October 10, 2012 // Local

U.S. Senate candidates weigh-in on the issues

Todays Catholic

The Indiana Catholic Conference (ICC), the public policy arm of the Indiana bishops, offers Hoosier Catholics a three-part series of articles profiling statewide-elected officials. In each article, the candidates were asked pertinent questions that relate to the office that they seek to hold. The questions and answers appear in their entirely below. The articles are to serve as a resource for Catholics.

INDIANAPOLIS — In a matter of weeks, nationwide millions of Catholics will enter the voting booth to cast their vote. According to the Official Catholic Directory by P.J. Kennedy & Sons approximately 700,000 Catholics reside in Indiana. These Hoosiers will have the opportunity to make their mark on the national canvas by electing several national office holders including one U.S. Senator from Indiana.

Three U.S. Senate candidates seek the office. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is running on the Republican ticket; Congressman Joe Donnelly (D-IN), who is currently serving in the 2nd Congressional District, will run on the Democrat ticket; and Andrew Horning, who works in the cardiovascular healthcare industry, will run on the Libertarian ticket. All three candidates were invited to participate in the Catholic Conference election series. Below are their responses. The candidates appear in alphabetical order.

Responses from Joe Donnelly

Question: What is your position in regard to protecting unborn human life from abortion and committing federal resources to ending abortion?

Donnelly: I believe human life is sacred, and I value it in all its forms. I oppose abortion, am pro-life, and believe that government policies should encourage life and make it easier for parents to adopt children.

Question: We hear much about the economy but what is to be done about the moral imperative of pervasive poverty. What would you do to address the problem of pervasive poverty; what policies/path(s) do you offer to overcome it?

Donnelly: I often say that the best social program is a job for mom and dad, and that means giving Hoosier men and women the skills and education they need to compete while working with local businesses to provide them with the environment they need to grow. To that end, we need to make sure local educational institutions are teaching the skills employers need now.

Question: How would you balance the problem of public debt, making it manageable, as it relates to the moral obligation of providing for the least?

Donnelly: We must get our fiscal house in order, which is why I have supported almost $2.4 trillion in spending cuts and have given back over $600,000 from my office budgets since coming to Congress. Yet we cannot balance our budgets on the backs of the least among us, seniors, students and veterans, like the budget my opponent Richard Mourdock supports.

Question: What is your position on legislation and regulations that forces health-care providers to provide, pay for or refer for services contrary to their conscience for moral or religious reasons?

Donnelly: There is a common sense solution that needs to be found, one that protects access to health services while also ensuring that religiously-affiliated institutions are not required to act against their religious beliefs. Finding common ground can be achieved administratively. Religious institutions have the clear right to pursue this option through the courts as well. I am confident a solution can be found.

Question: What immigration policy would you pursue that would protect the human dignity of all persons?

Donnelly: Our country has a rich history of legal immigration, and to that end, I support those who travel to this country legally. I support bipartisan efforts to immigration reform as no one party gets it right 100 percent of the time. We will need to work together to fix the immigration system in our country.

Question: Do you support or oppose the overturning of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

Donnelly: I oppose overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman as it is defined under both Indiana and federal law. I also believe that current Indiana and federal laws adequately address the issue of same sex-marriage and should remain in place.

Responses from Andrew Horning

Question: What is your position in regard to protecting unborn human life from abortion and committing federal resources to ending abortion?

Horning: I’ve been a fan of Ron Paul’s pro-life plan to remove abortion from the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Clarifying who gets constitutional rights (all humans), as Dr. Paul and others have proposed, is something I could get behind. Overturning Roe v Wade as law, of course, would be a no-brainer. And I’d likely support legislation to clarify certain interstate abortion/life issues that cross state lines (if a father has to pay child support if a child is born, why couldn’t he have some say over whether the child can live, for example … this issue often crosses state lines). But murder is, unless it does cross state lines, a state issue.

There are other things related to this that should get more attention than just abortion, in my opinion. Since few of us have any stomach for imprisoning more people for more things, we need to think more about prevention. So I’d get behind proposals to reduce barriers to adoption, or reduce the disparity between reproductive and fiduciary rights between men, women and politics.

