Why Catholics can't vote for Gillibrand
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand identifies herself as a Catholic, yet she has taken postions that go against the Church's teachings, including on the issue of abortion.
The latest update on her activities from her office provides further proof:
"She led the fight in the Senate to defeat the Stupak Amendment, which would have severely rolled back women’s reproductive rights."
Catholics and pro-lifers can't in good conscience vote for her.
The latest update on her activities from her office provides further proof:
"She led the fight in the Senate to defeat the Stupak Amendment, which would have severely rolled back women’s reproductive rights."
Catholics and pro-lifers can't in good conscience vote for her.
3 Comments:
Lee, I'm confused. Recently you were pleased by the election of Scott Brown, a Republican with a pro-choice record. At the same time, you note that "Catholics can't vote for Gillibrand" because she has a pro-choice record. Can Catholics vote for those with a pro-choice record but only if they are Republicans?
No need to be confused.
The situation with Gillibrand is that she is a staunch supporter of abortion even as she describes herself as a Catholic. That is a betrrayal of her faith.
Brown is pro-choice, true, but far more moderately than she is, and given his radical opponent, he was the better choice in the Massachusetts race.
I have in the past staunchly oppposed pro-choice Republicans like Giuliani, for example, or opportunistic ones who switch positions on life issues, like Romney.
I'm registered with neither major political party. I vote for the person I think best in each race, no matter what party. Sometimes, neither candidate is ideal, so I'm forced to pick the least problematic one.
Though I do suppose if the Republicans nominate a Nazi or someone who holds her exact same views Catholics would be hard pressed about who gets their vote.
Then I would say we should vote third party. (I have done that.)
Post a Comment
<< Home