Jakubczyk on Common Sense

Applying faith and reason to ideas, issues and events in today's world

My Photo

John J. Jakubczyk has been active in the Pro-Life Movement since 1975.  He served as President of Arizona Right to Life, Arizona's largest, oldest and strongest pro-life organization.  He was on the board of AzRTL for many years and now acts as the Arizona delegate to the National Right to Life Committee.  As the founder and president of Southwest Life & Law Center, he continues to use his legal skills to assist in advising, counseling and defending women, children, pro-life activists, organizations, as well as victims of abortion. A national speaker, motivator and adviser since the 1980s, he is very familiar with the history of the movement at the national level.   A founder and past president of Ville de Marie Academy, he served as a trustee for 15 years.  He has been an attorney in private practice for 35 years, is active in his church, married, the father of 11 children, and a proud grandfather.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Being Pro-Life Requires Support for Marriage Protection: Bob Casey cannot have it both ways.

After a lot of thought and consideration of the relative merits of the arguments linking and refusing to link the right to life and marriage issues, I have resolved that if one is serious about ending abortion in this country, one must support those efforts to protect marriage and oppose any and all efforts to weaken or destroy the special regard marriage has historically had in the law.

Originally I considered them two separate issues and did not think it was that important to link them for purposes of political considerations. But as a voter who has been seriously concerned with the non-stop assault on marriage, both in the media and through the courts, I can no longer ignore what I have known to be the common source of the attack both on marriage and the family.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade opened the flood gates allowing for the massive murder of millions of unborn children. Yet those of us who are outraged by this wanton slaughter of future generations are told it is just a “matter of choice” and to keep our views to ourselves. When we moved into the world of politics, some ignored us, some tolerated us and some embraced us. Then there were those who detested our involvement in the body politic. These are the same groups for the most part who are attacking marriage and the family; the same folks who are upset that the Boy Scouts did not allow homosexuals into leadership and at the same time condemn the Catholic Church for not doing enough to address her own scandals.

Now there are some candidates running for office who are trying to pursue a middle line. Many of them are Democrats who are attempting to woo back disaffected pro-life democrats who have been ignored by their party for the last 30 years or actively excised because they held pro-life views. After reading the exit polls and seeing that pro-life Catholic democrats for voting for the Republican candidate because the candidate is pro-life, some democrats think that if they embrace a pro-life viewpoint, they may be able to drain some of that support and win the election.

Pennsylvania is a classic example. Bob Casey, Jr., the son of the late pro-life governor, is claiming his father’s position on life and attempting to unseat Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who has been a strong advocate for the pro-life position. Santorum however, upset many of the Keystone State’s most active pro-lifers with his support of Arlan Spector over pro-life conservative Pat Toomey. This perhaps more than anything created the kind of event that Democratic leadership thought they could exploit.

At first the polls seemed to suggest that this game plan was a winner. Early polls this summer gave Casey a double digit lead. However, things are starting to change. People are finding out who really supports Bob Casey, Jr. – people who are opposed to traditional marriage.

Casey Jr. has come out publicly to support the gay-rights movement, whose agenda is to change (perhaps I should say- destroy) the country’s marriage and adoption laws. In response to Casey, Jr., the homosexual movement has opened its wallet to help fund the Casey campaign. Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of nation’s largest homosexual organizations has made Bob Casey, Jr. the leading recipient of its fund-raising efforts in this year. According to Opensecrets.org, Casey received HRC-related contributions of $51,946, nor than anyone else. So to whom will Casey, Jr. owe his election come November? Those who support marriage as it has been defined for the last millennia, or the homosexual lobby with their cash?

The HRC webpage soliciting contributions for the liberal democrat gushes over Casey’s "commitment to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality," Casey’s opposition to "the Federal Marriage Amendment" and Casey’s belief "that adoption decisions should be made without prohibitions or limitations based on the sexual orientation of the parents."

All of these views are certain to turn off pro-life Catholic democrats in Pennsylvania. After all these democrats have only to look at Al Gore and Dick Durbin to see so-called pro-life democrats who betrayed the cause and the unborn children for political power and position within the party. Look at Harry Reid as another example of someone who was sent to Washington by the people of Nevada to represent a pro-life view and once in power fell in line with the extremists who control the party apparatus.

