Heartbroken over Albuquerque

Voters in New Mexico’s largest city of Albuquerque yesterday soundly defeated a ban on late-term abortions. And it just breaks my heart.

Think about it. People had the opportunity to vote to protect unborn children who are old enough to feel pain from late-term abortions. And people simply didn't care enough. Voters on Tuesday rejected the measure 55 percent to 45 percent. How? I mean seriously, how does this happen?

There's a few logical reasons. According to The SBA-List, Planned Parenthood and other national pro-abortion groups, including Organizing for America, spent $1 million to defeat it. And the city of Albuquerque is a deep blue city that chose Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a 15-point margin.

I knew all that going in to yesterday but I've got to admit, in my heart I just didn't see how anyone could go in to the voting booth and vote against this bill. Wait. It's not that I didn't think anyone could vote against a bill that says once babies can feel pain they shouldn't be ripped apart in the womb, I just didn't think a majority could. But a majority did.

And that unsettles me terribly. I think people are further gone than I even thought they were. And I thought they were pretty far gone before.

Continue reading at The National Catholic Register>>>

*subhead*Love and pain.*subhead*


  1. It's comforting to some people to look at the evidence that America is turning against Obamacare and the President himself as a sign of increasing conservatism. But even there, the motives are mostly selfish: Americans still believe the health care law will help the poor, they just don't believe it will advance their personal welfare. This vote was a reminder of where we really are as a country. Selfishness, even murderous selfishness, is our national ethic.

  2. Human sacrifice is the chief form of worship of the devil. Down with tyrants.

  3. The reason that such tragedies occur, in Albuquerque as in everywhere else, is sadly simple: the Church in the person of its presiding Bishops have not been teaching or passing along the Catholic faith for decades. St Pius X, in the first decade of the 20th century, was already aware of this problem and attacked the Modernism that gave birth to it. His predecessor, Leo XIII, singled out the specific problem on these shores in his Testem Benevolentiae, and he called it "Americanism".

    Our Bishops would rather be good, obedient Americans rather than forceful Apostles. Ergo they go along quietly, never saying or doing anything that might upset the pluralist apple cart.

    Let us hope for more Jenkys and Paprockis, and less Wuerls and Dolans.

  4. Wouldn't be fewer abortions if fathers take their responsibility for the children they procreate?

  5. "Wouldn't be fewer abortions if fathers take their responsibility for the children they procreate?"--jenny

    Glad to find another advocate for returning to father-only custody of children. Thanks, Jenny!

    Of course, girls will have to disavow feminism at every opportunity in order to make that happen. You go grrl!


Post a Comment