confirmation have a right to prompt action by the Senate. When senators wonder why the American people are displeased with their government, it is inaction such as this that prompts such feeling.
Aside from playing into the Left’s hand by delaying consideration of these individuals, the Republican Senate leadership has a responsibility to those who worked on the campaign to keep the promises made in November. Anything less will affect the outcomes of races in 2006.
Bruce Fein should be totally overruled: A Response to an absurd proposal
I use to have some respect for Bruce Fein and his opinions on Constitutional law and the courts. After all he is a highly respected Washington insider, writes columns for the Washington Times and appears on news programs to discuss current events. But his piece in the March 14, 2006 Washington Times is about the worst form of convoluted reasoning that I have seen in recent years.
I would expect this from some apologist for abortion, or from some liberal Ivy League professor who has nursed his students on the legal positivism of Roe and fed them on the meat of substantive due process. But I expect more from those who take the Constitution seriously.
Perhaps Fein represents the establishment in Washington D.C. that does not want to end the killing of a million children a year. After all he is right when he implies that certain powers in the Capitol are afraid to tackle the issue head on. And he is right that there is an “abortion” mentality in this country that considers “disposal” of people or property to be a perfectly acceptable means of solving a problem. Yet his proposed solution will only ramp up the controversy, not end it.
Lets be very clear. There will never be an end to the abortion issue until all unborn children are protected in law. Period.
Those of us who have spent the last five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five years fighting to end abortion are not going to quit until we have ended this holocaust.
Further, our children are taking up the banner and they are less patient than those of us tempered by years. They know that they themselves could have been easily aborted. They refer to themselves as the “survivors’ and as they become more adept at the political game, they will be a force with which to reckon. Please note: it has been the pro-lifers who have been having the children for the most part. When you are wondering who is going to be paying into social security, thank us for the next generation.
Now onto Fein’s convoluted logic: Roe was poorly decided. Well there is no argument there. After all, Blackmun skirts the only relevant questions, to wit, what happens in an abortion and is the “fetus” a “person” in law. We know what happens in an abortion. The abortionist kills the unborn child or “fetus” for those of you who prefer the Latin word for “young one.” We also know that Blackmun himself admitted in the decision that if the “fetus” were considered a human being, the 14th Amendment would apply and the argument to legalize abortion would fail. Fein, however, wants to have the same result for “practical” reasons. Since when should a court reason the law only on the basis of a practical consideration? Fein would have the court ignore a critical reality. An abortion kills a human being.
As for political prudence, again he misses what has been at play for the last 33 years. Fein also has a poor recollection of history. Abortion was being debated in the state legislatures and in state courts long before Roe was decided in 1973. Certain states had “liberalized” their state laws; others had rejected such efforts. A very young pro-life movement was starting and responding to the already entrenched pro-abortion forces. Yet to the surprise of the pro-abortion dominated media, the rights to life groups were able to defeat efforts to legalize abortion in Michigan and North Dakota in November 1972. Even liberal New York had repealed its 1970 abortion law, only to have the repeal vetoed by the governor. Certain state courts had upheld the legality of their state abortion laws. Even Ronald Reagan admitted that his signing of the bill in 1967 was a mistake. When he realized that it helped open the gates to abortion in California, “he was very upset”, according to William P. Clark, a national security adviser and secretary of the Interior Department under Reagan. Clark noted that Reagan believed “it was the biggest mistake he made in government. He tried to square it away as time went on."
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution," Reagan wrote for the Human Life Review. "No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right."
Had the court not acted in Roe, the Right to Life movement would have stopped the overall legalization of abortion. But the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, took it out of the hands of the states and for the last 33 years, has acted as a super legislature on the subject of abortion. As for the republican form of government that decides issues democratically, one may argue that this has been forever placed in a state of suspension, given the court’s penchant for taking such matters and ruling on them regardless of the lack of constitutional implication.
Fein wants to uphold the central finding of Roe as it applies to he first trimester. Yet, where in the constitution does Fein determine this constitutional right to obtain an abortion exist? In my reading of the constitution, I can find no right to an abortion. Neither can any honest scholar. The only people who find a right to abortion are those who want to be able to kill children in the womb. They are similar to the folks who want to be able to kill old people, disabled people or people with “lives devoid of meaning.”
He supports this argument to allow the killing to continue by pointing out the failure of Republicans in Congress to be more aggressive in curtailing the effects of Roe. Let me get this straight: because the congress has failed to act, we should let the children die. Because Bush has not been more out front on the subject (frankly something he ought to do), we should give up the fight.
