Letter to the editor: Pro-life candidates succeed | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pro-life candidates succeed

After the election I was scared to find out how the candidates we identified on the LifePAC flyer as pro-life had done. I knew that only one of two Superior Court candidates won and that Allegheny County did poorly, and even my township conservatives did poorly. But my initial fears were unfounded for the counties we cover in Southwest Pennsylvania.

Megan McCarthy-King came in first and Christylee Peck second in 11 out of the 12 counties we cover. Allegheny County was the only one where the pro-life Superior Court candidates lost. When it came to Common Pleas Court, four of the six candidates we listed as pro-life won.

The most amazing results were the county commissioner races. Twenty of the 23 candidates we listed won. Two that lost were in the only two counties (Armstrong and Washington) where we listed all four candidates, and only three could win. The only loss we listed was in Beaver County, and we heard unofficially that the candidates who won there were pro-life but they chose not to respond to our questionnaire.

It would appear that at least in Southwest Pennsylvania, learning that a candidate is pro-life is a positive thing. There are lots of things to consider when choosing whom to vote for as a judge or any public servant. For me, I learn a lot about the character of a candidate if they are concerned about the life of the most vulnerable members of our society, the unborn.

Jim Ludwig


The writer is director of LifePAC (lifepac.net).

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.