Letter to the editor: Pro-life a winning issue |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pro-life a winning issue

In all the post-election analysis, there has been little discussion about a pro-life stance being a winning factor for candidates in southwestern Pennsylvania.

For 38 years, LIFEPAC has listed all the pro-life candidates in 11 counties in southwestern Pennsylvania in its “Vote Pro-life” guide. In the Pennsylvania House, every pro-life incumbent in southwestern Pennsylvania, both Republican and Democrat, won. There were nine open Pennsylvania House seats, and LIFEPAC candidates won all of them. In four state Senate races for which LIFEPAC listed pro-life candidates, three of four won. LIFEPAC identified pro-life candidates in five U.S. Congress races, and four won. At the top of the ticket, while pro-life Lou Barletta and Scott Wagner lost statewide, they won in nine of the 11 counties.

Being pro-life should not be a party issue. Unfortunately, National Democratic and Republican party platforms could not be further apart on the sanctity of life. It is evident that the majority of the voters in southwestern Pennsylvania are pro-life.

There are still some pro-life Democrats, but it is difficult for them to advance and succeed in their own party. Conor Lamb says that while he is personally pro-life, he will not let his beliefs get in the way of how he will vote. Tim Murphy had to resign from the same office because his personal actions didn’t match his voting record.

LIFEPAC will continue to help pro-life candidates from both parties get elected.

Jim Ludwig


The writer is director of LIFEPAC .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.