Earlier this week, Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, wrote an essay in The Atlantic expressing disappointment that Democrats routinely forgo talking about how their faith informs their politics.
“Unfortunately, choosing not to talk much—or even at all—about faith and religion has become common in today’s Democratic Party,” Mr. Coons wrote. “That choice, I believe, is the wrong one.”
Mr. Coons, a graduate of Yale Divinity School, said Democrats choosing to ignore faith “hides away the deep, passionate and formative faith backgrounds of so many Democrats who are seeking or serving in office.” Plus, it “ignores the clear fact that America is still an overwhelmingly religious country, and that the Democratic Party, too, remains a coalition largely made up of people of faith—including tens of millions who identify as deeply religious.”
Part of the issue, Mr. Coons said, is that politically faith has come to mean for many people positions that are against abortion and rights for L.G.B.T. people. He said Democrats should seek to expand the notion of how faith informs their worldviews.
Senator Chris Coons said Democrats choosing to ignore faith “hides away the deep, passionate and formative faith backgrounds of so many Democrats.”
“Democrats today spend less time showing how our faith and religious backgrounds drive and inform our positions on all kinds of things—immigration, climate change, taxes, health care—out of a largely unspoken concern that publicly connecting faith with politics doesn’t quite fit,” he wrote.
Mr. Coons said he has been “encouraged” by the number of Democratic candidates who have talked about faith on the campaign trail this year.
“It’s not about citing one scripture verse or another to argue for a certain policy; it’s about letting those Americans for whom religion is central to their lives know that we understand them, respect them, and in many cases share their religious backgrounds,” wrote Mr. Coons, who has endorsed Mr. Biden. But he also warned there is a “wrong” way to talk about faith, saying politicians “must be careful to never weaponize or politicize faith, religion, or scripture, nor should we claim some sort of divine endorsement for our policies.”
[America is looking for responses about the 2020 Democratic primary debate from readers. Let us know by filling out our brief reader survey.]
“We also need to make clear that Democrats are committed to both freedom of and freedom from religion. Americans of all faiths or no faith at all should feel equally welcomed in our coalition,” he wrote.
Over the weekend, Beto O’Rourke, the former Texas congressman whose campaign is struggling, visited Casa del Migrante, a home for migrants run by the Catholic Church in Juarez, Mexico. His campaign also sent a fundraising appeal to supporters seeking to raise money for a Catholic-run immigration nonprofit based in his home city on El Paso.
Senator Elizabeth Warren recalled her time as a Sunday school teacher and reflected on how the Gospel of Matthew shapes her political views.
Many of the other Democrats running for the White House have talked about faith. Most recently, in what can best be described as a sermon, Senator Elizabeth Warren recalled her time as a Sunday school teacher and reflected on how the Gospel of Matthew shapes her political views.
Recounting her attempts to teach an unruly group of fifth graders, the Massachusetts Democrat talked about a time when she discussed with the children the notion of charity, which she defined as “what you give but you don’t have to give,” when the conversation turned to what people owe one another. A quiet student, she said, suggested that what people owe one another is “Everybody gets a turn.”
That led Ms. Warren to talk about Matthew 25, a section of which she read from a King James Bible.
“If there’s anybody in here who doesn’t know the story, it’s that the sheep are being divided from the goats. And just so you all understand, sheep are going to heaven. The goats most definitely are not,” Ms. Warren said.
After reading the Gospel passage, in which Christians are exhorted to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned, Ms. Warren said, “And that for me is what all of this is about.”
She said she draws three lessons from the story—one more than the two she previously highlighted during her CNN Town Hall in March.
Some Christian voters have expressed concern over Senator Warren’s position on abortion.
First, she said, “There is God in every one of us, not God, just in those who look like the Lord, God in every one of us.” Second, “We are called to act, to feed the hungry, to bring water to the thirsty, to visit the imprisoned. And the third, is that we are called to act without promise of reward. We are called to act because it is right.”
Ms. Warren was speaking on June 29 in Chicago at the annual gathering of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Convention. Several other candidates have also addressed the group, including Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who also invoked Matthew 25, and Vice President Joe Biden, whose standing in national polls is suffering following last week’s debate confrontation with Senator Kamala Harris of California over his record on race and school busing.
While Ms. Warren has invoked her faith a handful of times on the campaign trail, some Christian voters have expressed concern over her position on abortion. During last week’s debate, she declined to name any restriction she would place on abortion, instead reiterating her support for federal laws that protect abortion access.
