More Arizona Right to Life Leaders Defect over McCain Endorsement

The recent endorsement of John McCain as the AZ Right to Life PAC pick over JD Hayworth is such an egregious affront to those of us who know the pro-life record of both candidates that we, in good conscience, cannot remain as active members of AZRTL.* We will not try to defend such a decision to those who stand aghast, and ask us how such an outcome could have happened. Our absence from AZRTL events will speak for us. To our knowledge, John McCain never attended any of the events, unlike JD and his wife, Mary. Possibly we will also attain high praise and an endorsement for not attending as well.

We do not know the true motivation that led to this endorsement. We wonder how AZRTLPAC could have endorsed non-incumbent Governor Huckabee over Senator McCain in the presidential primary, but now, despite no redeeming votes from Senator McCain, give him the endorsement citing incumbency and an electability factor. Actually, incumbency has been a detrimental factor in a number of key contests this election cycle.

We do know that John Jakubczyk has been a long-time advocate and apologist for John McCain and considers McCain a good friend. We do know that Jakubczyk has a vote and a strong voice on PAC endorsements. We do know that McCain contributes thousands of dollars to AZRTL. We do know that Jakubczk’s stance on illegal aliens is sympathetic to McCain’s position (at least before his last campaign conversion) and the position of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Although we are Catholics, we agree with the large majority of Catholics who oppose the illegal alien position taken by the USCCB (Zogby poll, March 2010).

For the record, here are some of McCain’s positions taken against AZRTL priorities:

– Voted multiple times for taxpayer funded fetal tissue research (experimenting on aborted fetuses).

– Voted repeatedly for taxpayer funded Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research (killing of human embryos).

– Disingenuously confused the public with his advocacy of the all encompassing “stem cell research” term instead of clarifying the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research which, despite all the billions spent on ESC, has been a complete failure. ESC is pushed by the abortion industry to diminish the sanctity of human life. If there is one policy McCain has been consistent about, it is ESC research. He stated he was for it because Nancy Reagan favored it. Adult Stem Cell research has been immensely successful and is being used to treat over 80 diseases and afflictions.

– McCain was on the advisory board of Christine Todd Whitman’s Political Action Committee, IT’S MY PARTY TOO. This PAC advocated for the elimination of the pro-life and pro-family planks from the Republican Platform.

– Sponsored the infamous Campaign Finance Reform Bill with abortion advocate Russ Feingold. This act prevented RTL organizations from exposing the political records of federal candidates 60 days before the general election and 30 days before the primary election. It was appropriately named the incumbent protection act, and was eventually declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

– McCain’s legislation forced Wisconsin RTL into a lengthy and costly court battle eventually leading to the US Supreme Court in which RTL prevailed. McCain submitted a “friend of the court brief” to the Supreme Court against the RTL position.

– McCain never spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the sanctity of life.

– He repeatedly chastised Senate Republicans for raising the subject of social issues.

– He stated he would let his teen age daughter make the ultimate decision regarding aborting his grandchild if she had an unplanned pregnancy.

– McCain’s acceptance and advocacy for the continued invasion of the U.S. by impoverished and unassimilated illegal aliens and his proviso for their eventual citizenship would insure the defeat of RTL efforts. This is because the illegal aliens do not have the discernment to recognize the redistribution of wealth, budget busting, socialist programs which are regularly advanced by the Democrat Party. The Main Stream Media would have no difficulty in convincing these new citizens to vote for Democrats who happen to also be pro-abortion. As examples, we cite the fate of RTL efforts in California and in the U.S. Congress.

We believe the above partial list shows why so many AZRTL members feel compelled to voice their disgust at this endorsement since Hayworth has not taken any positions against AZRTL priorities while McCain has. The PAC’s choice so weakens any future endorsement AZRTL PAC might give to other candidates that our members might wonder if their endorsed candidates really are the best on the life issues. It may be better for AZRTL to discontinue endorsements than to further destroy their credibility.

We leave in great sorrow, and would be even sadder if this discouragement with the PAC would be misconstrued as disappointment with current AZRTL leadership, especially Jinny and Joe Perron. They should only be applauded for standing up for the full AZRTL mission. Therefore, any comments you would like to make should be directed to the chairman of the AZRTL PAC, Walt Opaska,

Rob Haney, Past AZRTL PAC Member

Marne Haney, Past AZRTL Executive Board Member

*Earlier we had resigned from the PAC and AZRTL Executive Board when we were elected to AZGOP county and state leadership offices, to assuage any concerns regarding conflict of interests.


