A rift between establishment and progressive Democrats made national headlines on Sept. 17 when Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, announced her support for Marie Newman—a challenger to Representative Daniel Lipinski, Democrat of Illinois, in the upcoming Third Congressional District primary. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was not the first high-profile Democrat to back Ms. Newman for the March 2020 primary; her candidacy was endorsed by presidential hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on Sept. 9.
Justice Democrats, the political insurgents who helped guide Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to a shocking primary victory over 10-term incumbent and Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley in June 2018, are also backing Ms. Newman.
A member of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2005—occupying the seat held by his father, Bill Lipinski, for 22 years—Mr. Lipinski is no stranger to intraparty struggles. Described by Politico and The New York Times as a conservative Democrat (The Hill calls him “centrist”), Mr. Lipinski has often found himself at odds with his party colleagues. The Chicago-born congressman voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and opted not to endorse Barack Obama for re-election in 2012.
As a pro-life Democrat, Mr. Lipinski is a member of an endangered species in U.S. politics.
But according to Mr. Lipinski, the Democratic opposition to him is laser-focused on one subject: his views on abortion.
As a pro-life Democrat, Mr. Lipinski is a member of an endangered species in U.S. politics. According to a 2018 Politico article, the Democrats for Life of America, a national political action group that calls itself “the pro-life voice and wing of the Democratic Party,” once boasted of a coalition of 43 House Democrats. But by 2018, nearly two decades after its establishment, the D.F.L.A. endorsed only four House and three Senate candidates.
Kristin Day, executive director of the D.F.L.A., said the national focus on this Illinois congressional race is “all about abortion.”
“It has nothing to do with Dan’s record.”
While Ms. Warren explicitly cited the issue of “reproductive rights” in her endorsement of Ms. Newman, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez issued a broader criticism of Mr. Lipinski’s Democratic bona fides. “The fact that a deep blue seat is advocating for many parts of the Republican agenda is extremely problematic,” she told The New York Times.
“[Ms. Ocasio-Cortez] should be more concerned about her own district,” said Ms. Day, objecting to the freshman congresswoman’s “very far-left views.”
Jacob Lupfer, an independent political consultant who has attended two national D.F.L.A. conferences, is uncertain how much Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can influence the race in Illinois. Mr. Lupfer is a strategist for the Pro-life Democratic Candidate PAC. “I doubt Chicagoans are looking to a freshman New York congresswoman for voting advice,” Mr. Lupfer told America via email.
The race asks a broader question: Is there a future for pro-life politicians within the Democratic Party? On Sept. 18, Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland (D.-Md.), the House Majority leader, told journalists that his party remained open to anti-abortion lawmakers. However, a recent analysis by Fordham University ethicist Charles Camosy suggests dismal prospects for candidates like Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Camosy noted in a column for Religion News Service, “The evisceration of pro-life Democrats from Congress is all but complete.”
The race asks a broader question: Is there a future for pro-life politicians within the Democratic Party?
In a 2019 Pew Research Poll, 82 percent of Democrats and those who leaned Democratic said that “abortion should be legal in all or most cases.” Among liberal Democrats, support for legal abortion in all or most cases jumped to 91 percent. In May, the New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin simply asked: “Can a Democrat Oppose Abortion?”
Mr. Lipinski thinks so, rejecting any claim that he is out of step with his party. “I’m a Democrat. I plan to remain a Democrat. I certainly question this era of President Trump,” he told America. Mr. Lipinski noted that he shares his party’s focus on combating climate change and enjoys a high rating from the AFL-CIO labor union. He has also earned an A rating from the National Education Association.
At the same time, he has criticized Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for “her more extreme views” and called her Green New Deal proposal “a plan for socialism.” He views his challenger, Ms. Newman, in a similar light.
“Marie Newman now has thoroughly embraced extreme, radical positions that will not play well in the Third District,” he said.
While her success with Third District voters remains to be seen, Ms. Newman has secured the backing of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.
“We should not have to ask our elected officials to trust women,” wrote Ben Hardin, campaign manager for Ms. Newman, in a statement to America. “Marie Newman firmly believes that everyone in Illinois’ Third District should have access to the medical care they and their doctor—not Congressman Lipinski—choose.”