But during her Chicago speech, Ms. Warren laid out a number of policy ideas that she said are related to her understanding that people are called to make sure “everyone gets a turn,” including reducing mass incarceration, providing universal child care and increasing economic security for Americans.
“We will answer the call to make certain that every working person, every working person, regardless of race, creed, or economic background, every working person is paid a living wage so they can build a secure future for themselves and their families,” Ms. Warren said.
Ms. Warren concluded her speech by again turning to Scripture, a practice she said is common for her “In times of struggle, in times of uncertainty.”
Faith-speak is not going to cut it. Democrats, or better yet, a Republican challenger to Trump, needs to explain that both the Life and Choice movements are a fraud by explaining why Roe is right and Plessy v. Ferguson is wrong (the latter insists on state power over civil rights, including abortion). The Court will not even hear another abortion case. Indiana v. Planned Parenthood was decided per curium or from the Court without hearing. On the first Monday of October, Gee v. June will be denied Cert and June v. Gee will overturn the 5th Circuit decision on Louisiana's Trap laws, thus showing that Thomas is the only anti-Roe justice left. Congress could, but never will, grant legal personhood in the first trimester because to do so would require investigation of all D&C procedures, both therapeutic and voluntary. To not do so would violate the due process rights of women and their doctors against selective enforcement (i.e., the law cannot go after PPUSA without investigation of each OB/GYN). That will never, ever, happen.
The only way to stop abortion is to propose a $6,000 to $12,000 child tax credit, refundable with pay, and a high enough minimum wage so people are working for more than their credit. Unless a libertarian socialist beats Trump or Pence in the GOP primary, the Republicans will never go along with such an income transfer. Harris has bid $3K per year. It must be doubled if the states match it or quadrupled. That is totally in keeping with the Magisterium of Pope PiusXI (Casti Connubii 119-122).
It is time to level with Catholic voters and the hierarchy rather than hiding behind pluralism, although under Dignitatis Humanae, pluralism also protects such an answer from a mandate to enact criminal abortion laws.
Pence has delayed a trip and the White House is saying nothing is wrong. This indicates either the 25th Amendment is about to be invoked, with or without a Pence resignation. Why? Because within the next 72 hours the Mueller Grand Jury's term expires. If you cannot figure out how this is related to 2020, you need to not discuss either politics or abortion law.
How religious belief influences political policies is worth discussion. Republicans only care about abortion, an issue not even raised in the bible, but the Democrats are the champions of the gospel message about the immigrant, the poor, the sick, children, the imprisoned, etc.
Please. Not the "it's not in the Bible argument". Neither is drunk driving, but I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have approved. The belief that Jesus would have approved of aborting a child in the womb is an abomination. Also, pro lifers do care about all life issues and not just abortion. Stop dealing in stereotypes.
Jewish law didn't/doesn't envision fetuses as separate and complete people but as part of a woman's body until birth. To assert that Jesus was a modern day pro-lifer is a questionable assumption.
Have you ever read the gospel of Luke, Crystal?
Noticed that the last and greatest prophet of the Old Testament, John the Baptist, commenced the exercise of his ministry while he was still in the womb?
"Leaping for joy" in greeting the arrival of the Messiah, in His mother's womb.
Two children of Abraham both still in their separate wombs.
Alive, individual, sentient, anointed, 100% human being - both of them.
The "Mosaic Law" is purported to have 613 separate laws. One of them demands punishment for a man who has a fight with a pregnant woman and she miscarries.
Maimonides only permits abortion if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, not different from Catholic moral theology of 21st century.
- Yes, I've read Luke. The infancy narratives are not reliable historical fact, but were created for a purpose - to make points about Jesus.
The example of the injured woman who lost her fetus in Exodus shows by the remedy - money and not a penalty for manslaughter or murder - that the fetus was not viewed as a person.
More: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/
Mr. Murphy, are all heartbeats created equal? Does pro-life support any of the following: heartbeat census, heartbeat asylum, heartbeat food stamps, heartbeat housing assistance and a heartbeat tax deduction?
Actually Kevin, You should understand that more than 80% of all miscarriages (or nature's version of abortion) is due to the fetuses being deformed or having downs syndrome or other serious ailments. Does this make God a murderer in your mind?
I don't believe that Jesus would like women to feel so desperate that they feel the need to abort any child, any more than he would approve of any group or party that refused to offer all women free child care, health care, and maternity/paternity leave by mandate and for at least 6 months paid for both parents so they felt no need to despair and could actually bond with their new child.