The fellow has no clue on what it is like across the country to care about protecting life. As I said before, we, pro-lifers, are not going to quit. We are not going to give up. We intend to win this war. And it is a war for the soul of the nation. No one liked it when Buchanan mentioned the culture wars in 1992, but he was right. The battle over abortion is about defining the future of America. All of the fights over the court nominees came down to the abortion issue. The abortion issue has played a large part in the demise of the Democratic Party as it became the party of abortion. The growth of the Republican Party has been in no small part because it adopted a pro-life plank in its platform. And just because the politicians have not been as zealous as they should be does not mean the right to life movement, the new abolitionists, are going to stop the battle. Yet Fein considers that the right to life has no power to get things done.
True, The abortion industry does have more money than the right to life movement. The abortionists do control the establishment media for the most part, i.e. The New York Times, ABC, CBS, etc. The abortion mentality controls much of the thinking in the university system. And the abortionists get a lot of money from the government. But throughout the country, there is a growth influence and a change of attitude. The Pro-Life movement still represents the grassroots and the heartland of America. The Pro-Life movement represents the future in its membership, its ideas and its dreams. We are about life. The other side represents death. Most people just need an excuse to join the pro-life cause. Seeing the pictures of an ultrasound of an 11-week-old baby gives people just the reason to choose life. And then there is the Internet.
There is also another trend that mainstream Washington does not hear or see. This is the number of women who are publicly speaking out in remorse over the abortion they procured. Groups like “Silent no More,” Women Deserve Better, ” and “Operation Outcry” are all raising awareness that abortion is not good for women. Should they ever get some serious publicity, this growing outcry against abortion could be the tipping point to galvanize public opinion against abortion.
Perhaps Fein reflects the fear factor in Washington. After all once the issue of legal abortion is addressed with a finality, that is, there is a law protecting people from conception until natural death, the folks in Washington will be asked to provide support for those programs to assist mothers and children. Perhaps there will be a focus on what kind of education promotes a greater respect for the human person. Once activated many of these pro-life political activists are going to demand that all aspects of government treat the human person with respect for his rights as a person. Of course, it is always a good thing for the populace to have a real say in the affairs of government. After all it is a government not of elites, but a government of the people; people created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life.
Mr. Fein, read you Constitution. There is no right to abortion found in the document, but there is a right to life. That right to life applies to all persons, born and unborn.
The New Abolitionism
Reading Keith Fornier's article entitled "the New Abolitionism" on his web site
: gave me a boost. I also get upset at the misuse of words while discussing the abortion controversies. Both sides realize the importance of language and therefore each does what it can to "charge" the environment so as to have the linguistic advantage in the discussion.
What Keith reminds us in his excellent article is that it is important to always be aware of how language impacts the conversation. Now that the issue will be on the front burner due to the events in South Dakota, it is critical to be aware of the political landscape and what will be happening during the next few months.
First of all, what happened in South Dakota was long overdue. Indeed we should be approaching all efforts to end abortion as a means of keeping the issue before the people. The mainstream media does not like this renewed interest one bit. As long as the issue was not discussed, the media could control the debate, ignore pro-life events, and otherwise give right to life little to no attention. However now with the South Dakota events, everyone is talking about it and new polls are out saying that America is 'conflicted' on the subject of abortion. Wow, that is some news event. As if we did not know or were not aware that Americans held these conflicted opinions because - on the one hand, they know its wrong on the other hand, they have bought into the cannard that tells us one must never exercise a moral judgment. So lack of action replaces conviction.
Only education will move the sleeping giant and out collective consciences to respond to the horror that we have killed 46 million of our brothers and sisters.
Now more than ever all of us must get involved. We have a tremendous opportunity.
Will we act upon it?
Now it is our time to teach the “Facts of Life
Everyone jokes about the “facts of life” and the time when mom or dad took us off to the side and ‘explained’ to us the ‘birds and the bees.’ Comedians do skits on the subject. Parents secretly dread the day they will have to talk to their children about it and teenagers roll their eyes at the idea that their parents are going to tell them “anything” they don’t already know about sex.
Perhaps this society is the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. For all we have read about the fun-loving Greeks and Romans, they did not have the Internet or pay-for-view and HBO at their fingertips. And while I am sure there is nothing new under the sun, it is only today that no matter where anyone turns, there will be stories about sex, aberrant behavior, and all sorts of subjects that are probably best left unsaid.
Then there is the subject of abortion.
