WASHINGTON, DC—In the 2000 race for President of the United States, Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International (LDI), refused to endorse then-Governor George W. Bush. Many pro-life organizations had done so, but Scott was not convinced that Governor Bush would take a strong stand on life issues.

“Governor Bush made it clear that he is not opposed to abortion when the child is conceived as a result of a criminal act. He had also been very elusive during the Presidential campaign—refusing to be specific about his position,” Scott said. “I could not, in good conscience, endorse a candidate when I was unconvinced that he would stand tall on the most important issues of our day. I did not want to endorse someone only to eventually be embarrassed for having done so.”

Scott cast a write-in vote for Steve Forbes in 2000. “Mr. Forbes had made his position clear. He listened to the people he worked with and his position on abortion evolved into one that included no exceptions. And he was not shy about making his position clear. It seemed to me that this was the kind of candidate I could endorse with a high degree of confidence,” Scott said.

Events surrounding the 2004 race for the White House have led Scott to endorse a candidate. “I am still not happy with the President’s position. It is clear that he has a gross misunderstanding of the issues. This was evidenced by his answers in the presidential debates,” Scott said. “But despite these reservations, I am going to be voting for President Bush, and I encourage all people of good will to do the same.”

Acknowledging that his change of attitude will lead to some harsh criticism, Scott said he did not reach the decision without a great deal of thought. He cites two key reasons for the decision to endorse the President: John Kerry’s “faith” and the Supreme Court.

“I am concerned that if pro-life people stay home and do not cast a ballot to reelect the President, it will lead to a victory for Senator John Kerry. And the last thing we want to endure is the election of a man who claims to be ‘Catholic’ but whose positions on public policy issues are more in line with Unitarian Universalist or other pagan doctrine.” Scott said it is imperative that pro-life people, particularly Catholics, do whatever it takes to defeat a candidate who claims to be “Catholic” but supports abortion. “We need to let it be known that pro-abortion ‘Catholics’ will lose, period,” Scott said. “Kerry claims to ‘respect’ our opinions. I don’t want his respect; I want him to stop aiding and abetting the killing of preborn babies. And any person who votes for John Kerry is just as guilty.”

Scott predicts that the man elected President in November will have the opportunity to nominate at least one and possibly as many as three people to sit on the Supreme Court. “If John Kerry were to make these choices, preborn children would be condemned for decades to come. Kerry has made it clear that he has a litmus test—something Democrats abhor if Republicans have one—on abortion. Kerry has proudly said that he will absolutely not nominate anyone to the federal bench who does not support abortion. But I have been given assurances that President Bush will nominate only those men and women who believe the Constitution does not support the killing of children. If we were to make sufficient inroads in the courts, it could have a profound impact on the future of the Pro-Life Movement and the very lives of those we seek to protect,” Scott said.

“What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith is an article of faith,” Kerry said. But as a public official it is not “appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate personal religious beliefs for the rest of the country.” But cannot it be argued that laws against murder, theft, rape and so forth are also based on “personal religious beliefs”? This is certainly true about laws prohibiting polygamy. If a law banning abortion is supposedly bad for the country, why is it a position held by the Church in the first place? And what about doctrine that is rabidly pro-abortion? Would politicians from such churches be required to vote pro-life so they do not “legislate personal religious beliefs for the rest of the country?”

“Let’s face it,” Scott said. “John Kerry is not opposed to abortion on a personal, spiritual or public level. He will not legislate against abortion because he sees nothing whatsoever wrong with it. He can claim to be ‘personally opposed’ to abortion and to ‘personally believe life begins at conception,’ all he likes, but his deeds prove otherwise. How would Kerry’s deeds be any different if he were Gloria Feldt, Kate Michelman or Kim Gandy?”

“Never before have pro-abortion groups been so dedicated to defeating an incumbent President,” Scott said. “They are in collusion with other groups that despise President Bush and his policies. But this time all pro-life men and women need to stand together or we will have no one to blame but ourselves.”

Scott said there are several Bush Administration policies that he does not support, but life issues are more important than all of them combined. “Let’s work to save innocent preborn children. The moment that is accomplished we can turn our attention to the other important issues of our day.”

For a detailed look at the activities of pro-abortion groups in Campaign 2000, read the Autumn 2004 edition of Special Reports, which may be found at: http://fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=special_reports.

Note: As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Life Decisions International cannot and does not endorse candidates. This press release is written strictly as a news item based on the personal endorsement of LDI’s president.