I do believe Jesus would be fine and would want all charities to offer poor women birth control, once it was invented, in order to get women, and their children and, in the end, their whole families out of poverty. Just like I believe God would want us to use antibiotics to save peoples' lives which was an invention created at almost the same time in history as birth control pills. Had charities supplied both antibiotics and birth control (especially a global and huge charity like the Roman Catholic Church) to poor women at the same time, instead of just antibiotics, our world now would be dramatically less poor, diseased, overpopulated, and therefore less polluted, less at risk of global warming effects, and it would be a happier, better educated, freer, world population, with greater equality for all people, and with less fear of war or violence around the world.
What we have now is what happens when religious sexist men try to control women rather than live equitably alongside them, both within the world's societies and its religions.
Also for the record, every country and continent across the globe that has criminalized abortion at any stage has increased the rate of abortion in their country by doing so. That is just the facts and there is no existing evidence to contradict those facts over the last decade. The U.S. is at its lowest rate of abortion now than ever recorded, including when it was a crime to get an abortion, and largely due to the cheap and easy access to both quality birth control and abortion services. Women also tend to abort earlier in their pregnancies and within the first trimester where abortion is legal and easy to access. If you really hate later term abortions, then you should know that criminalizing abortion increases the likelihood of more of those types of abortions happening.
Please. Not the "it's not in the Bible argument". Neither is drunk driving, but I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have approved. The belief that Jesus would have approved of aborting a child in the womb is an abomination. Also, pro lifers do care about all life issues and not just abortion. Stop dealing in stereotypes.
Dup
"Republicans only care about abortion, an issue not even raised in the bible..." Thou Shalt Not Kill
Thou shalt not murder other people.
An interesting fact, is that the reason the angel Gabriel told Mary to go visit her cousin Elizabeth was not just to serve as witness to the miracle of Elizabeth's pregnancy but because only with Elizabeth would Mary be safe until she was showing her own pregnancy. Jewish law stated that if a woman was found pregnant with another man's child but was already sworn by contract to her husband or legally engaged, as Mary was to Joseph, she must be stoned to death. The only time she would not be stoned right away is if she was showing her pregnancy. With a first pregnancy it can take 6 months to start to show outwardly. A woman not yet showing could be stoned but a woman showing her pregnancy could not be stoned until after she gave birth and then only the mother and adulterous man would be killed. So Mary had to hide at Elizabeth's until she was showing her pregnancy. God knew that Elizabeth had the faith to believe Mary's story and that she would protect her and hide her.
This indicates that God or Jewish law does not presume that a person is complete at the first several months of pregnancy.
It is very telling how respectful this journal is when speaking about Democrats, totally different compared to its reporting on Republicans. It is really hard to take any Democrat seriously about things religious. They don't seem to practice, or if they do, they don't follow what their supposed church teaches. They will speak in generalities, like feeding the poor, when the real difference between the parties is not about the feeding, but about the how. Democrats will be the first to cave on religious freedom if it conflicts with their politics.
Tim O'Leary---
“They will speak in generalities, like feeding the poor…” There are over 2,000 verses in the Bible about poverty. Perhaps it is the Republicans who speak in generalities. You stated, “…when the real difference between the parties is not about the feeding, but about the how.“ Every year charities, including one of the biggest, Catholic Charities, have testified before Congress that they do not have enough resources to take care of all the needs and they need more government subsidy to care for children. Most of the “pro-life” Republicans vote against it. It is an irony how people approach these issues. If you look at the Congressional Record, you will see that most “pro-life” representatives vote against programs feeding, clothing, and sheltering children. Most pro-choice representatives vote for programs feeding, clothing, and sheltering children. One must admit, this is bizarre and makes issues questionable about “pro-life” sincerity.
A statement by Sister Joan Chittister, Order of St. Benedict and one of the intellectuals of the church, best describes the situation.
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
Judith - Republicans and Democrats view economic problems in opposite ways. As part of their slavery legacy, Democrats take a paternalistic view of the poor minorities. They are less concerned about reducing the numbers of poor, and more about maintaining them in some moderately improved status quo. So, after 50 years of welfare, and $25 trillion spending (link below), the economic situation of the poor in America is hardly improved, while the methods of the Democrats have only destroyed the independence of poor families and communities. The Republican party was founded to end slavery, so their legacy or goal is to lift the burden from the backs of the poor and get people independent, strengthen families and communities - in other words, reduce the number of the poor. Like the admonition: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" You can replace man with family and the word fish with "independence" or a work skill or the biblical "talent".
Here is a 2014 review of 50 years of welfare spending https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years.
Yeah, I recall when Mick Mulvaney, Trump's budget director, wanted to end the Meals on Wheels program that feeds the elderly poor. Because, you know, once those indigent old people get a taste for free food, they will spend the rest of their worthless lives as social parasites! I can only imagine what Jesus thinks of you "Christian" Republicans.
Tim O'Leary---
I agree that Republicans and Democrats view economic problems differently. Republicans bulk at providing funds for the needy, but are more than willing to vote for welfare for our major cooperation, etc., but they don't call it welfare. Republicans lessen taxes on the very wealthy and move that burden to the middle and poor classes. Republicans readily talk about how much money we spend on the poor, but do not find fault with the subsidies for the wealthy.
Your view of the Republican and Democratic Parties and their values are about 50 years out of date. At the beginning, the Republican Party did oppose slavery and segregation and the Dems. defended them.
That changed in the 1960s and 1970s. The Democratic Party had a civil war between the liberal wing and the conservative/southern wing, many of whom were prominent leaders. Further, Nixon created the Southern Strategy. RESULT: Southern and conservative Democrats changed to the Republican Party, which means the Republicans got a WHOLE LOT of racists that left the Democratic Party. The Democrats lost elections for a long while because of the realignment, but it was worth it.
Please show me some credible source that the Democrats want to keep the poor in poverty. If you want to look at some other persistent poverty, check out the southern states which have had some of the most consistently high poverty rates for decades. These states have long been run by conservatives.
“Give a man a fish…”. This is a Chinese proverb and we see how well it worked in China with their history of poverty and famine. It has become an easy, dismissive mantra for those who do not want to be bothered with the issues of the poor. But, let us say we accept some of this proverb. Would it not be better to give a man fish while teaching him to fish? Studies show that hungry people do not learn well.
Most Americans receive assistance from the government, but it is not called welfare so they don’t realize that it is government help. You may remember when Obama introduced Obamacare, older people insisted “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” They did not realize that Medicare is a government program.
A 2008 poll from the Cornell Survey Research Institute famously found 57 percent of Americans saying they'd never benefited from "a government social program"—even as 94 percent of that group subsequently acknowledged benefiting from at least one program, when they were asked about 21 federal policies individually. https://sri.cornell.edu/sri/about/news.cfm
However, more than half the country denies having used a government program at all.
I went to your reference of 50 years of welfare spending. It said “ 404 This page cannot be found.” However, I noticed the source is Heritage Foundation which is a conservative organization and is not as impartial as other sources.
Judith – the Democratic party remains the racist party. They cannot help themselves, forever analyzing things in racist terms (whites, white privilege, people of color), excusing black-on-black crime as the fault of the police, excusing revisionist history, excusing shysters like Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Marion Barry, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and several other corrupt big city mayors, promoting race-based affirmative action (vs. economic affirmative action), promoting PP clinics in poor black communities (eugenics), pushing for more dependency welfare rather than independence (jobs). The biggest tell is how enraged they get when some black person leaves the plantation and votes for Republicans, or even becomes a Republican candidate. Colin Kaepernick’s recent disrespect of the Betsy Ross flag (which flew over Obama’s inauguration) is a perfect example of their sorry racist state.
“Give a man a fish…” is a motto used by the Catholic Relief Services. Obamacare (with its “you can keep your doctor” lies and inflationary rates) and the even worse Medicare-for-all (abolishing private insurance) are schemes to get more people onto the Democratic plantation. Even the latest defense of compulsory busing, which has always been unpopular by all people of "color" (including the pink people you call white) is another paternalistic move.
The figure was $22Trillion in 2014 – here is a better link to the article. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
Actually Tim, Republicans have no desire to fund education or training for the poor or middle class either. So this leaves Republican Policy as don't feed the poor fish, or anything else, and don't teach them to fish either but just let them die on the street (and that includes their Pro-life protected newborn infants too). If these babies don't get their stuff together the day they are born, they shouldn't expect even more protection after birth too! Just like those lazy toddlers at our border who never even bothered to learn English. It is just plain un-American of these bozos to be born poor in the first place - they deserve what they get! - So saith Mitch McConnell!
I assume Republicans/conservative Christians don't care about the poor because they refuse to support government programs that help those people.
Yes, Crystal - this is your central error when it comes to economics. The evidence is overwhelming that welfare programs help keep people dependent. Like a new plantation, they give enough to keep people in a status quo and none to get them out. See my longer note to Judith above.
That is BS, an excuse for the lack of empathy that characterizes Republicans. Since you all seem to care so much about what Jesus said, what did he have to say about trickle-down economics?
Ms. Watson, the closing market report perhaps would quote Christ saying, “Without trickle-down, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of today’s top .01% ".
Crystal - Once again, your key error is evident. Jesus said a lot about individuals being obligated to assist the poor. He said nothing about the government having the obligation or being the solution. He said "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (Mk 12:17). If it is for the poor, it is not Caesar's. You are a great fan of the government taking other people's money so you can ignore your own personal obligation. You cannot get off so easy.
Actually, this is not correct. Our error with Welfare is that Republicans did not want to pay for oversight in order to adequately fend off Welfare Fraud. Like with any governmental program if you have no oversight, fraud will occur. They also didn't want to pay for additional supports like free quality day care so mothers on Welfare could work, and they did not want to fund training so welfare recipients who were capable of working but had no skills could be trained for a job and earn a livable wage. Also Republicans demanded Welfare be taken back the second a person found a job - no matter how little the job paid which ended up forcing people to stay on Welfare in order to survive even if they wanted to work. Many women on welfare that found jobs had to quit them because the jobs did not offer healthcare for themselves or their children, and if they found a job, medicaid was cut along with welfare (and this included birth control). We created a punitive Welfare System which kept people trapped in the system but it never had to be that way and that was never its original intent. It was never the Democrats that wanted it to be a trap - it was the Republicans. Like with Obama Care a/k/a Affordable Care Act, Republicans swear to destroy and punch so many holes into every decent Democratic program made to help poor people that the result is always a more expensive social program that is sabotaged by conservatives to fail. Then those greedy, conservative, Republicans go to church on Sunday and complain to their fellow church goers how they can't believe how the welfare mom in front of them could buy an actual roast beef on sale at the market - If they are poor, how dare they ever eat roast beef!
Totally agree that your faith shapes your political views. https://www.atxepoxyfloors.com
"Hides away" or "hide away the deep, passionate and formative background..." If it is singular it seems related to faith, if it is plural to the Democrats....
.
Baby Boomers have failed America. Roe v Wade, LBJ “ Great Society” (a failure government program), materialism, consumerism, greed, obesity (gluttony / sloth), Watergate, Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky, healthcare/revenue, fatherless children, Hillary/Obama identity politics, Donald Trump, US Bishops clericalism and abuse... these are the fault of a complacent, prideful generation...baby boomers. The Catholic notion of “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” all dead. US Bishops should all be laicized because they failed as Shepherds, evangelizers, Apostles and have demonstrated they are no better than us.
when Cortez landed, he soon learned the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, he would find the same now in usa. Warren, and every D candidate has not a drop of humility, not one. It is utterly disgraceful America calls these people and there words "discussing their faith", in fact they r presenting their arrogance. They are creating their own religion-the religion of Compte, and of secular humanism. Roe decision was a fraud as no court can judge what is outside its Provence, life is above human justice. these apostates, who pretend their Christianity [of those who say they are Christian] lie, those who are simply secular can not speak to the high ground of human unity as they have no source of unity. America should either treat this seriously, insteadof this short article, or not at all. title this "lies of the D party, the death culture"
The problem with liberals who are religious is that they think that Leftists are their ideological equals when they are really their enemy. The leftists want God not only out of the public square but out of the home, school, university and everywhere else. The leftists we are seeing today are Marxists and Leninists and Liberals should open their eyes and see what they (Leftists) really stand for.
Democrats and Faith, 7-3-19,
Good article but 3 words and their definitions are missing from the article that would help frame a real discussion of faith and dialogue in politics. They are evangelization, witnessing and proselytization. Christian evangelization is the teaching and preaching the Gospels with the intention of spreading the news about Jesus Christ. Even better it is practicing it. Witnessing is your personal faith story and how you became a believer and how you practice it, personally. It is your personal witness to your encounter with Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit however that might have happened. Proselytizing is the persuading a person by any means necessary and may include implicit or explicit exploitation of that person to your point of view.
I have very little faith in politicians in general that they know the difference between these words and care less even more about the damage they can do to their faith and others by “sharing and practicing” their faith in the public sphere or arena much less policy. Prime examples would Pence and Moore.
In the article and example given by the author, Michael J. O’Loughlin I don’t think he has thought about this much either. I think Elizabeth Warren might have in the example he gave. Most very responsible catechists, teachers of faith will have thought about these terms and how to assure they are evangelizing or witnessing to their faith.
