Mike Huckabee Says He's The Strongest Republican on Abortion Issues

Here's the story: Mike Huckabee Says He's The Strongest Republican on Abortion Issues

Here's a quote:

When it comes to the Republican presidential candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee insists in a new interview that he is the strongest. He says that's because none of the other top-tier GOP hopefuls support a human life amendment to the Constitution as he does. While Rudy Giuliani is clearly pro-abortion, the human life amendment has been a stick subject among the leading pro-life Republican candidates.

Huckabee has sought to use it to separate himself from the pack.

He points out that both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson support overturning Roe v. Wade but don't go along with the Constitutional amendment.

Romney has said it is a long-term goal and Thompson has said he opposes an amendment and has overturning Roe as his top pro-life goal.

Those positions put Huckabee at the top of the list of pro-life candidates, he told the Washington Examiner in a Friday interview.

"If abortion is a political issue, and that's all it is, then fine, have 50 versions," Huckabee said. "But if we have determined, as many of us have, that it's a moral issue, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."

I completely agree with the things Mike Huckaee says about the abortion issue.

I just wish there weren't so many problems with Mike Huckabee.

More on that after the jump...

Fred Thompson Discusses Mike Huckabee's Positions On Sanctuary Cities, Taxes

Here's the thing: Huckabee is pro-life, and I'm not troubled by his religious views like Godless people would be, but I am troubled by the fact that Huckabee is a big government "conservative" (who sounds a lot more like a pro-life Democrat than a conservative Republican).

Fred Thompson was right to call him a pro-life liberal. Huckabee's positions on illegal immigration are of concern. He's big government. He's into raising taxes. He's into using government to regulate people's lifestyles (in terms of healthy eating and getting folks to quit smoking).

Here's evidence:

Huckabee Begs For New Taxes

How Many Times has Huckabee Fibbed about his Gas Tax?

Huckabee Won't Say No To Tax Increase

Huckabee Backed Scholarships For Illegal Immigrants

Mike Huckabee refuses to support the President's veto of SCHIP during the GOP Presidential Debate on October 9, 2007 :

Obviously, I'd (reluctantly) vote for Mike Huckabee over Hillary in a national election, but he's not a conservative.

He'll never be the front runner on the ticket this time. I had feared he could be picked as a Vice-Presidential candidate, but now, not so much.

It sounds like people in the know have his number, and I strongly suspect that Huckabee is soon going to experience something very like what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (who have yet to be proven wrong in their claims) did when John Kerry was running for President from citizens of Arkansas who are very unhappy with how he ran the state during his time there as governor.

One big difference: most of these folks who will be warning us about Huckabee will be conservatives and libertarians who oppose higher taxes and big government, i.e. people who would ordinarily be supporting a Republican. These are people who are not the natural enemies of Republican candidates. I suspect that will be very damaging to Huckabee.

Conservatives, by definition, don't want big government and higher taxes, whether they're "social conservatives" or "fiscal conservatives". So I'm not clear on how Huckabee plans to convince conservatives to stop being conservative, especially given the fact that the main complaint genuine conservatives have had with President Bush and the Republicans in Congress has been their out of control spending, which was initially sold as "compassionate conservatism", but is, in reality, an attempt to undo the myth that liberals care, whereas conservatives are greedy and heartless. It's bad fiscal policy that ultimately solves nothing, but creates the illusion of compassion. Republicans don't support tax cuts because they're selfish and greedy. Republicans support tax cuts because they work.

Huckabee's big government, tax and spend policies would definitely resonate with liberal Democrats, but that doesn't seem to impress liberals like Bill Maher. Big government, tax and spend liberals are not going to vote for a Christian fundamentalist who is opposed to abortion (at least he gets that right) and is a young earth creationist. (Video: Mike Huckabee and Bill O'Reilly on religion, creation and evolution)

I'm troubled that Huckabee has been caught being dishonest about his record as a tax raiser and that he has claimed that taxes he initiated were voted for by the people of Arkansas (which is simply not true).

Then there's the way he help a rapist get out of jail and the rapist ended up sexually assaulting another woman and then murdering her.

