The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference says:

One of the most-watched races in the April 27 Pennsylvania Primary Election is that between Republicans Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Pat Toomey. These two candidates are vying for one of Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate seats.

Campaign ads have been running in media markets throughout the state. But just where do the candidates stand on the issues? The candidates' voting records, the endorsements they've received, and their own words demonstrate their positions to voters.

Congressman Pat Toomey, in his response to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference's election questionnaire, said he supports legal protection for unborn children if Roe v. Wade is overturned. He has been endorsed by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation PAC, Pro-Life PAC of Southeastern PA, and LIFEPAC. He has a 100 percent pro-life rating from the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and has voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and legislation to ban human cloning.

Sen. Arlen Specter, who supports abortion rights, did not respond to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference questionnaire. He received a 100 percent rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (now NARAL Pro-Choice America) in 2002. He received a 75 percent rating from the nation's top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. While he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, he has otherwise been a consistent supporter of legislation that would expand abortion access. He also sponsored a human cloning ban that pro-life organizations considered a sham, since it would allow for the creation of human clones so long as they were subsequently killed rather than implanted in the womb.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, Sen. Specter has said it is premature to amend the Constitution to make marriage between only a man and a woman, and that the matter should be left to the states. He would consider a Constitutional Amendment if states cannot preserve the tradition of marriage, a spokesperson told the Philadelphia Inquirer. He did not make any comment on whether states will have a choice whether to recognize such marriages if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that they are bound by the U.S.

Constitution to honor marriages made in Massachusetts or any other state. The Senator has been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender advocacy organization.

Congressman Toomey, in contrast, favors a constitutional marriage amendment and has commended President Bush on his proposal of one. Congressman Toomey is a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives. At a Toomey rally, the Congressman was endorsed by Virginia Walden-Ford, a mother and school choice proponent who says that Sen. Specter had said he would support vouchers for the District of Columbia and then didn't.

Sen. Specter, however, enjoys the backing of the State's largest teachers' union. He is being recommended by the Pennsylvania State Education Association's Political Action Committee for Education, a perennial opponent of school choice.

Despite their divergence on issues such as education, the family, and abortion, Sen. Specter has been endorsed by his party, Pennsylvania's other senator, Rick Santorum, and President George W. Bush.

Congressman Toomey has the support of former federal appeals court Judge Robert Bork, former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, and former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese.

One thing is certain: this race offers Republican voters a clear choice between candidates with very different philosophies on cultural and moral issues.

-- The Catholic's Catholic (Thepainfultruth@ouch.net), April 27, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bigbumper@bumpity.bump), April 27, 2004.

See!! Your great Pro-Life President isn't as pro-life as you think.

Now people that vote for Bush are committing a sin because they are voting for a man that supports a man that supports abortion.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

One of the problems I have with the two party system of the United States is the required backing of an incumbent in a primary where it is apparent the incumbent is not fully behind the party's platform.

This is definitely true in the Pennsylvania senatorial primary. All conservatives would like to see Toomey win, but due to this two party system the major Republican members must endorse the incumbent.

God Bless.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), April 27, 2004.

It is a mistake for Bush to endorse Spector when there is an anti- abortion candidate who is viable running. There is no doubt about it.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

Scott says: See!! Your great Pro-Life President isn't as pro-life as you think.

Scott, you forgot to say "na-na-na-na-na." :) I am very disappointed that Toomey did not win. I was at first puzzled why Bush and especially Santorum, the only orthodox Catholic in Congress, would support Specter. The only thing I can think of is that they feel that Specter will help carry PA for Bush in November. If this is the case, their support may be warranted. Anything that will keep Kerry from winning is a victory for the unborn.

Now people that vote for Bush are committing a sin because they are voting for a man that supports a man that supports abortion.

Sorry Scott, it's not a sin, and I will still pull the lever for Bush in Nov. So I will be (to use your words) "voting for a man that supports a man that supports abortion" to help defeat a man who supports abortion, and who will have much more influence on abortion than Specter. Sound messy? Maybe so, but we need to defeat the man who says "If you believe that choice is a constitutional right, and I do, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is the embodiment of that right ... I will not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo that right." Hmmm, I wonder which candidate said that. Scott, even a blind man can see the difference between Bush and Kerry.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 28, 2004.

Bush can stop anything pro-abortion Spector might want to do, and he knows it. Voting for Bush is the only option for a Catholic this year.

-bill

-- Bil Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004.