Everyone thinks that they have heard it all about abortion. No one really wants to talk about it. Everyone thinks that his or her opinion is right. And heaven help us if a pro-lifer corners you and asks you to think about what happens during an abortion procedure, The media has its bias which is clearly stated. So what are we suppose to make of the latest news event concerning South Dakota.
The media will try to paint the pro-life movement as extremists. The press will bring up the message of the abortionists and ignore the pro-life slant. Certain people will wring their hands as if the end of the world is near. Some pro-life partisans will claim that now is not the time. Others will respond that it is not enough. The press will exploit the differences in strategy and approach.
Then there is the response of the child.
What response you may ask?
The response is a simple plea for a chance: A simple mantra that harkens back to the beginning of the movement. “All we are saying is give life a chance.”
Each human being commences his or her life at conception. We know that if we unite sperm and egg, new human being is conceived. We also know that this new human being normally lives the first nine months of his or her life in his or her mother’s womb. There is nothing extraordinary about this - except that some people just as soon leave out the humanity part.
What is important to remember is that this is not rocket-science. This is basic high school biology 101. It is very important not to get caught up in all the so-called complexity. The first thing to do is define who or what we are talking about. It is the question I raised in an earlier blog. Person or property.
So now that South Dakota is in the news, we in the Pro-Life Movement need to polish up on our developmental biology and we able to explain to our friends the facts of life and why killing babies is a really bad idea.
Make sure you have looked at the G4 ultrasound photos. They really make the case for the baby.
Wear the precious feet. These little feet pins should the size of the baby at 10 weeks. They educate without saying a word.
Remember that it is about relationships: Mom and baby; Mother and Father; Dad and baby.
Remind people that abortion demeans women and places little regard on the importance of carrying a new life.
Remind people that abortion gives men the excuse not to be responsible for their actions.
Carefully explain that at one time there were laws that protected women and children from the abortion industry, that the Supreme Court took away the right of the states to protect its people and that South Dakota is simply exercising its obligation as a state to protect the people who are in the state.
When people talk about the unwanted children, explain that here are over two million couples willing to adopt. There are no unwanted children, just some children who have not been placed in loving families.
Remain charitable with those who argue with you. Visit the www.azrtl.org website for he latest in information.
Get involved with your local group. Continue to send us your sacrificial contributions and if you have not dome so in recent months, do so today. The other side will mount a tremendous propaganda campaign and we must be in the position to counteract the lies they spread.
Above all, pray that God will work through you and me to open hearts to the joy of living and the importance of building a culture of life that will embrace the entire world.
Reflecting on South Dakota
Reflections of South Dakota
South Dakota stands ready to move the assault on the legal case for abortion to the heart of the issue. All we await is the Governor’s signature. The legislature passed the measure last week that would prohibit abortion except in the rare case that the mother’s life was in immediate danger. The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the laws of the states and federalized the issue by declaring that the woman had a constitutional right to kill her baby. Since then this country has witnessed the deaths of over 46 million children.
South Dakota is not the only state to be considering such a ban. Mississippi is also looking at such a law.
Some people in the pro-life movement question the wisdom of this strategy. Last year there were successful efforts to have the South Dakota measure quashed. This year those groups have been silent having borne the brunt of scathing criticism by the grass roots. It would be the height of stupidity for anyone to suggest that this effort be vetoed by the governor. It would also betray the cause and suggest that we do not have the ability to win.
The pro-life movement is changing. It is growing and it is young. The new blood is excited about making a difference and can feel the momentum. Those who have been veterans of the wars and battles need to encourage their involvement and offer the expertise and wisdom that comes from those engagements. But we must not fall prey to the failures of the past. We must not let personal and partisan differences affect the goal. That goal is to restore legal protection to the unborn children. That goal is to stop the rapid decline in care and respect for our elderly.
The movement has got to remain flexible and adaptable to the changing forces in our culture as we keep our eyes on the goal. The use of the Internet has changed not just the way people get the news but how the news is now distributed.
The continuing erosion of the Democratic Party and the stranglehold the extreme Left has on its apparatus will either destroy it or leave it permanently impaired. The whole influx of new American immigrants and the values they hold will impact the nation. The international scene and the influence of America in importing ideas and values mean that everything we do her not only affects us but the world as well.
So we must rally around those means to get out the message that the “Culture of Life” ethic offers hope, healing and health to all persons. It is the only real means for young people to find true happiness. We must be the element in society that explains that killing the children will destroy our future.
This is why South Dakota represents an opportunity to educate the public on what Roe really said and why after 33 years we do know when life begins and yes it begins at conception. Tell the public the truth. Every human life starts as a single cell. Every human life has value. Laws must protect every person no matter how small. Protecting life is a good thing. Killing moms and babies is a bad thing. Or as my friend Janet Folger once said, “Live baby good, dead baby bad.”
