Letter to the editor: LIFEPAC politicized? | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: LIFEPAC politicized?

So stunned, I have to ask: Is LIFEPAC, the single-issue, pro-life group, politicized?

Since 1980, LIFEPAC’S mission has been to “identify and support all pro-life candidates.” The process of “identifying” included the candidate filling out a questionnaire. Then, LIFEPAC would create a blue-and-white flier and deliver a thousand to churches and poll workers. Its mission: help voters know who “all” the pro-life candidates are.

This year, the names of only three candidates for Westmoreland County commissioner were listed on the flier. Among the names missing was pro-life candidate John Ventre. When asked why his name was missing, the local director explained that the board takes a vote when splitting the pro-life vote could result in the election of a pro-abortion candidate; LIFEPAC lists accordingly.

Since the printing of the flier, LIFEPAC added Ventre’s name as part of an addendum to its website, lifepac.net, listing additional pro-life candidates. However, many churchgoers have already received the flier, and have been deceived by believing only three candidates for commissioner are pro-life. They have been denied the truth.

It seems to many of us that LIFEPAC has been politicized. Who are they to determine which candidate will “split” votes?

LIFEPAC has compromised its integrity. Some volunteers say they will not hand out the flier this year because something that once was informative and fair has been politicized.

Karen Bills


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.