I think it must have occurred to Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell that if they became advocates for the poor, they would have no power in the GOP or in the White House, and the donations for their "ministries" would dwindle to nothing.  These men are not "Christians" so much as they are snake oil salesmen who lust after political power.  Take away their "hot button" issues of abortion and gay marriage, and prayer in schools, and they've got no constituency.

And elective abortions after the eighth month of pregnancy have been illegal or subject to state limitation since Roe v. Wade.  WTF? 

I ain't see T.D. Jakes on the list of folks supporting the poor either.

And you know, it's just stupid on all their parts. They all have genuine constituencies that would benefit from addressing povety on a serious level far more than they would from antiabortion activity. After all, someone else having an abortion doesn't darken my soul in the least.

And it's their contstituency that makes Republicans court them. Dobson et all didn't need the Republicans to build their religion. 

I notice that they don't get all hot and bothered about stopping life support for black women either. In Plano, Texas, a woman who had stomach cancer that had spread to her lungs required a ventilator for breathing. She was fully conscious and she and her family wished her to remain on life support but the hospital chose to remove it under the medically indigent act Bush signed a few years back....you know, the one that says if you're poor,  have no health insurance, then they can kill you.

No hordes of right wing zealots lined up to do vigil to save the life of this conscious woman -- but then, she black and an immigrant.

This case, as the example of the lack of protest for medicaid and food stamp cuts, illuminates the opportunistic and shallow so-called morality of the religious right. IT's about fundraising and getting face time on tV, not about  making a difference in people's lives. 

Being alive with a few dollars is terrific. Being alive with more dollars than a few dollars is even better. Poverty and abortion are disconnected. Abortion of embryos is allowed because embryos are bunches of cells. Poverty is best addressed because those who are poor are people. Thanks for the commentary though.

Poverty and abortion are disconnected.

Well, I did mention the comparison was absurd. 

I think poverty and abortion as issues are inseparable. On-balance, the needy are those most in need to access to abortion, and those who have it the least. Mandatory waiting periods are widespread in the US and these are coupled with engineered legislation that makes operating as a provider phohibitive. The latter has found Mississippi, for instance, one of the poorest states in the Union, with one provider in the entire state. This most often means along trip to the clinic by an abortion-seeking woman, only for her to be told she has to wait for forty-eight hours after being exposed to an "educational" videotape (that is, once again, produced, through state government mandate, to sway her from the procedure). Of those who actually make the trans-state journey to the clinic, which itself is a very small fraction, those who can logistically linger in the neighborhood for forty-eight hours, with the necessary time away from their minimum wage jobs, or those who can make the necessary second pilgrimage, the number is infantecimal.

This is all the working of the anti-choice movement that has deftly entrenched itself in the state government. To them, Roe is a mere inconvenience. PBS's "Frontline" of Nov. 8, "The Last Abortion Clinic" did a fantastic job of driving home this state of affairs, and enlightened me to all that I've stated here.