  1. LOL! Rob Haney is about the biggest McCain hater ever! Is there any organization he wouldn’t pretend to defect from if it endorsed McCain?

  2. So where is the news here?

    The other defector was a paid employee of J.D. A paid employee of J.D. and the biggest McCain hater in the state of Arizona, don’t agree with an endorsement of McCain. Wow. I am surprised this isn’t on the front page of the New York Times.

  3. Looks like McCainiacs got here first. If the AZ Right to Life want to be trusted in their endorsements in the future, they can’t endorse someone who says he is pro-life and talks differently about it when he isn’t running for office. Just like in most of his issues, Sen. McCain has “progressed” in his beliefs the longer he is in office.

  4. I’m getting sick of Haney’s whining. Just keep telling yourself how important you are Rob. Nobody really cares what you think.

  5. Has AZRTL gone nuts???

    It seems to me they just sold out to the highest bidder.

    Have you even seen McCain at their functions?

    I guess a big bank account is all that matters, the heck with principles.

    Where is the leadership of this group?

    Shame on you!!

  6. Walt Stephenson says

    Senator McCain has both State Law Enforcement and fire endorsements so will Sheriff Arpiao complain next? No, I think the Sheriff has to much class.

  7. Sounds like a Democrat line up of endorsements:
    Top down, not bottom up. Got the chairs and the boards, who endorse without consulting with or the consent of the majority of the members.

    Pro-Life means something. Pro-Abortion means something. How much support would anyone, including McCain get if they said they were pro-abortion and then voted Pro-Life consistently?

    The pro-abortion lobby would eat them alive, spit out their political bones and grind them to dust.

    So, simply withdrawing from an organization that says one thing and does another is quite mild in comparison. Join a more reliable group or start a new one and let people know what’s going on. This goes far beyond McCain and his campaign, to the integrity of the organization.

  8. The Haneys were the hardest working volunteers that group ever had. No one cared about AZRTL more than they did. Sad that the PAC put its own ties to McCain, with his poor record on this issue, over the best interests of AZRTL.

  9. Mr. Opaska – Thank you for endorsing Senator John McCain. He is a powerful voice in the US Senate for life, values and family.

    I would also like to express my disappointment with the behavior of Rob & Marne Haney. To cause division in the Pro-Life Movement plays into the hands of those who would like to solidify the powerful forces who would destroy life at every stage.

    Please do not allow this irrational political infighting on the part of the Haneys and some paid Hayworth campaign personnel to divide those who would work together to protect human life.

  10. Travis:

    Fetus experimentation and embryonic stem cell federal funding denote a dedication to life, values and family?

    And as a guy who has unhesitatingly supported pro-abortion politicans in the past, I get a kick out of your worries concerning “…division in the Pro Life Movement” playing into the hands of those who would like to solidify the powerful forces who would destroy life at every stage.

    Travis, you remind be of a bacteria complaining about disease!

    But you’re a tried and true member of the Republican establishment which tells the social conservative booboisee what they want to hear when up for election and then proceed to skewer them (see Gang of 14) when they return to Washington.

    Unfortunately, the good hearted but terminally naive John Jacubcyzk is an “easy mark” for this type of approach!

    Especially if he is at the same time, sucking up to the “Open Borders” crowd at the U.S.C.C.B and Tucson Diocese for a few bucks!

    If anything AZRTL like the GOP itself is crying for a new, dedicated but also sagacious leadership!

  11. Pretty Peeved says

    I always thought the whole point of having a single-issue group like Right to Life meant they, unlike other wide-reaching groups or even political parties, had the luxury of being pure. Pure in a sense of their issues are not complicated. Like the NRA. But when the group endorses a candidate who is not 100% pro life (he supports stem cell research) it’s just nuts. Arpaio, Thomas, the party people and even people like Haney are free to pick and choose and be “political” or even self-serving but AZRTL is not. They have a higher standard to meet. They’re not even really a political group. What a disappointment.

  12. Pretty Peeved says

    That being said, I hope Haney maintains his intellectual consistency and also quits his little leadership position in the local Republican Party as well.