Perhaps you think that only J.F. Kerry will appoint pro-death judges to the bench..........when Specter gets ahold of the Judiciary Committee don't you think HE WILL help select judges that use a pro- death litmus test?? I am putting my vote to Micael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. He is 100% PRO-LIFE, pro-second amendment, etc. Please see the Contitution Party site for his words and thoughts. (Or google Michael Peroutka)I do NOT believe my vote is wasted on him. I use my conscience to vote...what God does with it is in His hands. I think sometimes a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing is worse than the snake you can see!

-- Ann-Marie Niec (kmniec@yahoo.com), October 10, 2004.

So I will be (to use your words) "voting for a man that supports a man that supports abortion" to help defeat a man who supports abortion, and who will have much more influence on abortion than Specter."

Talk about moral reletivity!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 10, 2004.

The problem here is that when the primaries first started Toomey looked like an extreme long shot, and Specter looked like a shoe in... thus Santorum and Bush had to decide whether or not to support the likely winner (thus gaining some negotiating wiggle room) or oppose him (thus loose it).

The second thing is to realize that if a GOP senator wins in PA, this will keep the Senate in the hands of the pro-lifers regardless of the pro-life position of that man because the Senate is set up so that which ever PARTY holds the majority, sets the terms of debate.

Thus if a great Catholic democrat was to run for office and win tipping the scales for the Democrats, it would actually HARM the pro- life effort by allowing the absolutely anti-Life pro-abortion democrats to set the debate and force their agenda down our throats (and the throat of the hypothetical good Catholic democrat).

Anti-bush, once again you prove the point that Liberals claim to be "nuanced" and "sophisticated thinkers" while being absolutely incapable of seeing beyond the end of their nose or the day's paper.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 11, 2004.

Kerry,Bush, and Santorum, are only pro life to an extent. Bush endorses Specter, Santorum endorsed Whitman as gov. of NJ. They are christians until the ballot box stops them. Peroutka is the only choice. Sure, he will lose but we will win when we go before our Lord.

Who are we even to bloody our hands with two percent of His children. Even one child! We must vote for our soul first and foremost.

-- Meyer (Transky@aol.com), October 12, 2004.

Ok, try to follow along. In our system of government, there are two political parties who have decided to divide power between them. The GOP and the DP (democratic party). Now, other parties exist, but they have no affect on this governing balance.

The GOP or the DP will control the agenda based on majority vote. The minority can at most filibuster or foil the majority party. But an absolute minority (like 1 or 2 independents or 3rd party) have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY OR POWER to establish an agenda.

They can at most contribute their single vote to the total.

Thus, we come to the 3rd party candidates for various state or Federal positions... unless there is a sizable NUMBER of such candidates, it's almost pointless to vote for them since they can't effect positive change to the system.

That's not perhaps perfect and it's certainly not ideal, but it's the way things are. We can hope for a different world but we have to make our moral choices and judgements based ON THIS ONE.

And in this most-imperfect world, we have presidential election between two main rivals, the GOP and the DP.

Yes, Bush isn't Catholic and he's not 100% pro-life. But he's alot better than Kerry. Yes many GOP are pro-abortion and aren't very good, but others are 100% pro-life and do have influence in their party.

If Bush and the GOP win, the pro-life movement will stand a fighting chance to make progress, i.e. limit abortion and keep adding the steps needed to end it. If instead Kerry and the DP win because lots of Catholics either don't vote or vote 3rd party, then the pro-life cause will be dealt a serious blow, more abortions WILL CERTAINLY be paid for and promoted and the day of our eventual victory may not come in our life times.

So if you vote your conscience remember the real-world (not ideal world) consequences of this vote.

I like the Constitution Party for many reasons...but they are no where near prepared enough to be viable - and thus, in the real world, to vote that way would be to vote for Kerry.

Yes this is unfortunate. Yes it would be great if the GOP was 100% pro-life and if all Catholic politicians and Supreme Court Justices actually voted according to the Gospel and not their passions...but that's not our world.

This is the difference between tactics and strategy...the difference between principle and prudence. If you don't have the troops needed to win a battle, Our Lord told us to consider sending an embassy to parley for terms of peace... If the 3rd parties aren't ready (and they're not) to rule, then now is not the time to vote for them.

If I were you, I'd gear up for 2006 (to win some House seats and a senate position here or there) and then 2008 for the big one.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 12, 2004.

I wouldn't be THAT nihilistic on the effects of an individual in Congress! If there is a very successful or charismatic person running for office, especially national office, the other parties change their platforms to incorporate their ideas, so as to keep the votes from going to that person. Thus one person can influence the direction of the country, even if they are unsuccessful in winning the election themselves. Of course your point to Anti-Bush is well taken, it would be foolish to win a Congressional seat, but lose the Congress, much better to lose a seat and win the whole enchilada.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 12, 2004.