The problem in Ruse's view, is that a solid pro-life candidate, Bob Marshall, a Virginia state delegate, has filed to run against Comstock in the Republican primary. Rather than celebrating this solid pro-life candidate, Ruse, who supports Comstock, raised a straw man to attack Bob's candidacy. Contraception. His article argues against the possibility of making contraception illegal, as if anyone, including Bob, is trying to do that. What he really objects to is Bob's criticism of Comstock's morally unjustifiable act supporting the over-the-counter sale of so-called "contraceptives" that actually cause abortion.
Incidentally, opposition to Comstock isn't just about abortion, although that is certainly enough in my opinion. But, as so many pragmatic politicians before her, she is "growing" on the homosexual issue which no doubt explains Paul Singer, a billionaire gay "marriage" advocate funneling $80,000 into her campaign since 2009. That may help explain her support for homosexual activist, Tracy Thorne-Begland, to be named District Judge in Richmond. (I wonder, did Singer give her a call?) Just what we need, eh, one more activist homosexual judge to rule in favor of gay "marriage." But Ruse makes opposition to Comstock revolve around one issue, contraception:
A Catholic politician in Northern Virginia has come under fire from a primary challenger and LifeSiteNews for asking the Federal government to allow adult women to buy oral contraceptives without a doctor’s prescription. She is being accused of being a bad Catholic and questions are being raised about whether faithful Catholics can support her.There's a lot more to Comstock's negatives than this, as I've already pointed out. For example, she voted against and tried to get Governor McDonnell to veto Bob Marshall's bill stating Virginia would not cooperate in the indefinite detention of citizens without due process. But even if Comstock's only negative was her support for abortifacient "contraception" those opposing her are completely justified. Even Ruse argues for that position. Here's what he writes:
There is no question that the Catholic politician is duty bound to limit and then to stop legal abortion. After all, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Protecting the innocent from abortion is not a uniquely Catholic matter. Is contraception the same as abortion, or is it more like divorce, a fundamental Catholic teaching but one that we do not seek to impose on others. We may seek to convince others but we do not seek to impose it on them through public policy.And that paragraph illustrates Ruse's serious muddling of the issue. He seems to accept the definition of "contraception" according the pro-abortion community. Many over-the-counter so-called contraceptives don't prevent conception at all and Ruse himself acknowledges that, "Anybody who wants [contraception] can easily get it, including abortifacient “contraceptives” like Plan B that are now available over-the-counter." So are Catholic politicians "duty bound" as Ruse says above to oppose the sale of Plan B and other abortifacient birth control? Apparently not as long as one calls them contraceptives rather than abortifacients. To see a pro-lifer using what is essentially Planned Parenthood's lying language is sad indeed.
But Plan B is just one of the abortifacients labeled with a lie. The low-estrogen pills generally prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the uterus unreceptive to the growing embryo. The 7-10 day old baby arrives in the womb but cannot implant. That, Mr. Ruse, is also an early abortion. The combination pills at least occasionally allow abortion by the same means. The action of IUDs is somewhat murky but if you read the description for Mirena, it's clear that at least one of it's modes of action is also abortifacient since it "thins the uterus." The Mirena website states unequivocally that the IUD generally does NOT prevent ovulation.
So, since Barbara Comstock supports abortifacient birth control, mislabeled "contraception," it seems by Ruse's own logic that she is "duty bound to limit and then to stop it." But...but...she not only supports it, she supports over-the-counter sales which among other things would make it much easier for predatory men to get it and use it with women and underage girls. Is Ruse unaware of the many cases of women whose drinks are spiked with abortifacient "contraceptives?" Read here, and here and here and here and here. Well, you get the idea.
So, yes, Catholics should oppose Barbara Comstock. And if you think winning is everything, take a look at John Chapter 6. Jesus didn't run after the followers who left him because His message of life was too hard to swallow. He spoke the truth and went to the cross. When Barbara began supporting abortion, even early abortion, and committed herself to those destroying traditional marriage she lost her credibility. Sorry, Mr. Ruse, but you got this one wrong! Bob Marshall deserves your support instead of a self-fulfilling prophecy that he can't win.