South Dakota represents the people speaking through their legislature. It is the democratic process at work challenging the legal monopolists who have choked the will of the people for the last 33 years. The people never asked for legal abortion. It was shoved down our throats by a bunch of elitist population control extremists and racists who wanted to socially engineer our nation. Over the last 33 years they have managed to really “screw” things up to use a word from the streets. Well the American people are tired of being used and abused. This is an opportunity to reclaim the soul of America.
Protecting women. Protecting children. Protecting the future of America. Bringing hope to the world. Common sense. About time.
A Response to the Statement of Catholic Democrats
For the record, I am a Catholic and at one time was a registered Democrat. These reflections are as someone who is committed to restoring protection to all innocent human life. As president of Arizona Right to life, I remind the reader that AZRTL is committed to restoring legal protection to the unborn child and as an organization AZRTL will support committed pro-life candidates of whatever party who seek to end the slaughter of the unborn. AZRTL has a long and distinguished history of supporting pro-lifer candidates for public office of both major parties and longs for the day when both major parties will only field candidates who hold anyone who supports killing children in the womb is unfit for public office. However any candidate or public official who holds that elective abortion – the deliberate killing of an innocent human being - should be legal or permissible by law – is not qualified or deserving to hold public office. AZRTL holds that every innocent human being has a right to life and that this right to life begins at the moment of conception. All law therefore should be designed to protect innocent human life.
Yesterday 55 “Catholic” Democrats issued a “Statement of Principles” claiming that they take seriously their commitment to live the Catholic faith. In essence the statement attempts to justify the voting behavior of these 55 “Catholic” Democrats, which include voting against any restrictions on abortion including partial birth abortion. Apparently these “Catholic” Democrats believe that if they claim they are good Catholics, they can vote to allow the continued slaughter of the unborn. Two of these Catholics are from districts in Arizona and have pro-abortion records. Their actions do not reflect a healthy respect for the dignity of the human person or the duty of all persons, not just Catholics, to respect human life.
I read the statement again. It is absolutely unbelievable. Hypocrisy is probably the best word to describe it. Somehow according to this statement, these elected officials are not obligated to take any action to protect innocent human life. Somehow it is within the “right of conscience” to vote against legislation to protect human life because of some perverse understanding of separation of church and state. Somehow if your party has endorsed the abomination called abortion, you as a Catholic legislator do not have an affirmative duty to work toward its reversal. Somehow, as politicians it is permissible to ignore the clear teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject and simply claim that the debate “often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.”
Since when is protecting innocent human life complicated?
Since when is following the Church’s teaching on the subject complicated?
Let us examine the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject by looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
2271. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."
As for the church’s teaching on conscience, here is the framework within which one operates.
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings . . . . 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.
So let us return to the so-called “Statement of Principles.” Where in the statement is there any reference to the teaching of the church on this matter? Where is there any exhortation to the nation to protect the dignity and the sanctity of the human person? Where is there the condemnation of the courts for having declared the unborn child property and therefore disposable? How can government be exercising its moral duty when over one million lives are being killed every year by “legal” abortion?
How can these signers claim to working “to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” when they all vote against bills that would protect innocent human life?
How can these signers claim to working “to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” when none of them have signed on to sponsor a Human Life Amendment or even the Right to Life Act?
So one finds in the final analysis that this is just an effort to cloud the truth, to confuse the voters, to “spin” the record of votes against human life. This also reflects a fundamental fear by these politicians that their constituents are getting tired of their theatrics, that they are feeling real pressure to do something, but that they are stilled controlled by a party apparatus connected to extremists who support and are supported by the abortion industry. As long as the Democratic Party has a platform plank that endorses abortion on demand, any Catholic who is and wants to remain a Democrat has a serious moral obligation to remove that party plank. Any thing less reflects a lack of commitment to the cause of life.
Yesterday’s statement was so much hot air. If these Democrats are opposed to abortion, then they should act like it. They should call for the reversal of Roe v/. Wade. They should join with Pro-life Republicans and pass laws recognizing the unborn child as a person in law. They should de-fund Planned Parenthood and any international aid effort that funds International Planned Parenthood. They should remove the pro-abortion plank from their own party platform and substitute a plank that affirms the dignity of every human being. They should publicly go on record and declare that they will not support for president any candidate who supports killing unborn children or opposes changing the law.
If they want to be considered Catholics, then act like it.
Otherwise, stop with the political hypocrisy.