Horning: Take away from Caesar what we should never have surrendered unto Caesar! I’d cut federal government down to its constitutionally authorized, legitimate size; and thereby remove the impediments to success we’ve imposed upon our citizens. The opportunity costs of our crony capitalism, corrupt and lawless lawmaking, and ungoverned government are too high. Our debts are unsupportable. All of it is illegal, immoral, and will stop either by design and careful execution, or by slack jaw surprise in failure.

Question: How would you balance the problem of public debt, making it manageable, as it relates to the moral obligation of providing for the least?

Horning: When did the church give charity unto Caesar? Where are we called to delegate our accountability for compassion to the keeper of jails and bombs? This is not a balancing act! This is about right, wrong, authority and law; and I say we restore the laws proven to be better than any other society has come up with for at least a very, very long time. The constitutions, state and federal, as written, are still law. But they aren’t even close to what we’re doing now. See http://horningforsenate.com/files/THE-UNITED-STATES-CONSTITUTION-1211.pdf

Question: What is your position on legislation and regulations that forces health-care providers to provide, pay for or refer for services contrary to their conscience for moral or religious reasons?

Horning: They are unconstitutional, immoral and corrupt and can’t work. See http://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/a-short-history-of-health-care-let-doctors-be-doctors/

Question: What immigration policy would you pursue that would protect the human dignity of all persons?

Horning: The laws, as written, should be enforced. States have more authority in this than we’ve been led to believe.

Question: Do you support or oppose the overturning of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

Horning: DOMA is misguided and unconstitutional, insomuch as the federal government (and Caesar in general) has no constitutional or moral authority in marriage. But I wouldn’t overturn it until we extricate the contractual issues of Caesar from the holy covenant between a man, a woman and God. See: http://wedeclare.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/gay-marriage-is-that-what-we-think-this-is-about/

Responses from Richard Mourdock

Question: What is your position in regard to protecting unborn human life from abortion and committing federal resources to ending abortion?

Mourdock: I oppose abortion except for cases where the mother’s life is in danger and oppose the use of federal funds in this regard.

Question: We hear much about the economy, but what is to be done about the moral imperative of pervasive poverty. What would you do to address the problem of pervasive poverty; what policies/path do you offer to overcome it?

Mourdock: We need a strong, three-track approach to chronic poverty: First, we need to get this economy growing again. A strong, growing economy addresses so many critical needs within our society that it must remain our guidepost in terms of public policy. Second, we need to do all we can to incentivize contributions to charitable organizations that are well positioned to meet these challenges. Beyond that, I support safety net programs designed to meet the basic needs of those in our society who need and deserve our help the most. These include nutrition, housing, medical and mental health services, among others.

Question: How would you balance the problem of public debt, making it manageable, as it relates to moral obligation of providing for the least?

Mourdock: We can stop the borrow-and-spend mentality that has dominated Washington for decades and we can put our fiscal house in order without compromising core services to those most in need. The core and largest aspects of federal budget should be the focus of our reforms, which will leave ample room for core services for those individuals with the least among us.

Question: What is your position on legislation and regulations that forces health-care providers to provide, pay for or refer services contrary to their conscience for moral or religious reasons?

Mourdock: I strongly oppose such policies and mandates. I have voiced strong opposition to President Obama’s health-care policy, which is now the focus of litigation by Notre Dame and other faith-based institutions. My opponent supported that legislation.

Question: What immigration policy would you pursue that would protect the human dignity of all persons?

Mourdock: I support federal legislation that would secure our border, make legal immigration more transparent and timely and encourage a fair and humane enforcement of the law for illegal immigrants.

Question: Do you support or oppose the overturning of the federal Defense of Marriage Act?

Mourdock: I would oppose overturning the act and would have voted for the law if I had been in the U.S. Senate.

U.S. Senate Candidates’ web pages

Joe Donnelly: www.joeforindiana.com

Andrew Horning:

www.horningforsenate.com

Richard Mourdock:

www.richardmourdock.com

Additional Resources for Catholics

Indiana Catholic Conference (ICC): www.indianacc.org

United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB): Faithful Citizenship document

www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship