RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Social issues second to economy, but pro-lifers doing well
Conventional wisdom says that the economy trumped all other issues this election cycle. But the success of pro-life candidates tonight suggests that the common ground between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives is significant.
The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List waged a “Votes Have Consequences” campaign targeting pro-abortion candidates, and they were claiming success early in the evening. One of their targets was Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth. He was defeated in his bid for the U.S. Senate seat from Indiana by former Sen. Dan Coats, a pro-life stalwart.
Kelly Ayotte, who had served as attorney general of New Hampshire from 2004 to 2009, won a hard-fought race for the Senate on an unabashedly pro-life platform in a state not known for its pro-life activism. Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky were both strongly backed by the fiscal conservatives of the Tea Party, but both are also openly pro-life.
“Members of Congress who finesse or ignore the deeply held values of their constituents lose their title ‘representative’ in principle and in fact,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
Other Tea Party-backed candidates who also have pro-life credentials posted wins tonight, including Sue Myrick (N.C.-9), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.-10), Virginia Foxx (N.C.-5), Sandy Adams (Fla.-24), and Diane Black (Tenn.-7).
See WORLD’s interactive national map for complete election results from across the country.
back to top22 Comments to “Social issues second to economy, but pro-lifers doing well”
This analysis would have some credence if these candidates had advertised their antiabortion credentials as part of their campaign. But as it stands, most of these candidates were publicly silent on the issue of abortion.
I’m a moderate Republican. Two years ago, I voted nearly a straight Democratic ticket. Today I voted primarily for GOP candidates. I voted this way because of my concern about the economy. I have no interest in being subjected to an increase in state-sanctioned social conservatism, especially on issues such as abortion and gay rights. Economic freedom and social oppression do not go together, at least in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives may view abortion as a social view, but as a libertarian I see it as a matter of rights. Does one’s right to privacy overrule another’s right to live? Since the right to life, liberty, and property is where the right to privacy comes from, the answer would be no.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
How does protecting the most vulnerable – the unborn – get called “social oppression”?
Report comment to moderator
Because Beth, respecting other people’s right to life greatly reduces the choices and actions I can make, thus it is oppressive.
Report comment to moderator
“Social oppression,” huh? That’s plum stupid, sayin’ that.
Report comment to moderator
Worth mentioning that a ballot initiative in Colorado that would grant personhood to the pre-born is currently being opposed 70% to 30% with 60% of precincts reporting?
This in a state where Tea Party candidate Ken Buck is narrowly leading his democratic opponent in a Senate race?
Report comment to moderator
Being pro-life is consistent with libertarianism, as ROM116 mentions. Aborting a fetus is aggressing against him or her nad violating his or her rights.
Report comment to moderator
The economy needs fixing, But a higher calling for our newly instated members is to promote the common welfare especially that of the babies. For surely the ungodly care more about their pocketbooks than they do about preserving life, the most basic of need. And the shedding of innocent blood will not go unjudged. God help us!
Report comment to moderator
I’ve always wondered and I’m sure this has been analyzed: where proLife candidates emerge as victors what are their state or district stats for out-of-wedlock births, cohabitation, divorce etc?
I used to figure proAbort candidates won mainly in states where you have a rampant free love sex fest going on. But obviously San Fran has the district with the least number of families and small children. No kids being born = little or no (hetero) sex, or not enough
I suspect a state like NH probably still has too much of a Puritan morality for abortion to be a top concern among that state’s voters.
And Ayotte may have just faced an incompetent opponent, no?
Report comment to moderator
I regard abortion in the USA as a moral and political evil. No amt of NARAL propaganda can ever change that for me. Good for us but Too bad for them that the slave owners in the 1850s lacked such an effective media campaign, PAC funds etc
Report comment to moderator
I am anti-abortion as most people on this site know. People we have bigger issues to tackle than letting abortion divide us. We would be smart if we would welcome gay people into the conservative movement. They really are a lot more like us than they aren’t. We need to join forces and save the country from going down the drain. I am much more concerned with the debt my child is going to inherit than I am about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home.
The ox is in the ditch. We need to get him out before we can worry about some of this other stuff.
Report comment to moderator
In response to Rom116 where he/she said, “respecting other people’s right to life greatly reduces the choices and actions I can make, thus it is oppressive,” this argument would make us all believe you are opposed to laws against murder, which I am hoping you embrace. I just don’t see how “respecting other people’s right to life” reduces your choices & actions. What are you wanting to do? The only choice I can see it restricting is having an abortion yourself–is that what you are referring to?
