SDG here with an interesting commentary challenging the Democrats to “do better” on abortion.
I wish they would. My blood is not Republican red. I would vote for a pro-life Democrat in a heartbeat, if for no other reason than to make the point.
Lefties often say that the pro-life movement has a stranglehold on the Republican party. The truth is closer to the other way around. Between the two major parties, the Democratic Party has allowed the Republicans to have a monopoly on pro-life candidates — and voters.
And, for reasons rather well laid out in Catholic Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, I find it necessary to give black-and-white issues like abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage priority over other issues about which men of good will, including Catholics, may in good faith legitimately dispute.
But the Republicans didn’t always have a monopoly on concern over protecting the weakest of the weak. To be a pro-life Democrat wasn’t always a virtual contradiction in terms. In fact, there’s still a pro-life movement within the Democratic Party, though party bosses won’t give them a voice. According to this article, a recent gathering of Democrats for Life included:
- Thomas Finneran, Massachusetts House Speaker
- Bob Casey Jr., auditor general of my former state of Pennsylvania and son of Robert Casey Sr., the late pro-life former governor of Pennsylvania
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of JFK, wife of pro-life Boston Democrat Sargent Shriver, and mother of Maria Shriver, California’s first lady
- Ray Flynn, former mayor of Boston and ambassador to the Vatican
However, according to an article in the paper I write for, the National Catholic Register, Democrats For Life were not allowed to have a visible presence at the Democratic National Convention — no banners, no signs, etc. Planned Parenthood, OTOH, was a highly visible presence at the convention.
And while party chairman Terry McAuliffe made noises that there would be no ban on pro-life speakers at the convention, and touted the appearance of pro-life Rep. James Langevin from Rhode Island, Langevin’s topic was one on which, unlike abortion, he is not pro-life, embryonic stem cell research.
So, for all intents and purposes, the Democratic establishment brooks no dissent, at least so far. But perhaps Democrats for Life will be effective in bringing about some change in the Democratic party. Perhaps the Democrats will do better in the future, and again extend their traditional concern for the weak and powerless to the weakest of all. If they gave us a choice, I think they’d be surprised how many default Republicans there are who would vote for a pro-life Democrat.
What I cannot understand is how a pro-life voter can consider the Republican Party pro-life in the broad sense, or even more specifically anti-abortion.
The leader of the party, now living in the White House, is on record saying he would not push for a Constitutional Amendment overturning Roe v. Wade because “the Country’s not ready for it”.
That same leader refused to call for the criminal prohibition on Stem Cell Research, and rather instituted a policy of (for the first time) federal funding of such research in a way that is virtually guaranteed to ensure expanded federally-funded research (because he knowingly lied about the number of viable lines eligible for the federal funding).
That same leader took great pride in the fact that he reduced the time he took to review appeals for clemency in death-penalty cases from 30 minutes to 15 minutes (granted, nearly twice as long as it took him to respond to the information that the nation was under attack), and allowed that final, irrevocable penalty for more convicts than nearly anyone else. Can that really be considered the sound exercise of “prudential judgment”?
That same leader governed a state in which a disturbing number of Americans live in near-Third-World conditions.
How exactly is it better to support a Party that give lip-service to the abortion issue and is just plainly wrong on nearly every other life issue, than a Party that is on the right side of many Life issues, and at least honest about its position on abortion?
I’m no expert on Bush’s record, Esq., but I think there are some good answers to your question to be found in the list below, taken from a document found in Google cache.
If Kerry wins, I bet in four years one would be able to draw up a countervailing list of defeats for the pro-life cause and victories for the pro-choice cause.
Incidentally, here is another interesting list, this time taken from a hostile source, http://www.democrats.com.
I agree whole heartedly, Steven. When I lived in Nebraska, I easily found and voted for pro-life democrats. Since I have moved to California, I have not found a pro-life democrat.
I agree whole heartedly, Steven. When I lived in Nebraska, I easily found and voted for pro-life democrats. Since I have moved to California, I have not found a pro-life democrat.
