A battle royal is occurring in the GOP primary in New Hampshire.  In a five-person Republican primary, the two frontrunners are purportedly “pro-life.”  The other three are “pro-choice.”  Let’s look at those two frontrunners:  Devout Catholic and pro-life conservative Ovide Lamontagne and former NH Attorney General Kelly Ayotte.  Pro-lifers have lined up on both sides in this political contest between the two frontrunners.  Recent polls showed Lamontagne having momentum and coming within striking distance of Ayotte, who has been in first place the entire race, having been anointed by the Washington Establishment and the GOP money machine.  As Lamontagne and Ayotte vie for the pro-life vote, it is important for New Hampshire Catholics and pro-life voters to know what they may be getting before they cast their vote.

Ovide Lamontagne is a lifelong devout Catholic and for his entire career has supported the right to life “from conception until natural death” — period.  In the final candidates’ debate last night, he quoted the Declaration of Independence to reinforce that our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings are endowed “by our Creator” with the unalienable right to life at the moment we are created — at conception.

Ovide has not just “talked the talk” — he has “walked the walk” as a pro-lifer.  He is the father of  two adoptive daughters and is the legal guardian of a special needs foster son.  He supports a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

Kelly Ayotte has no public record of being a prolifer and has made no public statements on the right to life of the unborn;  her campaign refers to how she has fought for “parents‘ rights” in her actions, as Attorney General for a pro-choice Democrat governor, in defending New Hampshire’s parental notification statute in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Of course, it as correct for her to defend that statute on legal grounds, and she did.   But when asked about her own position on abortion, press reports indicate that she is “prolife with exceptions”:  she would allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, and — depending on which press report you read — “health of the mother,” “danger to the mother,” or “medical emergency” — all of which amounts to abortion on demand.  At last night’s debate, one of the pro-choice candidates bluntly pointed out:  “Ms. Ayotte says she is ‘pro life with exceptions.’  That means she’s pro-choice.”

And during her campaign, Ayotte voiced support for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, now Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying that if she had been in the Senate at the time, she would have voted for the liberal judicial activist.  This is a major blow to the pro-life cause.  One day, with consistent prayer and hard work, we will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the Constitution to its true interpretation.  But we will not overturn Roe, and defend the unborn, if we support candidates who say they are pro-life, but when the time to lead comes they jump to the other side.

Watch Ayotte talk about her support for Obama liberal judge Sonia Sotomayor:

To many pro-lifers, Ayotte’s support for Justice Sotomayor is enough to disqualify her from our support.

For those who might turn a blind eye to Ayotte’s support for Sotomayor, here is our view of what occurred with Ayotte and the NH parental notification law.  Her actions suggest that her characterization of events is suspect at best, and is likely highly deceptive:

1. January 2006:  The U.S. Supreme Court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood rules that states do have authority to enact parental notification statutes, and that the lower courts were too harsh in striking down NH’s law entirely.  The case is sent back to lower federal court to address the proper remedy for a supposed constitutional violation in one part of the law.

2.  November 2006:  While the case is pending in remand in federal court, Democrats take over all levels of NH government — the legislature and the executive.

For many pro-life voters the Planned Parenthood debate is complicated and confusing.  What is not complicated and confusing, however,  is video of Ayotte in her own words saying she would have voted YES, as a U.S. Senator, to put an Obama liberal judicial activist like Sonia Sotomayor on the highest court in our land — a certain vote on that Court to endorse and perpetuate the atrocity of the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade that made abortion on demand the law of the land and has led to the death of 50 million innocent pre-born children.

Does a candidate for the United States Senate deserve the support of the pro-life movement and pro-life voters when she says she would have voted for President Obama’s liberal Supreme Court pick?

We think not.