A Quandary
There she was, on TV, Michele Tafoya, the darling of the State’s Republican Party, the one on a crusade to snatch the open US Senate seat from the anointed Democratic candidate, Lieutenant Governor (under Tim Walz) Peggy Flanagan. And then Tafoya said:
“I am a pro-choice Republican and I am running for the US Senate.”
Pro-choice? Then what’s the difference between the two women candidates for this critical seat from Minnesota? Flanagan will likely align with the liberal Squad and Tafoya has already indicated she may go her own way on some votes. Both candidates have an anti-life agenda, both women have proclaimed choice as their god, meaning there is no choice for the serious voter.
I was warned about this early on by the fellow opposing Tafoya for the Republican Party endorsement. He said she’d indicated she’d be out there supporting women’s rights. Hence my crop of candidate lawn signs is missing the one for her.
And now, the election is imminent. With death for the unborn on the ballot, the question is for whom to vote.
Once upon a time, I recall the TV news showing the fellow who cast the deciding vote allowing abortion up to 24 weeks in the state of New York. It was 1970, he was weeping as he spoke. Assemblyman George Michaels had initially voted against that bill because many of his constituents opposed death for the unborn.
And then, he asked to change his vote from no to yes.
“What’s the use of getting elected or reelected if you don’t stand for something?…I cannot stand in good conscience here and thwart the obvious majority of this House.” *
This statement raises a question every voter must decide: are we voting for the candidate because he values the same things as we do, or that he will do what constituents or the party or anyone dictates? In Michaels’ case, he would not do as his constituents – those he was elected to represent – wanted; he went along with the majority. He never did say where he stood on abortion, but his vote indicated he had no problem with it. Therefore, voters need to know well the integrity of the person on the ballot; in this political milieu, there is no room for ambiguity.
This election on November 3, 2026, for the US senate seat for Minnesota – as in other states – presents a choice of nothing. Voters are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Vote for the lesser of two evils, some may say. But both candidates are representing the same evil and promising to vote for it. Is not voting for someone for that Senate seat an option? Wouldn’t such an action further unleash the wickedness and snares of the devil around us? Most likely, but being wrong on the issue of preserving life at its most vulnerable is already promoting the evil waiting to swallow us.
What is my moral responsibility before God on something like this? Is casting a ballot in this particular political race going against my conscience? I am in a quandary. I don’t have an answer for this question, but I know this election isn’t a simple walk into the voting booth and all will be happy, happy, happy. There are serious things to be decided beyond gas and groceries. Dare I say it, the soul of the nation is at stake and Minnesota will be doing nothing to tip the scales in favor of life over death, of good over evil. What else is new?
St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the battle before us.
* This account of the 1970 vote is from Vanity Fair, (Jan. 22, 2024) an article by Abigail Tracy, reporting on the New Yorker film, “Deciding Vote.”
Nota Bene: The Bellarmine Forum does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. This essay is offered as issue advocacy on the moral question of life and the voter’s conscience.
This article, A Quandary is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
https://bellarmineforum.org/a-quandary/
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.
