That said, I go to a local abortion clinic every Saturday to do what I can to give women alterntives. (I carry contact information of women’s centers here who truly help women materially and spiritually.) What I see there convinces me that Roe v. Wade must be overturned to protect women. Every Saturday I see women being literally shoved into the clinic, literally the hand on the back shoving, or dragging by the arm from the front. Several weeks ago I witnessed an African American woman in the foyer on her knees in front of an African American man, clutching his shirt, looking up at him with eyes that were brimming with agony. I don’t think I have ever in my whole life witnessed such naked pain on anyone’s face. And he knocked her hands free from his shirt, and with a look of just horrible disdain, he smoothed out the fabric of his fine pink shirt, and then he pointed at the interior door of the clinic.

I wanted to kill him. Seriously It’s a good thing I’m a Christian. But she went.

If abortion were illegal, the law would be on her side. She would have had the moral right to say, I won’t do anything illegal. Now, presently, she has nothing to back her up except “her feelings” and evidentally there are too many women whose feelings don’t count for much in this world. Because I see them every Saturday.

Roe v. Wade must be overturned, if it takes a civil war. Just as we expect there should have been a civil war in Germany over the Jews. Or in Israel now over the Palestinians, for that matter. Much later, what side you were on during this election may matter to future generations just as much. Obama has committed himself to over-turning every state amelioration of abortion or limitation.

Oh how we need a candidate with liberal economic policies and firm social values on gay marriage, divorce, and abortion.

I also find your arguments on the gay marriage issue to be very weak. You cite a study that says that the ideal home environment for children is with a married man and a woman. What does that have to do with the issue? Even if gay MARRIAGE is not permitted, gay couples will still live together, and if they have children, the children will still live there. The only possible study that could have any relevance on this issue would be a study that said children who grow up with gay parents who are not married fare worse than those who have gay parents who are married. You cite no such study, probably because common sense dictates that children will thrive most in home settings that are more stable, not less. Your only other argument is that we should support a gay marriage ban because it supports the breeding of terrorists. Are you serious? Does that mean if in some radical version of Islam the lack of honor killings would be sign of “moral laxity” that we should enact laws that support honor killings? Come on. At least make a rational argument before you suggest that we compromise on all issues of social justice.

These days Judicial nominees are rarely extreme on the ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ sides. You usually can’t get such a nominee past the vetting and approval of the Congress. They also do not want to offer comments on hypothetical cases. To do so would be pre-judging a case and considered a huge faux pas in the nomination process and by his or her peers. You have their past decisions to look to and any papers published over their careers. More than the conservative or liberal labels, you are dealing with strict constructionists or intent when you are talking about a judicial nominee’s perspective on how to interpret the Constitution.

It is also rare that the Court will take an extreme activist role. When it does it comes to either reverse itself or be supported by laws at the local, state, or federal level. Some judicial activism I’m sure we’d all agree was good – Brown v. Board. Some we can all agree was bad – Dred Scott decision. Some are debatable for people.

Ultimately, the author is correct. Even if Roe is overturned, it will be sent back to the states. Some will ban abortions, some will allow them. All will have fresh debates on a local level.

DC, you paint with broad strokes a complex institution made of millions of individuals with two thousand years of theological, moral, and social teachings. You have some valid points, those economic concerns do have a high correlation to abortion statistics. Why cannot both the laws and the economics be addressed? If you do not want us to be single, or double, issue voters, then why should we not expect to have more than one policy agenda?

I’ll continue to support my faith (Catholic) in its life teachings. I’ll help others to better understand it. I will meditate, pray, and thoughtfully examine my beliefs to continue growing personally and help me make (hopefully) wise and good decisions every day, and on Election Day.

The letter can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf

Furthermore, this insistence that gay unions (to not even speak of marriage, in the religious sense) somehow cheapen the institution of marriage is absolutely ridiculous– the fact that these people seek to solidify their relationships in marriage should speak to the respect our culture has for that institution, irregardless of the rampant culture of divorce, for which the blame falls squarely “traditional” couples.

Being a one-issue or two-issue voter is ultimately narrow-minded, bad for the country, and reflects a lack of understanding of the complexity and interrelatedness of all of what we might consider to be “moral” issues.