  13. Stephen Kohut says

    Peeved had best get practiced at being peeved. With the MCRC dominated by conservatives 4 to 1 I doubt Haney is going anywhere. Sorry. Best try the Dimocrats.

  14. Who exactly quit or “defected” Right to Life over the McCain endorsement?
    It wasn’t the Haneys. They resigned prior to the endorsement….”*Earlier we had resigned from the PAC and AZRTL Executive Board when we were elected to AZGOP county and state leadership offices, to assuage any concerns regarding conflict of interests.”
    It looks to me like the Hayworth camp is mad and is now trying to make AZ Right to Life pay. Sad, but typical behavior.

  15. Double Decaf Latte says

    I’ve never liked the AZRighttoLifePAC, our party is way too focused on fetuses.

  16. tucsonblues says

    wanumba wrote:

    “Pro-Life means something. Pro-Abortion means something.”

    Here’s what they mean to me – A person claiming to be “pro-life” has to be anti-war and opposed to capital punishment. Otherwise, that person is merely “anti-abortion”.

    NOBODY is “pro-abortion”. To label people who support a woman’s right to choose as being “pro-abortion” is inflammatory and dishonest.

  17. Double Decaf Latte Says:
    May 22nd, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    I’ve never liked the AZRighttoLifePAC, our party is way too focused on fetuses

    Like you weren’t ever one yourself.
    Petri dish? Spontaneous generation out of a pile of smelly rags?

  18. Stephen Kohut says

    tucson blue,

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    A woman may do what she want with her body but she has not right to do anything detrimental to the body of the child, the fetus. No citizen may exercise their rights at the cost of anothers rights. BY definition pro-choice is pro-abortion is pro-murder.

    What God has granted, our inalienable right to life, neither man nor government may take.

  19. tucsonblues Says:
    May 22nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    wanumba wrote:

    “Pro-Life means something. Pro-Abortion means something.”

    Here’s what they mean to me – A person claiming to be “pro-life” has to be anti-war and opposed to capital punishment. Otherwise, that person is merely “anti-abortion”.

    How do you apply your “anti-war” and “pro-life” in the Hutu geonocide of the Tutsi?

    ALL the surviving Tusti are very very very glad General Kigame was “pro-life” through war.

    Your definition of “pro-life” was employed by the United Nations and Bill CLinton, refusing any and ALL military help to the moderate Hutu government who were murdered, refusing every plea for military reinforcements by the UN commander on the ground, worse, reducing his forces, thus resulting in 800,000 defenseless Tutsi hacked to death.
    It was only by the offensive drive of General Kigame and his rebel troops that the slaughter was stopped – when Kigame got word of the massacres, delared the ceasefire aggreement breached, null and void, hastily mobilized his troops and defeated by force the murderous Hutu extremist cabal. Kigame saved thousands and thousands of lives through military intervention, ignoring demands from Clinton Administration to stop fighting and negotiate … with what? Murderers. Negociate with mass murderers – yeah, THAT works.

    Hitler didn’t stop the Holocaust genocide, the United States military stopped it by defeating his murderous regime.

    Is it “pro-life” to not execute a murderer, but put him in prison where he kills two more people? Or parole him after twenty years for good behavior and he kills three more people? The guilty lives and the innocent die. WHat kind of “pro-life” is THAT?

  20. tucsonblues says

    Stephen Kohut:

    From your comment “What God has granted, our inalienable right to life, neither man nor government may take”, I take it you oppose war and capital punishment. If so, I respect your beliefs.
    In my experience many, if not most, of those claiming to be “pro-life” are also, inexplicably, pro-death penalty, and have no problem with killing innocent civilians in war, provided, of course, that those human beings are the “enemy”.
    To me, that is the height of hypocrisy.


    Your comments are nonsensical. Unless, of course, it’s your contention that killing “guilty” human beings is permissible, but killing “innocent” human beings is not.
    Tell me, were you outraged that we bombed civilian Iraqi children, as well as pregnant women? If not, please stop trumpeting your “pro-life” beliefs. At best, you’re “pro-fetus”.

  21. Randal P. says

    AZRTL has by McStain’s endorsement proven themselves to be a farce. Maricopa County Republican Party Chairman, Rob Haney and family did the right thing by refusing any further association with them until they make protecting innocent life their mission.

    Endorsing McNasty is not furthering the cause of protecting innocent life. Endorsing Hayworth is.