From Wikipedia:

Huckabee has also come under criticism for his handling of the case of Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist who was released during Huckabee's governorship and who subsequently sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in Missouri. Dumond's case had attracted national attention in the mid 1990s from critics of President Bill Clinton who felt the former Arkansas Governor had been too harsh with Dumond because Dumond's victim was a distant Clinton relative. Even before taking office, Huckabee met with Dumond's wife and privately announced his intention that Dumond be set free, stating his unhappiness with the way Clinton had handled the case. Dumond was castrated prior to his trial; he stated that he was attacked by two men in his home (though district prosecutor Gene Raff suggested it was a case of self-mutilation and a urologist who'd studied the topic told the Forrest City Times-Herald that self-mutilation isn't that rare among psychologically disturbed sex offenders.) On September 20, 1996, Huckabee publicly announced his intention of commuting Dumond's sentence based on the commutation given by Jim Guy Tucker, who had served as governor during Clinton's presidential run and had overseen the case. There was strong opposition to Huckabee's plan, leaving Huckabee in a difficult situation politically. On October 31, 1996, Huckabee met privately with the parole board to talk about the Dumond case. On January 16, 1997, Dumond was granted parole, just five months after he had been rejected. Huckabee released a statement saying, "I concur with the board's action and hope the lives of all those involved can move forward. The action of the board accomplishes what I sought to do in considering an earlier request for commutation ...In light of the action of the board, my original intent to commute the sentence to time served is no longer relevant." His full disclosure of the incident is described in his book From Hope to Higher Ground.

Dumond had been sentenced to life in prison until 1992, when Tucker reduced the sentence to 39 1/2 years which made Dumond eligible for parole. The parole was granted on the condition that another state take him. Wayne Dumond moved to Kansas City in 2000 and was convicted there of sexually assaulting and murdering a woman that lived near his home. Wayne Dumond died in prison in 2005.

I think that Republicans would be safe with Fred Thomson or even Mitt Romney with respect to the abortion issue. I'm not as sure about John McCain. I have serious doubts about Rudy Guiliani.

If there weren't other Republican pro-life candidates, I think I'd have to vote for Huckabee. Given Huckabee's record, I thank God we have other options.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Nicholas Schmidt]

An entire pro-life GOP discussion without a mention of Ron Paul?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23154.html

[Daniel]

Ron Paul is more pro-life than Huckabee.

First off, Quinto, you don't have the guts to let this post past moderation.

Secondly, when are you hypocrites going to quit attacking democratic candidates for espousing democratic party principles?

Anyone who gives any money to any "catholic" church, any where, is an enabler. You're paying the church to hire "priests" to molest kids. If Kerry voting for abortion is guilty of mortal sin, how much more culpable are those who pay for priests to molest children?

Not a comfortable subject, eh?

It's easier to point fingers at someone else. But the facts remain - if Kerry was paying to keep some abortionist in hearth and home, you'd be howling that he wasn't really a true Catholic. And yet you hypocrites continue to give Judas his 30 pieces of silver!

Your diocese takes a 15% cut of every penny you give to your local church - what percentage does the Vatican get? If the "pope" was feeling the hit, you better believe Mahoney would be out of there. But he's not, so Mahoney's not and you pay to keep them in place.

I'll believe the catholic church is serious about saving souls when it gets rid of Mahoney - and any pope who keeps him in his job.

[joanne]

"You're paying the church to hire "priests" to molest kids."
This is illogical and far from the truth. No one pays the church to do this. The church doesn't "hire" priests, and it doesn't ask or require anyone to molest kids. Of course, the Church doesn't believe in the molestation of children or anyone else. It doesn't happen because the Church believes in it or promotes it, but because no human person is exempt from sin and temptation, even priests. A small minority of priests gave into sexual temptations and seriously wounded the Church (people and institution) by their actions. Some bishops made matters worse by neglecting to support the victims.
Kerry is pro-choice, therefore pro-abortion. He believes in killing children and votes for women's "right" to kill children.
The only part of the anonymous commentary above that I can agree with is the part about Cardinal Mahoney. I don't understand the reasons for ignoring his antics. Does anyone?

[Joseph-USA]

Cardinal Mahoney remains in place because the pope and all the American and European bishops are anti-American Leftist social engineers who see Mahoney as a HUGE Democrat Party (i.e. Communist) supporter who is helping destroy the national sovereignty of America by subsidizing the Mexican illegal alien invasion of America which our STUPID Internationalist Country Club Republican G.W. Bush fomented right after he took his first million dollar bribe from Wal-Mart or whomever financed his two $300,000,000 election campaigns.

We all tend to live a long time nowadays. President Bush will be hung for Treason some day in the future and I will be in the audience CHEERING!