Top Democrats have made clear their support for abortion access, while pro-life Democrats continue to fade from Washington.
Ms. Day also does not support her party’s progressive drift. “I think on a national level [the party] is moving in the wrong direction,” she said, arguing that its views on abortion rights may cost it the support of moderate Democrats in swing states.
Top Democrats have made clear their support for abortion access, while pro-life Democrats continue to fade from Washington. “The suggestion is [that being pro-life] is enough to disqualify you as a Democrat,” said Mr. Lipinski.
Ms. Day proposes campaign finance reform and reining in corporate influence on politics—not a quick and easy fix—as a way to throw a lifeline to pro-life candidates. The party, in her assessment, has become too dependent on “all the money the abortion lobby’s putting in.”
Mr. Lupfer sees another way forward. “The pro-life political groups will spend millions supporting Trump-disciple Republicans in the closest and most expensive House races,” he said. “It is an unconscionable waste of donors’ money, and it will fail. A far more effective and efficient strategy would be to take a page from the playbook of [Ms. Ocasio-Cortez] and the Justice Democrats: Compete in primaries, not general elections.”
In January, the Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson called out the “Trumpification of the pro-life movement,” noting that anti-abortion organizations like the March for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List “have featured Trump at major gatherings.” The alignment of pro-life voters with the Republican Party makes them a difficult, perhaps impossible, ally to the D.F.L.A. and Democratic candidates like Mr. Lipinski.
“The pro-life movement has destroyed the pro-life Democrat,” said Mr. Lupfer.
Calling the preponderance of funds flowing from pro-life donors to Republican candidates “a bad strategy,” Mr. Lupfer added, “The working relationship between the Democratic Party and the D.F.L.A. has diminished, and that’s a shame.”
But the D.F.L.A., like Mr. Lipinski, is not about to ditch its “Democratic” label. “We are Democrats, so we do believe there is a government responsibility to support those who need assistance,” said Ms. Day. She describes the D.F.L.A. platform as “whole life,” including support for paid maternity leave and objection to the death penalty and euthanasia.
The result of Mr. Lipinski’s race could suggest if that is a message still willing to be heard in the contemporary Democratic Party.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez did not respond to a request for comment for this report.
No, there isn't a place in the Democratic party for pro-life lawmakers,. That is because a pro-life position is in opposition to women's rights, a basic plank in the Democratic party's platform. By the way, AOC is not a "socialist", she is a Social Democrat, and she is extremely popular with Democratic voters.
I do not disagree with your statement. Being pro-choice is now fundamentally part of the Democratic party's plank and there seems like there is no room left for anybody to believe otherwise.
The second statement is only true for the progressive wing of the party. AOC will be challenged in the primary next year for her seat. I think the Amazon opposition she led will be problematic in the upcoming cycle. It is likely she will be a one term congresswomen.
Many believe that there's a small but vocal extreme-lift wing of the Democratic party that is out of touch with the majority of Democrats. That's wrong. Most Democrats do like AOC and also Bernie and Warren. It is no coincidence that in the latest poll, Warren has bypassed Biden, and that moderates like Bullock and Ryan and Klobuchar are left in the dust. We are the party of the Left, not the middle of the road.
Amen - and it is about time! Go Warren! All the Way!
Hillary's running if she thinks Trump is vulnerable. See http://bit.ly/2kNUlBx . So will it be Go Hillary all the way if she does. How about Nikki Haley if Trump has problems, will it be Go Nikki All the Way if she runs.
Hi J,
I would vote for any of the Dems outside of Biden but I don't prefer any of them over Warren. I would have chosen Warren over Clinton in 2016 if she had run. She has real passion for the cause. Warren has always fought for unions, women, minorities, and fought for the middle class like a mad dog against bankers, investment firms and Wall St.
Warren understands high finance law while not being a greedy one percenter herself which is necessary in this current climate. I like Clinton but she goofed herself last time. She should have gone to Michigan and the mid-west right before the election and she didn't. That area has always been big union and democrat territory but this area has felt great pain from globalization, and her just assuming their votes and not visiting them, especially when Trump did, I think made them feel forgotten and enraged. So they voted against their own interests out of sheer anger and for Trump.
She will be gone in the next election. AOC hides her Socialistic views under the mantel of Democracy.
Socialism is essentially democratic control of the means of production and consumption. That, not state control, is what the 3 current wise men of socialism are pursuing (me, Richard Wolff and Gar Alperovitz).
AOC isn't going anywhere. She is quite popular, especially with young voters which the Democrats need to keep interested. She is right about climate change and the Green Deal should be promoted and fulfilled as soon as possible. If we don't act fast, we will be too late to avoid total devastation on our planet of so many natural blessings we take for granted. Scientists tell us it is possible to still make a huge difference as to how much damage and even reversing some damage but we do not have time to waste.
As for socialism, that word does not scare me. Many socialist-Democratic countries in Europe do far better for their people than we do. We have already socialist type programs in America like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and they are the best programs in our country because they help people regardless of wealth. People need health care period and they need it to cover all their body parts and their mental health without bankrupting them. Families need dependable quality day care while they work, not just pre-k, and they need to be able to work without their daycare costs bankrupting them too. Reality should not be that the difference between one successful couple with a couple of kids, and another going bankrupt with the same income is one has a retired grandparent who will watch their kids for free.
If the people vote for governmental supports and protections that is called democracy not socialism.
GOP policies have gradually done away with work pensions and now they want to strip away government supports. Who does this benefit other than big business and big banks? Yet the people most vulnerable, exposed to no retirement or no medical care, are in effect saying to Trump and the GOP, bring it on. No support from the government. We trust big business, big banks, Trump. Go figure.
I know it is sad. I can't tell you how many people I know who desperately need health care due to chronic illnesses in their own families but still voted for Trump. Propaganda works and Republicans spend tons on that propaganda. Scary lies work on the uninformed and too many people are willing to be uninformed today.
One benefit of this article is it exposes the pretend Catholics like Crystal and Nora. They have no interest in following Church teaching or basic human rights for the unborn, even the right not to be tortured to death. The position is completely unscientific and cravenly immoral. It is almost laughable to think they clamor for women rights when they abandon the majority of unborn girls who are sacrificed on the alter of feminism. The Democratic party used to be 80-100% the pro-slavery party and they looked the other way when all kinds of cruelty was inflicted on the slaves, especially those who ran away. Now abortion plays the same role. God help them.
Hi Tim,
I would refer to you as one of the uninformed, as I wrote about in my comment above, but you more fit the description of the refuse to be informed and that is more like brain washed.
The facts prove me right and you wrong as always. Restrictive laws criminalizing abortion always and everywhere result in higher abortion rates and maternal death rates. So that makes me Pro-Life and you Pro-Death in reality.
However, you are correct on this, our hierarchy has upheld sexist and immoral and anti-gospel rules in its laws and teachings for centuries but these can all be changed today, by the right, or righteous pope, should we ever get one.
You are also correct, that if an authentic Catholic is one that only does whatever evil the current Pope demands, or past popes demand, I am not an authentic Catholic by that ridiculous standard. I am very proud of that by the way. I am however the authentic kind of Catholic, if you judge that Catholics must care about what Christ taught and commanded even above what all popes and bishops taught, and our laws do have room within them to allow this definition of an authentic Catholic standard too. I am proud that I fit the latter rather than the first standard. We all know you fit the first and are proud of that so may God help you Tim.
As for Democrats being pro-slavery, this is where you show your lack of knowledge of U.S. History and the politics of the time. The Democratic Party, before the time of Lincoln, was the conservative party of the day - this switched later on. So Yes, it is often conservatives, regardless of party name, that support slavery and other forms of racial oppression much like today.
Nora - its funny that you claim to be more Catholic than the popes, while you deny the authority of the Church to teach, support the killing of unborn babies, and support divorce, contraception and women priestesses. I bet this is just the tip of your pretend Catholic iceberg. But, you should brush up on US history. The fights against polygamy, abortion and slavery all occurred at the same time, in the 1850-60s, and Republicans were always on the right side of justice and human rights. While the Republican party was founded primarily to free the slaves, it also had the protection of women from polygamy in its platform (Lincoln was their second presidential candidate). And Horatio Storer, the Harvard-trained physician (aka the father of Gynecology), convinced the AMA in 1859, just before the civil war, that the scientific evidence made the full humanity of the unborn from conception obvious: “If we have proved the existence of foetal life before quickening has taken place or can take place […] we are compelled to believe unjustifiable abortion always a crime.” He was born into a Unitarian family, joined the Episcopalians and in 1869 became Roman Catholic. So, he was not a pretend Catholic.