    Shame on Jakubczyk. And thank you to those who walked. You did the right thing.

  22. Pretty Peeved says

    I am assuming Haney was still there at AZRTL when they accepted McCain’s donations, right? Why didn’t he resign then?

    I understand MCRC is conservative-dominated. But it’s a subset of the state party.

    Is Haney going to quit the party if McCain wins the nomination?

  23. Pretty Peeved,
    You should already know the answer to your question. It is obvious. Haney won’t quit the party. He will work to destroy it.

  24. Stephen Kohut says


    There is nothing inexplicable about the death penalty. I suggest that you read the 5th amendment: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. The states does have the right to perform capital punishment under due process of law.

    War is a last resort but there are times when war is necessary for the survival of the nation. While civilian deaths are to be avoided where reasonably possible they are a fact of war.

  25. ……………..
    tucsonblues Says:
    May 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Your comments are nonsensical. Unless, of course, it’s your contention that killing “guilty” human beings is permissible, but killing “innocent” human beings is not

    SO, not nonsensical after all.
    But why the qualifying quotes on “guilty” and “innocent?”

    You consider a murderer “guilty” after being tried and found responsible for the murder of another, or plain ol’ guilty? If the person is found after examination by a court of law that he didn’t murder, they got the wrong guy and he’s released, then do you call him “innocent” or innocent?

    A baby in the womb hasn’t done ANYTHING wrong. Aren’t they then the epitome of innocent, no quotes?

  26. ……………….
    tucsonblues Says:
    May 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    Tell me, were you outraged that we bombed civilian Iraqi children, as well as pregnant women? If not, please stop trumpeting your “pro-life” beliefs.

    I notice that you are passing off established propaganda as truth. Spare us the hypocritical “pregnant women” schitck.

    I’ve been in humanitarian aid. I know United Nations people who worked in Iraq during Saddam, and after US troops went in, I’ve met the guy who was in charge of the UN camps for the Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
    Their field observations and provision of humanitarian aid to Iraqis does not provide any basis for this hysterical claim that our troops were willy-nilly bombing Iraqis.

    Anyone who retreats to the bogus statistics of Iraqi civilian deaths as presented in the Lancet journal is an active party to a lie. The Lancet’s credibility has yet to recover from the scandal that they rushed to publish un-verified, un-peer-reviewed statistics, in other words, pure B.S. designed SPECIFICALLY to make US troops look bad.

    THe media coverage of the Iraqi conflict has been proven to have been un-verified reports from patently partisan paid by the report stringers, presented to the public as “our correspondant.” This media disinformation campaign was pathetically easy to check … People picked up the telephone and CALLED friends and family in Iraq…”DID THIS happen?”
    I like the one about the Iraqi family that had been reported as slaughtered. They got the report of their untimely demise and emailed a group pix: “We’re NOT dead!”

    So, why don’t you buy a tourist tour to Iraq, spend some time seeing the incredible historical sites and ASK Iraqis face to face how American troops conducted themselves instead of repeating what has been proven to be bunk?

    Isn’t the TRUTH what’s important, NOT what we THINK? We don’t THINK much of anything without proper facts.

    SO, tell me YOUR contribution. I tell you this: Nothing I’ve ever done measures to what our pro-life troops have done:

  27. Let’s just say that I warned the organization that this would happen before the endorsement was released. The National Right to Life PAC was also asked to intervene.

  28. DSW #27 it is refreshing to understand the National Right to Life PAC did not intervene.

    S.K.#24 your understanding of due process is certainly a welcome improvement to your intelligence.
    You know as a matter of due process the American Women have the right to decide if and when they want to breed and if and when not.
    And they do not need to ask a spiritually indoctrinated Stallionist for permission.

  29. Pretty Peeved says

    Horst is right, but once women make the decision to “breed” they can’t change their mind half-way through as they’ve already introduced another party to the situation.

  30. …………….
    Horst Kraus Says:
    May 23rd, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    American Women have the right to decide if and when they want to breed and if and when not.
    And they do not need to ask a spiritually indoctrinated Stallionist for permission

    New to cattle ranching?

  31. Stephen Kohut says


    Stallionist? If this some new word used exclusively on nudist ranches?

    The Declaration on Independence is very clear on our right to life. You have actually read it, haven’t you?