[Bladerunner]

Let's see--the headline on the post was Huckabee says he's the strongest Republican on abortion issues.

Then the post concedes the point but rants on about how Huckabee isn't conservative enough on other issues.

Funny, when Catholic Democrats jump up and down about how consistent their candidate is with Catholic social teaching, some one like the poster or Cardinal O'Malley comes forth and sermonizes that abortion trumps all other issues.

And that logic doesn't apply in the GOP presidential field because?

[Thomistic]

Bladerunner,

As I said within the post, if Huckabee were the only pro-life option, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

I'd pick Huckabee over Giuliani any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think pro-life Republicans would be safe with Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or even Ron Paul (though he's not electable in a national election and therefore only a serious candidate in the minds of people who are so bitter about the political system and big government that they have lost touch with reality).

So I don't think Huckabee's pro-life stance, even if it is a great one, is enough to rule out other pro-life candidates whose goal is ostensibly the same, but who differ on the means by which that goal should be achieved.

So I don't see how what I've said here means I don't think abortion is the most important issue. I won't vote for baby-killers. Period.

How many national Democratic candidates are pro-life? Do you know?

How many Democratic presidential candidates are pro-life?

Do you vote for baby-killers, Bladerunner?

Pax,

Thomistic

[Thomistic]

(I add here my response to Bladerunner from another post.)

Bladerunner,

It sounds like you are working overtime to justify voting for baby-killers who not only do nothing at all to end legal, elective abortion (which you, for reasons that completely mystify me, seem to think is compatible with "Catholic social teaching" or at least not enough to demonstrate that a candidate is morally unfit to hold political office), but also openly claim to believe that legal, elective abortion is a human "right", and who actively work to prevent any effort to end this evil practice.

Legal, elective abortion is murder.

I realize that many people are desensitized to this and therefore feel comfortable fantasizing that it's appropriate to put the issue on the back burner by lumping abortion with other issues instead of realizing that elective abortion violates a fundamental human right – the right to life – without which, other rights cannot be enjoyed at all, but they need to realize it.

They need to recognize that a candidates who supports legal, elective abortion (for whatever reasons or circumstances that candidate offers as acceptable), or one who is indifferent to ending the practice of legal, elective abortion, is morally defective.

If a candidate supported safe, legal rape, or was indifferent to keeping rape illegal, nobody would suggest voting for them, no matter how promising their other ideas sounded.

The fact that people tolerate candidates supporting legal, elective abortion (for whatever reasons or circumstances that candidate offers as acceptable), or one who is indifferent to ending the practice of legal, elective abortion demonstrates how desensitized and obtuse people in our culture have become.

Even if your contention that the GOP has delivered little is true, the Republicans don't openly promote legal, elective abortion, and they've done some things to end the practice.

Additionally, I would posit that any truth to the claim that Republicans have done little to end abortion is largely due to the fact that Democrats have done their best to keep the Supreme Court from having justices who will overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there is little that any legislator can do about abortion, so it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that Republicans haven't delivered on the promises of their party platform.

Republicans have put Clarance Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Sandra Day O'Conner was a disappointment, as was David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.

O'Connor's rulings on the issue of abortion were those that were perhaps most widely considered controversial. In her confirmation hearings and early days on the court, she was carefully ambiguous on the issue, as some conservatives questioned her anti-abortion credentials on the basis of certain of her votes in the Arizona legislature. O'Connor generally dissented from opinions in the 1980s which took an expansive view of Roe v. Wade and criticized that decision's "trimester approach" sharply in her dissent in 1983's Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O'Connor's opinion introduced a new test that reined in the unrestricted freedom from regulation during the first trimester as proscribed by Roe v. Wade. Whereas before the regulatory powers of the State could not intervene so early in the pregnancy, O'Connor opened a regulatory portal where a State could enact measures so long as they did not place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion.

From 1990-93, David Souter tended to be a conservative-leaning Justice, although more in the mold of Anthony Kennedy than Antonin Scalia or William Rehnquist. In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time.

The symbolic turning point came in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade. Souter and Anthony Kennedy each considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion which upheld all the restrictions in the Casey case except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution. Roe was decided by a 7 to 2 vote, though Casey was 5 to 4.