Democrats were against the full humanity of Africans for over a hundred years, and have now been against the full humanity of the unborn for over 50 years. So they are at least consistently against human rights. You might call them conservative against humanity and morality and liberal when it comes to spending other-peoples' money.
Hi Tim,
We know that you, as usual, have nothing but yours and other people's opinions which are always fact-free in your comments so continued dialogue is again becoming pointless.
I do have to say I am curious that my comment you are answering here was taken out of the thread and has been returned. America Magazine - You are an interesting crew, and I wonder what you are considering or mulling over with this activity. For the record, in case you are reading this, despite my critiques about your articles at times, I respect your online magazine more than any other Catholic news media because you do allow dialogue and even pretty risky dialogue.
As for an answer to you Tim,
The argument over abortion has taken place over many decades sometime alongside slavery and sometimes not. Progressives never stood for slavery and the conservatives did. Standing against Polygamy hardly makes any party heroic in any age. Not standing up for birth control for poor women has resulted in the current overpopulation and global warming crisis you probably don't even realize exists.
One Harvard Scientist, without any scientific capability then (and there is none that exist now either) to prove when or when not a fetus is fully human, stating he believes fetus are fully human at conception proves nothing. It is more a matter of what any individual scientist decides is the right criteria that delivers that answer for a scientist, and therefore the answer of when is the person first fully human is rightly different compared from one scientist to the next. This means we can only be left with a matter of opinion or personal moral choice and not scientific fact. Facts must be proved correct regardless of criteria of all scientists. You should note even your scientist did not state that his conclusion was a scientific fact and that is because he can't PROVE his stand scientifically. Oops! On top of that, scientist today do not often agree with this old Harvard Professor's version of a complete human being, and medical knowledge has advanced, and we know more now than he did then. So if your professor was right, time and technology should have given him the proof he needed and it didn't. We still cannot prove scientifically when a person is factually a complete human being.
We do know that laws criminalizing abortion do, as evidence based facts conclude, lead to more abortions, and therefore more deaths of the unborn you supposedly care about.
I am done Tim at least for this article and our dialogue. I am sure we will tackle another article later on at some point but I won't be checking to see if you answer again on this one. Peace Out!
The narrow and almost obsessive concern for the unborn is a very recent thing. During the 1930s Great Depression the abortion rate was higher than now. And most abortions were done in hospitals, and most or many hospitals were Catholic. Many women then couldn't feed their families as they were and could not feed another child.
The unborn do not live in a vacuum. You can't really help them by focusing on them as though they do. A pro-life focus needs to be wider, including of course the woman carrying the developing new life. Treating women better is treating the unborn better. Forcing them by civil law is a questionable approach. It ignores the overall reality, the need of the woman, helping her feel more able to give birth in what may seem an impossible situation, as many felt during the Great Depression when many opted for abortion.
And of course us guys could do much better. We are responsible for all unwanted pregnancies. At least we could get off the law change bandwagon. At the very least we could refrain from being among those who pressure women to have abortions, as two-thirds of women with unwanted pregnancies are so pressured.
#1 - Define "pro-life". If that means caring for others: Health care, education, aid for children... Absolutely.
#2 - Anti-abortion. If that means imposing your view on others? Legislating medical issues? Legislating women's bodies? Absolutely not.
My parents were Catholics and Democrats, in that order. I came of age politically when Roe was handed down, and coming from deep blue New Jersey, I saw clearly the writing on the wall for a pro-life future in the Democratic party. Our Democratic Congressmen, Ed Patten, whom I could see at 5:20 Mass on Saturdays, was pro-life, but he did nothing active to promote that agenda. Other NJ Democrats (Thompson, Howard) were not even that accommodating. By the time I registered to vote, I saw that nothing good for Catholics would come out of the Democratic Party, so I registered as a Republican in 1977 and have happily stayed there since. Yes, I wish that Democrats were not AWOL on the premier civil rights issue of our day, but they are, and I am tired of the Camosys, Winters, and other "Catholic leaders" who are waiting -- like Godot -- for a pro-life Democrat that is rarer than hen's teeth.