Esquire, you forgot to mention that George W. Bush eats babies.
Thank you Thank you! I am a registered Democrat who has been pushed out of my own party because of the party’s stances on abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research. I vote Republican merely because there is not a Democrat on the ticket who will support a pro life stance on these issues. As far as the Republicans not doing anything about these issues but lip service, at least I know they are not going to come up with laws to make anything even worse like the Democrats have. I used to agree with the line “at least the Democrats act on other issues” and voted for Clinton, but when partial birth abortion was okayed as well as some very liberal judges appointed by him who have tried to legislate for the country, I can no longer ignore the abortion issue. The fact is that the Democrats may talk social security and welfare, but they act on making sure abortion is the norm for America. And the actions speak louder than the words.
It has not been the policy of the United States Government to fund overseas abortions for some time.
What Bush did was take away funding from any overseas health agency, even though that funding could expressly NOT be used for abortions, if that agencies happened to permit or counsel about abortions.
That means reduced health and healthcare for poor women overseas. Quite pro-life.
: It has not been the policy of the United States
: Government to fund overseas abortions for some
: time.
In the first place, Esq., this sounds naive to me. What is policy and what happens aren’t always the same thing.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is quite possible to support the health and healthcare of poor women overseas without giving money to agencies that support baby killing.
If the UNHCR distributes abortion kits, and you say “Here’s some money, but you can’t use it to buy and distribute abortion kits,” well, fine, it will go toward their bottom line in some other way, but at the end of the day they’ll still have more money for abortion kits and more resources to get to people they want to give them to.
Thirdly, what about all the other points mentioned above? Does your reply on this one point construe tacit acknowledgement on the other points? Do you deny that Kerry as a pro-choice president would have a very different effect on appointments, policy, and abortion-related sub-issues than would President Bush?
Among the sanest observations I’ve read this election year: “I find it necessary to give black-and-white issues like abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage priority over other issues about which men of good will, including Catholics, may in good faith legitimately dispute.”
Thanks for that, Jimmy.
We must not demonize our opponents…Unless of course they are…you know…demons.
🙂
That wasn’t Jimmy who posted…it was Stephen.
“pro-life” democrats typically become pro-abort activists once they move to Washington City.
Esquire, the commandment against bearing false witness is still in the 10 commandments. I thought you ought to know.
“that there would be no ban on pro-life speakers at the convention”
There has never been a ban on pro-life speakers at any Democratic convention. This was not therefore a new policy. In addition from the perspective of these pro-lifers, it was an issue on which the speaker was pro-life. What is evaluated as pro-life is relative to ones world-view. Even President Bush’s embryonic research decision was hailed as “Solomon” like by the likes of Pat Robertson and thus as “pro-life”, yet decried as anti-life by U.S. Bishops.
There is a popular falsehood that a certain Casey was once prohibited from speaking at a Democratic convention due to his pro-life views. That is not the truth. As reported by Chris Matthews and confirmed by Howard Dean, that individual would have been able to speak but he refused to commit to endorsing the Democratic nomineee … this may have been related to his pro-life views insofar as his pro-life views prevented him from making that committment out of fear that the nominee might be pro-choice and a Republican or other alternative, pro-life, but a party can hardly be expected to honor as a speaker someone who refuses to commit to endorsing the nominee. Note that Republican Huckabee despite being pro-life committed himself during the primary after some prodding to supporting the Republican nominee even if it should be Guiliani, though he would always say he didn’t think it would be.
Christ Matthews is whether he be a fervent Catholic, a devout Catholic, and apparently considering a run for political office. May he and other Democrats who speak the truth about abortion and the beautiful choice that is life remain in our prayers. He is unabashed in proclaiming his Catholicism in the media (on MSNBC), by for example, acknowledging himself to be a “Thomist” in his world view. We can expect that he will be one to not exclude truth as it relates to statecraft, from the public square.