Report comment to moderator
In response to Kim’s lack of concern over “what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their home,” I would have to ask what you would think when one of those consenting adults convinced your child to explore the activities of the gay world or join that adult in the privacy of their home? My point here is that the more we embrace the sin around us, the more prevalent the sin becomes. One day it’s going to be our child or our spouse or even us who gets sucked into it. Sin, when left unchecked, spreads like a cancer.
Report comment to moderator
My point is that gay people have even more reason to be fiscally conservative than we traditional family folk. They typically cannot get married, they cannot take advantage of the marriage tax break. They typically do not have children so they have very less tax deductions available to them.
It is MY responsibility to teach my child right from wrong. I did say TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.
All I am saying is lets table our differences until we can get some things fixed first.
Report comment to moderator
Let us all pray that the prolife agenda will not be given a back seat. All of us who supported pro-life canidates with our work, finances, and votes must hold them accountable.
Report comment to moderator
#13 AND #15 I actually agree with you more than I disagree. I think there are better ways to support the prolife agenda than making it a federal issue. It is actually a more local issue. Chances of the Supreme Court reversing their decision is slim to none. Work for a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Donate to the various Mary’s Homes (where pregnant women can live and receive help). Work with at risk youth. Teach young girls that they are of more value than as a “vessel of sex”. More importantly fathers step up to the plate and teach your sons to be more respectful of girls/women and to treat each one as someone’s future wife.
I work really hard to keep the lines of communication open with my daughter and make sure she knows what is acceptable and what isn’t and what I want for her.
Report comment to moderator
Momo7, I was being sarcastic.
On a real note, respecting other people right to life eliminates the option of ending their lives, thus it is “oppressive” because it gets in the way of what people may want to do.
I was using this to parody the current argument for abortion.
Report comment to moderator
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/11/03/the-wisdom-of-voters-and-faith-in-democracy/#comments
When you actually take the time to sit down and talk to gay people they have more reason to be more conservative and pro-life than the rest of us. Just think if they isolated the gene (if this is what you believe–and they do) that causes homosexuality parents could have genetic testing and abort their homosexual babies.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt that that will happen Kim as our genetics do not determine much outside of our physical appearance, as our behavior and genetics have only a .2 correlation, which is quite small. We do not know what genes determine what humans find to be attractive, much less dealing with orientation. And even if such genes existed, people still can choose to be what they want to be, as our environment and our own choices have a much greater effect on who we are or become than our genetics. Plus nowadays it is not that hard to alter our genes if we so wish.
Report comment to moderator
The large number of posts on this thread compared with adjacent economic topics tells me that the Tea Party is in the culture war without uniform.
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe that a fetus, particularly an early-term fetus, is a “life” in the sense of meriting legal protection. This view is consistent with 500+ years of common law and is consistent with the views of most conservative Protestant ethicists.
Besides, plenty of research has shown that most social conservatives (except for Roman Catholics) are not really too concerned about the life of the fetus. Rather, evangelicals tend to think about abortion as an issue of personal responsibility. They wrongly believe that the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage, and they want to see so-called fornicators punished by having to endure the social stigma of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. In other words, evangelicals, in general, couldn’t give a whit about the fetus; they are mainly interested in punishing the mother. This explains why evangelicals–unlike Roman Catholics–are opposed to abortion, but have no concerns about civilian casualties of war and the execution of wrongly convicted defendants. The consistent theme is not protecting life; it is punishing those whom evangelicals perceive as being different from them.
Also note: Whenever evangelicals have gained political power in America, they have always used that power to oppress and disenfranchise non-evangelicals. The Jim Crow South is the best example of this. The book “Republican Gomorrah” provides a cogent analysis of this.
Report comment to moderator
Right RSD, you are all knowing, and all statements by you are true. I should have known. No one wants to protect innocent life, just punish mothers.
Yeah, right. So many lies on lies. Evangelicals, on average, are the only ones who care about the unborn, the only ones who stick up for the rights of the oppressed. Your other false assumptions like evangelicals not caring about innocents being executed and civilian casualties of war is reeking of pure bull. RSD, you either seriously need to get out and meet a real living, breathing evangelical or move past your ideological prejudices.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!