Why is "the premier civil rights issue of our day" for Catholics one that is not even mentioned in the Bible? The church has turned this issue into a fetish that has more to do with its repressive attitude towards women than anything else.
It is in the book of Numbers, where it was required to prove adultery. This is the law that Joseph did not subject Mary to when she was with child. He did this personally, not by denouncing Torah.
You are really stretching - there's one interpretation that an abortion is meant to be caused, but it's just an interpretation and even given that, it doesn't say anything about the badness of abortion ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#Abortion_interpretation
This has nothing to do with abortion. It only is about adultery (pregnancy causing or not). In fact, the Angel Gabriel, in part, likely told Mary to go to visit her mother's cousin Elizabeth because Elizabeth, being pregnant miraculously herself, would believe Mary and protect Mary until she was showing her pregnancy. In Jewish law a women could be stoned to death if believed pregnant as long as she was not yet showing her pregnancy. By the time Mary returned to Joseph she would have already been showing and they would have to wait until she gave birth to stone her to death, unless he claimed the child was his.
Might pro-life pluralism had survived in the Democratic Party if Catholic bishops had developed some spine in the 1970s and 1980s and excommunicated "personally opposed buts" Catholic Democrats (e.g., Cuomo pere, Kennedy, Biden)? Instead, American hierarchs adhere to fraudulent Uncle Teddy's misrepresentation of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on admitting abortionists to the Eucharist.
Good point; this "personally opposed but", is the most morally bankrupt position ever.[ though I loved Ted Kennedy and believe he was a great senator; but for his abortion issue. Too many men probably feel that if they don't support legalized abortion they will be labeled as anti woman, which is absurd but that mantra has power].The Democrats supporting abortion is why I don't vote for president. Though I am progressive on a lot of issues, I believe the whole purpose of government besides laws, and defense is to provide for the health welfare and education of it citizens in this 21st century.But I cannot vote for any one who believes that killing the unborn in the womb , the suffering and pain itself, how could that be right?Where is empathy , where is inherent self evident right to life? How brainwashed can people be; talk about anti science. if nothing else they are anti science; denying the humanity and the capacity to suffer of unborn humans.[ fetuses].But had the church taken a harder stand, then it would not stop there. Why not excommunicate those supporting unjust wars, torture, turning back refugees from wars ? There is no end to injustice and I guess the church clerics took the pragmatic approach that excommunicating politicians for accepting the laws and policies of the country they live in is a non starter. It would cause problems for Catholics that were political. The Vatican would be seen as wanting to control governments.!These Dems will however will invoke faith when talking about other [progressive ] issues they want the government to take a stand on.
Rose - You are the one who is anti-fact, anti-scripture and even anti-science. Science does not agree an embryo or fetus is a completely full human being. In fact, Science has shown us that not all organs are in place during various times of gestation, and that there is no pain in the first 4 months for any fetus because the nerve endings are not developed enough or fully connected to the brain to feel pain yet. Abortions later than the 4th month are extremely rare and the mother is anesthetized for this procedure and generally so is the fetus because the anesthetic effects both bodies. Scripture: Even the Torah (Old Testament Law of Moses or the first five books of the Bible), allowed for known pregnant women to be stoned to death up until the time they were showing their pregnancy outwardly which is why the Virgin Mary hid with Elizabeth for months. Once she was showing, Mary could not be stoned to death until after the child was born but she could be stoned before then. As far as facts are concerned: Every country in the world that has criminalized abortion, at any stage, has much higher abortion rates than the U.S. or any of the Western and Northern European Countries which allow for easy abortion access. The U.S. currently has a lower abortion rate than it had back in the 1950s when abortion was a crime.
So you see this is why the empathetic ones are the people who never want to see abortion criminalized or its access made difficult to procure. There are many ways to reach women without forcing them. These ways include real governmental financial support before, and during pregnancies and many years after birth with things like free quality public daycare, and universal health care, and these ways are the only ones proven, on a global scale, to actually reduce abortion rates in any country.