As someone who has long encouraged pro-life democrats to reclaim their party, I had a certain hope that efforts would be made at the local and state level to recruit pro-life democrats who would put principle above partisan party politics. Every person seeking public office should respect the right to life. This is a threshold issue. If a candidate will not protect babies, I sure cannot trust him to protect me or my family. I cannot trust him to be careful with the people’s money. And I cannot trust him not to sell out this nation for the trappings of power.

The American people are weary of the constant battle over the social issues. They wish the matters would resolve. Yet these questions will only resolve with full protection for the children and recognition of the sanctity of marriage. Finally every one of us must live our lives affirming the special place of marriage. We must be supportive of marriage and those who are married. We must stop attacking the institution and seek to strengthen those who make the commitment. Just as we must recognize the right to life of all persons, so we must realize that marriage and the family is the foundation for a stable and healthy civilization

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Conventional Wisdom

In reading about the latest political commentary on Len Munsil’s campaign, there is an interesting evolution developing as the major media begins to recognize that Munsil’s campaign may actually have some legs as well as broad grass-roots support throughout the state.

For the last six months the press and the media have generally ignored Len Munsil and the Republican primary. Running occasional polls by the liberal Earl DeBerge, the Arizona Republic, that fast shrinking bastion of yesterday’s news, would solemnly proclaim that Janet had a 20+ point lead over all Republicans while conveniently neglecting to mention their names until the second page of the article. The conventional wisdom was that Goldwater had name ID and no campaign and Munsil was some right wing ideologue.

There was some truth to the initial perception that Munsil had no name ID and had his work cut out for him. That is still true. Len is not known as well as Janet and a lot of people have yet to hear about him. Yet Len knows that and so he is traveling the state to become known. And here is a little secret for anyone willing to listen. When people hear Len Munsil, they like what they hear.

The latest commentary revolves around the fact that Len is actually talking about a variety of issues. He has ideas on how to improve education. He can speak intelligently about addressing the border problems. He has opinions and perspectives on transportation, crime and water. It is funny that pundits are surprised that this journalist/lawyer/public policy advocate can actually propose ideas on matters outside of the social conservative milieu. The thing is that people already know where Len Munsil stands on the values questions of the day. They know he supports respect for the sanctity of marriage and the family, for the protection of all human beings regardless of age or dependency, for greater responsibility when dealing with issues such as gaming. Munsil does not have to discuss his position on these issues because they have been out in the public square for the last 20 years. His views are mainstream middle America. He reflects a Ronald Reagan approach to government. He believes in the value and importance in the individual’s role in creating financially and socially responsible government. So an articulation of his philosophy is expected by the voters. For how else can they get to know him.

Columnists are wrong therefore to suggest that he is “toning down” his conservative views and “moving toward the middle.” Munsil is simply getting a message about his views of government out to the electorate. What would be refreshing would be to have articles written about where he stands on particular issues so that the voters can make an informed choice come September and November. Unfortunately that works against the Janet campaign philosophy. Her game plan is to have enough photo opportunities and ignore the notion that there is even a campaign. It is however very funny to read that she is a “moderate” and not a liberal. On the social issues she vetoed five pieces of very modest pro-family pro-life legislation. She is against securing the borders. She has used the veto pen over 140 times since being elected. She opposed legislation to protect homeowners and their right to protect their property against government seizure. But then no one wants to talk about Janet’s history as one of the attorneys who represented Anita Hill in her calumnious attacks on Justice Clarence Thomas. No one wants to talk about her complicity in the late term abortion of the 14 year-old ward of the court, whisked off to Kansas by Planned Parenthood five years ago while Janet was attorney general.

Len Munsil is getting out and talking to the people of Arizona. It is natural that he would talk about a broad range of issues. In fact because this is his first time running for office, it is not enough to presume what he thinks about health care, transportation, groundwater, forestry, development, labor, and the like. Simply because he is protective of the family and respects human life, does not allow the press or the public to presume his position on the role of the courts, or the limits and uses of state trust lands. However the goods news is that because he respects the family and is protective of human life, voters will know that his approach to the important issues of the day will be based on the fundamental values upon which this country was founded. And that is good news for the people of Arizona.