  32. Frances Emma Barwood says

    As a former supporter of John McCain, I will not support him at all. Not only is he a middle of the road right to lifer where he feels that abortion is all right if the pregnancy is unplanned but his wife, Cindy, and daughter, Meghan, have been campaigning across the country for gay marriage and gay adoption. It shows the core values of the McCain family.
    I cannot believe that people are so fooled by his words they do not see his actions.
    Or is it just blind idol worship?

  33. Oh I just feel terrible for JD, this clearly has them very disturbed. Seriously, we have seen almost every organization and peer put in support and endorsements for McCain, why on earth would his fans be surprised?? It is NOT as if JD carries this moral capacity beyond recognition, quite the opposite in fact. JD has certainly made himself out to be this conservative perfectionist, but I know for a fact, his own life history does not represent this conservative logo he is trying to create for himself.

  34. Arizona Ranger says


    When this kind of totally illogical event occurs, there is one and only one explanation: it’s political! By that I mean that John has sold out to McCain, pure and simple. McLame made a “deal” with him to get the endorsement of the Right to LIfe group. We will follow this very closely and the truth will shortly come to light. McLame BOUGHT this endorsement! This endorsement is for a candidate (McLame) that is the epitome of HYPOCRISY (see the above statement by Haney) with this wife and daughter being the shills for gay marriage and gay rights. And did anyone mention that his wife Cindy had an abortion? Once again, facts are stranger than fiction!
    I am sure that the thousands of good and well meaning members of the Right to Life group will want to express there “dissatisfaction” with the actions of John Jacubczyk in their own special way. Good luck John, you just earned the title of “Arizona Hypocrite of the Year” Goo johnie boy!

  35. It’s not the first time the top has sold out the rank and file. Glad we’ve been told so people can donate their time and money to other organizations that still retain their commitment and vision, especially with such an important issue.

  36. Aliens are Coming says

    Frances Emma,

    I can’t resist. Perhaps Cindy and Megan were kidnapped by those aliens you saw floating over the city of Phoenix, right before you were elected Secretary of State…

    Cindy and Megan are grown women who can make their own choices. It has nothing to do with how John McCain votes. In fact, he pissed off the gay community by going on ELLEN during the presidential race and saying he is against gay marriage, and that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    Would you support marriage between a man and an alien, Frances?

  37. tucsonblues says

    wanumba writes: “Isn’t the TRUTH what’s important, NOT what we THINK?”

    Yes, indeed. Truth is, bombs kill indiscriminately. How many innocent civilian deaths do you find acceptable?

    A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stated that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.

    “Pro-life troops”?? You’re living in a fantasy world.

  38. Marne Haney says

    Dear Lurker, AZRTL is made up of many dedicated members who volunteer for the organization without a title role beyond that: dedicated volunteers. God bless them and no non-profit can exist long without their quiet generosity. When we resigned from our positions earlier we did not resign our membership, volunteer work or stop our donations. If you attended our many events you would have seen us!

  39. Marne – Nice job lecturing someone for talking about your resignation/non-resignation because you posted a resignation with a headline about your resignation where you resigned, but didn’t resign. So your lecture comment about not resigning on your post about resigning is, well…typical for you.

  40. Stephen Kohut says


    Freedom is never free. Freedom has always been bought with blood. Whether that was our Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW II, etc., it always comes at a cost. There is always a level of civilain lives lost. If the choices are no freedom and no loss of civilian lives versus freedom and loss of civilian lives I will take freedom every time.

    You are living in a fantasy world of how life is. If you think the cost of freedom is high than look at the cost of not having freedom:

    China under Mao – 60M killed
    USSR under Stalin – 20M killed
    Germany under Hitler – 20M killed
    Campodia under Phol Pot ….
    Iraq under Saddam Hussein …..
    Rwanda under …..
    Sudan under …..

    The list of civilans killed by and wars started by bloody dictators and tyrannical government is endless. Get the point?

    The lack of freedom costs more lives than does the act of obtaining and protecting it.

  41. OK…so where is the big story? That the Haney’s left a group for supporting McCain? Really? That in the letter they go on and on with their righteous disapproval of the Catholic Church and continue with their standard name calling routine…this is news?

    Perhaps the most telling in all of this is the comment… “The National Right to Life PAC was also asked to intervene.”

    They were “asked to intervene” and obviously did not. I wonder if they sent the Haney’s a fruit basket wishing them well in their next endeavor.