Another thought is that the audience to your faith witnessing/evangelizing need to be taken into account. Even Jesus said to watch out and not cast your pearls before swine or they will eat and trample you. That is why people are uncomfortable with witnessing to their faith, not everyone will take you at your word that you are just sharing your thoughts and feelings but are actually trying to persuade to your religious point of view. Some people instinctively and honestly know that they may not be the best example of witnessing to their faith when they are not sure themselves why and what they believe and more importantly why are they sharing this now. Are you witnessing or proselytizing?
I love that Democrats are now talking about their faith.Jesus is inherently a humanist.There is no clash between humanism and Christianity. Christianity is humanism. Ethics ;how we aught to treat other people,as individual and as a society, is written in our hearts; do unto others. Out of the experience of empathy, we know this. All recognized rights, and secular laws flowing from recognized rights , have their origin in our capacity to empathize with others.Whether one is a believer or not,God's law[ do unto others] are written our hearts.Though clouded by conventional morality [Morality is not ethics; morality is conventional norms; attitudes beliefs often traditional cultural and or religion based beliefs concerning right and wrong, good and bad, which can change over time .Ethics does not change; morality does.That Democrats today cannot see how unethical the killing of the unborn is, is profoundly sad. It shows the power of convention;morality[ indoctrination of traditional norms] But this does not take away from these pro abortion Democrats who are not hiding from their [other] policy proposals infused by their Christian[humanist] faith.
PS [ to who this may concern; my schizophrenic daughter who recently gave birth, has had her daughter adopted. Thank you Jesus.Though my husband supports legalized abortion, not once did he suggest, mention,coerce , prod,imply ,infer or otherwise communicate to her to even consider abortion. For all he says about supporting abortion[ he's an atheist]] God's laws are written in our hearts.He knew better][imo]
rose-ellen caminer--
Your husband’s rejection to “mention, coerce , prod, or imply” abortion to your daughter is the essence of what pro-choice is about.
Even Satan quotes scripture to support his position.
I know and The Devil should really stop doing this because Trump and McConnell might get jealous and think they aren't winning the "Who is The Most Evil" contest after all. And we all know how Trump and McConnell pout and whine when they lose competitions they really care about - Whah Whah Whah!
Democratic candidates and strategists have a problem with religious Christian voters for obvious reasons. It is difficult to devise a strategy to "reach out" to someone with different policy preferences, if you are determined never, under any circumstance, to offer them anything they want, and in fact, tend to revel in any opportunity to put your foot on their neck, such as threatening to overturn the Hyde amendment. People can sense dismissiveness (even contempt) when it is directed at them. Religious Christians identifying as "pro-life" are not monolithic in their policy preferences. They still represent a fourth of Democrats, for heaven's sake, but the party seems intent on getting them to leave. There aren't any religious words that will work. It's all about the platform. Are they willing to make an offer?
You don't get it. It's not about a platform, it's about women's rights. The Democratic party has a majority of women voters and our rights matter to us. Democrats won't bend their ethics to win a few conservative votes. There are more Democrats then Republicans. If Democrats can beat voter suppression and if Republicans don't get as much help from Russia next time, Republicans will lose.
"Bend their ethics" implies compromise with strongly held beliefs and values, and that is not required of the Democrats in "reaching out" to religious voters. What is required by self-government is intellectually honest debate, respect for opponents, and compromise on policy for the common good. Can self government be reclaimed without fidelity to that ideal of compromise on policy?
There exist many religious Catholic Democrats who are not politically Pro-Life but Pro-Choice. Pro-Life politically is a stand only on whether abortion should be a crime not whether or not it is moral to abort. I believe abortion is immoral in almost all situations but also that it should never be made a crime. I am Pro-Choice politically 100% as a matter of upholding an individual's human dignity, and the right for all citizens to be able to control what their own body and it organs can be made to do under the law. One is not free if they can be forced to procreate against their will. You don't see men allowing laws that demand they give up a kidney to save someone who needs it to live. Don't expect women to be forced to risk their health and life to gestate a baby against their will- this must be a voluntary act on the part of women. Also I am Pro-Choice as a matter of decency since every country that has criminalized abortion has higher rates of abortion - no matter the stage of pregnancy the abortion is illegal at. These countries have much higher maternal death rates as well. The legal remedy Pro-Life, as a political group, seeks can only be accurately described as Pro-Death since death of the unborn, as well as women, are increased when it is enforced by law everywhere, in the world, and according to all evidence that exists on a global scale.