In 1992, Anthony Kennedy joined O'Connor and David Souter to form the troika who delivered the plurality opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which re-affirmed in principle (though not in many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Kennedy voted to uphold the restrictions on abortion at issue and considered going as far as to overturn Roe but switched that aspect of his vote during the consideration of Casey). The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by the anti-Roe presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy, however, dissented in the 2000 decision of Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down laws criminalizing partial-birth abortion.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in 2007's Gonzales v. Carhart which held that a federal law criminalizing partial birth abortion did not violate the principles of Casey because it did not impose an "undue burden". The decision did not overrule Stenberg.

O'Conner is gone. (Thanks be to God!) Once John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy are gone and are replaced by solid conservatives who won't legislate from the bench, Republicans in the legislative branches will be forced to either work to end legal, elective abortion, or be voted out of office by the Republican base.

Meanwhile, Catholic Democrats will apparently continue to rationalize that their utopian fantasies about social justice (which often resemble socialism, which has been condemned by the Church and which has failed every single time its been implemented in history) justify voting for baby-killers who openly claim that legal, elective abortion is a human right (as part of their party platform, no less) and who stridently oppose any effort to end the evil of legal, elective abortion (and who also support things like legal recognition of homosexual unions, which is absolutely unsupportable in Catholic theology and would quicken the destruction of the family unit that began with the widespread acceptance of easy divorce laws and the widespread use of artificial contraception).

The fantasy with Catholic Democrats is that the worthless solutions proposed and/or implemented by Democrats are the only moral solution compatible with principles of justice. Despite the fact that many of these policies have been implemented for a long time, but have done little or nothing to solve the problems they were supposed to solve, Catholic Democrats ignore the fact that it is insane to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Instead they, along with mainstream Democrats, continue to push for a socialistic nanny state, which destroys economies, creates more poverty and dependence than they alleviate (which is to the benefit of power-hungry politicians), and have failed every time they have been tried in history.

You seem to have bought into the "seamless garment" fantasy. Poorly formed Catholics have used the seamless garment fantasy to salve their consciences and justify voting for babykillers for some time.

I want to add my response to another commenter from another post to clarify my position.

The commenter, in defense of voting for pro-abortion Democrats, said:

I just want to respectfully remind you all that "life" is not just about abortion. Being pro-life means providing healthcare to everyone, a solid education, end-of-life care, and, of course, opposing the death penalty. Not to mention international issues, like how we deal with war, conflict, disease, hunger, etc. Life is a complex issue, and being pro-life means ensuring that all people are taken care of in all stages of their life.

I replied:

The "seamless garment" error is flawed for many reasons.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil and is morally licit. This has been Church teaching from the beginning, and Church teaching on matters of faith and morals cannot change.

The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405. In response to a query from the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I based his position on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He wrote:

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.

(Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, February 20, 405, PL 20,495)

Innocent III:

The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.

(Innocent III, DS 795/425)

Pius XII:

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.

(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)

Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).

(Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

Pope John Paul II did not reverse Church teaching on the death penalty, although many poorly formed Catholics think he did. Church teaching on matters of faith and morals cannot change – ever. No pope can change what the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals (in terms of dogma and doctrine). Disciplines can change, but dogma and doctrines about matters of faith and morals cannot change.

Another problem with the "seamless garment" fantasy is that it makes lesser goods the equal of higher, more important goods. While health care is a good, it is subordinate to the right to life. Without life, there can be no health care.

While Catholics must work to ensure that all human persons are not lacking in what is essential to human dignity, they can differ on how to go about achieving this end. It is not a moral requirement that government provide health care for everyone. Those who propose that it should seem to ignore the fact that socialized medicine has been a disaster every time it has been tried and those countries who have it now have tremendous problems.

A just government should facilitate individuals being able to access the things essential to human dignity, but it is not an essential role of a just government to have absolute control over any industry, and when governments do control industries, they generally bleed money and are rife with inefficiency.

Why would Democrats think that the government can solve problems through government sponsored health care, when most (if not all) existing government agencies are demonstrably frustrating and even ineffective in performing their purported functions and which, when compared to privatized counterparts are almost complete failures? (One example is Federal Express and UPS as opposed to the U.S. Postal Service).

Those who think the government should provide health care for everyone need to reflect on where they draw the line. Should the government buy all our food for us and buy us all homes, as well? Surely food and shelter are even more basic needs than the need for health care. Where does the call to have the government act as mommy and daddy to all citizens end?

Regardless of one's perspective on that issue, reasonable people can disagree about how to provide health care.