    The politicizing of the Right to Life issue has been the practice of the Haney’s as a means to their own self-promotion for years and now is being used by JD.

    Hey..can we please have JD talk about HIS record, HIS spending, HIS life? OOPS…I get it now.

  42. Interested Onlooker says


    And vapid platitudes without any touch of intellectual depth regarding issues remain you’re stock in trade!

    Who are you performing valet service for now?

  43. ……………….
    tucsonblues Says:
    May 24th, 2010 at 12:43 am
    How many innocent civilian deaths do you find acceptable?
    You plan to outlaw cars, too, for the amount of civilian deaths they cause a year?
    Boats? Bicycles? Dogs? Horses? Honey Bees? Lightening? Steak? Chicken? Shrimp? Mold? Sofa beds? Soccer goal frames? Hammers? Power drills?

    “A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stated that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.”

    Care to mention that the bulk is directed attacks against civilians by Islamic radicals, usually funded by the Iranians, and that there would be fewer civilian casualities involved with US troops if the terrorists didn’t deliberately use civilians as human shields?
    Our troops spend quite a bit of time trying to figure out new ways to get the civilians out of the way when terrorists hide behind them, hold them hostage or deliberately attack from civilian areas like schools in the hopes our troops will fire back and hit the school, and thus hurt kids.

    You are all so concerned about “civilian deaths unaaceptable” so where are your condemnations of the terrorists and their Iranian funding sources that provide them their arms to kill civilians? Their bombs for schools? They spend their time thinking up new ways to slaughter more civilians, who are defenseless.


  44. The Mole says

    RTL will not get another dime from me.

  45. JumpingThruHoops says

    Ditto for us, Joe. We too are sick of the Hanies whining about McCain. The GOP are eating their own again on the eve of victory.

  46. How come the Hanies are being criticized and not McCain who is trolling for Pro-Life endorsements while voting pro-abortion?

    Evidently he perceives Pro-Life is important to a desirable number of voters so…Is he going to vote Pro-Life from now on? Ah… HOW MUCH are we supposed to bet on that given his decades-long record? Is he promising to vote Pro-Life and then vote “whatever” after he holds on to the People’s seat? Is he promising something else like a staff position or a plum job somewhere or a plug for something else so he can get an endorsement from a Pro-Life advocay group but still vote the way he has voted in the past?

    Hello? What do WE (Los Voters) all get out of all these contradictory machinations?

  47. tucsonblues says


    Care to provide proof for your contention that “the bulk is directed attacks against civilians by Islamic radicals”? Last I heard, no “Islamic radical” possessed a single B-52 or cruise missile. And then there’s the inconvenient fact that WE initiated the war. It was WE who attacked and invaded a poor third-world country that posed no threat to us.
    But let’s say you’re right. In your world, since the U.S. killed fewer innocent civilians than “they” did, that somehow makes us the good guys. And let’s not forget the 5000 “pro-life” American servicemen and women who were sent to their deaths.
    The real point, though, is this: You’re immovable in your belief that unborn, potential human beings must be protected. But once they’re born, you have all sorts of rationalizations why it’s perfectly fine to murder some of them in cold blood.
    Careful whom you label “hypocrite”.

  48. My version of Pro-Life, millions and millions of fewer people survive. Your version of “pro-life” millions and millions die.

    There’s a word for that, and it isn’t “hypocrite,” it’s “evil.”

  49. My version of Pro-life, millions of millions of people survive. Your version of “pro-life”, millions of millions of people die.

    There’s a word for that, and it isn’t “hypocrisy,” it’s “evil.”

  50. Mike Lane says

    Marne–resigning from your “position” while supporting ARTL in every other way is worthless and dilutes any moral standing you may claim. It’s time for Gerster to go. It is way past time for Jakubczyk to go. They put personal ties, photo opportunities and donations above principle. While I am not surprised when they do such things, I am always sickened.

    If ARTL is not radically changed from the inside it’s time for a new pro-life group that will put principles above all. Failure to do so will further erode the meaning–well, what it SHOULD mean–to be pro-life.

    One more thing. I have noticed that those who support the decision of the ARTL PAC are unable to defend it based on voting records and related work. And they certainly can’t defend it on moral grounds. Those who support the PAC decision either cannot defend it intellectually or morally–or they think abortion should not be a political issue (AKA they’re pro-abortion).

Leave a Reply