As for war, the Church clearly teaches that there is such a thing as just war. The conditions for just war are explained here: Just War Doctrine

War is not intrinsically evil, but abortion is intrinsically evil. So the two cannot be equal. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not a given conflict meets the criterion for a just war. Pope Benedict said as much here: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

There are other problems with the "seamless garment" covered in this article: Seamless Garment or Political Comforter?

The bottom line: life is a complex issue, but it isn't complex to understand that elective abortion is intrinsically evil and may never be tolerated. There is not more than one way to deal with the evil of abortion. It must be outlawed. Reasonable people can disagree about how to resolve the other complex issues of life, but directly killing the innocent, whether by abortion, so-called "assisted suicide", or euthanasia is intrinsically evil, an objectively serious sin, and may never be tolerated under any circumstances.

I would recommend reading the following links for further explanations of authentic Catholic teaching on these issues:

From EWTN: A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters

From Catholic Answers: Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics

From Pope Benedict XVI: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

As for pro-choice Republican candidates, I have already spoken out on that issue, but I will repeat what bears repeating:

It is annoying to hear pundits repeat, ad nauseum, that it doesn't matter that Giliani is pro-abortion (they would call him "pro-choice" or a "supporter of abortion rights"). People want us to believe that it doesn't matter that Giuliani believes abortion to be a fundamental civil right and that women should be free to choose whether or not to hire a doctor to murder her unborn child (usually for the sake of convenience), all that matters, they tell us, is that Giuliani has promised us the right kind of Supreme Court justices.

Let's try that same logic with another morally repugnant position instead of abortion. How does it sound to say that it doesn't matter that Candidate X believes child molestation to be a fundamental civil right and that child molesters should be free to choose whether or not molest children, all that matters, they tell us, is that Candidate X has promised us the right kind of Supreme Court justices?

We are approaching primary elections, not the general election. There's no compelling reason to act as though Giuliani's definitely going to be the nominee and/or belittle anyone who doesn't support his candidacy by calling them unreasonable, intolerant, and/or "purists" and suggest that by remaining faithful to their moral values and refusing to vote for Giuliani, or consider him a morally viable candidate, they will destroy the Republican party and put Hillary in the White House. Doing that sends the wrong message. It creates the illusion of Giuliani's inevitability, and in so doing, wittingly or unwittingly encourages people to think they'd better support Rudy now, when that's just not the case at all.

The best way to prevent people from occasioning the death of social conservatism by voting for Giuliani in the primaries is by convincing people Giuliani can't win. How can that be accomplished when so many conservatives are assuring everyone that social conservatives will have to vote for Giuliani if he gets the nomination and mocking anyone who is strongly opposed to his candidacy at this point?

Republicans who support traditional values need to do all they can to prevent Giuliani from winning the nomination, because he doesn't support our values. This is especially so given the fact that there's absolutely no compelling reason to support him, because there's zero evidence that he's the only one who can beat Hillary (despite the claims of some pundits who want us to believe that because it suits their values and/or agenda).

What will Catholic Republicans who've preached Giuliani's inevitability do when the Church repeats Her teaching that Catholics can't vote for candidates who support legal, elective abortion? The Catholic Church isn't going to stop teaching that just because you've chosen a pro-abortion Republican candidate for your nominee. Church teaching has worked to your advantage so long as elections have involved pro-abortion Democrats vs. pro-life Republicans, but don't let that lull you into confusing the Catholic Faith with the Republican party.

I also suggest reading these posts from Roman Catholic Blog:

Senator Barack Obama: Christianity Has Been “Hijacked” By The “Christian Right”

Jesus Was Not A Liberal

Pope Benedict XVI Warns Catholic Politicians Who Back Abortion

Rudy Giuliani On Abortion: "Very Good People Of Equally Good Conscience Could Come To Different Opinions"

Sr. Joan Is Full Of Chit

Pray For Fr. Robert F. Drinan, S.J.

Drinan's Funeral

A Priest Writes To Nancy Pelosi

Pax,

Thomistic

[Jeffrey]

Ron Paul, not electable? There are a growing number of people learning not to underestimate him.
As an OB/GYN who is pro-life, he is able to eloquently discuss his position in the face of opposition very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Also, I invite all to check out this site:
http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/

I hope I haven't done anything wrong by randomly throwing in some hyperlinks here, but I thought them appropriate.
God bless

[Joseph]

Jeffrey,

You forgot the most appropriate link--Thomas Wood's "An Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Behalf of Ron Paul":

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html