Its sounds to me Rose, that like with so many conservative Catholic Republicans, your empathy ends when the tax man arrives to collect on social services like the ones I mentioned. You claim to be Christian but it seems that claim depends a lot on what it may cost you. Since picking another way is obviously better and works best why are you so determined to seek the legal way which has already been proven extremely fatal to the unborn as much as to women?
Nora
Science also does not support yours and Crystal’s view that the fetus is just a form of parasite which the host can simply by right surgically or chemically remove if it becomes inconvenient.
Stuart,
I never said science supported, or that I, or Crystal supported a view that the fetus is just a form of parasite which the host can simply by right surgically or chemically remove if it becomes inconvenient. These are your ridiculous words which are meant to falsely inflame sane arguments regarding Pro-Life and Pro-Choice stands.
Your stand and Pro-life's stand kill the unborn in amounts so great, on a global scale, that all of planned parenthood clinic's previously performed abortions, put together, to date could never hope to compete in the amount. Your biggest problem Stuart is that all evidence points to one direction. Restrictive abortion laws create more abortion (albeit illegal ones) everywhere in the world compared to countries that have little or no restrictions. So Stuart why do you not support the Pro-Choice movement since you claim to care about stopping or lessening abortion? Facts are facts and Reality is Reality whether or not you like the facts or the reality.
I don't have to believe a fetus is a parasite to believe that no one life should have the right to take over the body of another person against their will even if it will save their own life. Women have the right to say I do not wish to use my organs to gestate another human being if I don't want to. Just like you have the right to tell a desperate child in need of your specific bone marrow that you are not willing to go through the painful experience of donating your marrow even though the child will die without that marrow donation. You have the right to be selfish with your body and so do women have that right too. It is of course the Christian and moral thing to give life in both cases when we can. I would agree with that idea which is why I would not abort myself, or propose such a thing to a woman asking my advice.
However, a person is not free if they can be ordered to use their organs to save others, against their will, while many others are not demanded the same intrusive access to their bodies based on their gender. We don't call the man who won't donate his blood or marrow to a desperate child a murderer and we don't incarcerate him for not donating so we can't demand a women gestate and house and incubate within her body a life she does not wish to gestate. Yes, expelling that life will end it but that is true with the child who does not get the marrow too. They both equally die. At least the fetus is not complete in structure and can't feel its rejection. unlike the child, who will feel the disease devour their body due to a lack of donated healthy marrow or blood.
Nora;I don't know what a completely human being means. An adult does not look like a child but a child is a complete human being. What is a human being? Biologically it is the genetic offspring of parent human beings. How it looks is not really relevant.I do not know whether there is pain in the first four months; but I believe there probably is as a fetus earlier then the 4th months will physically recoil as a fully formed human being does from any pain inducing external threat to its body. That's good enough to ban the killing of these[human]early stage fetuses. But you know the banning of killing the unborn is not solely about whether they feel pain or not, but because they[ it, embryo, fetus, call it anything you want] already exist[ are genetically human, living entities] and therefore have the right to[their] life.[ Thou shalt not kill]. Old Testament laws[outside the ten commandments] are not binding on us today. Whether abortions later then the 4th month are "rare" or not is a relative calculation and to the suffering fetus being killed it is totally irrelevant.
Your statement "it sounds to me like'"when I specifically said I supported government entitlements is a total fabrication on your part. Where is the integrity in lying about my stated belief? You read my comment ,then ascribed to me a belief which is the opposite of what I said. How can you be so dishonest and why would you want to be?
I do not believe that Europe allows abortion on demand. Is that what you support?With the right indoctrination ,outreach, the perception that abortion is a solution to a problem pregnancy could be a thing of the past. But pro abortion people have no interest in creating a culture where no woman sees abortion as a solution necessary to having a fulfilling life!There was a time they did; abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Now that is considered reactionary and a negation of women's rights.
I don't believe abortion rates today are lower then when it was criminalized here. Many people have abortions because they are legal. Pressure is placed on them by their boyfriends or husbands or the woman herself; gee this will upset my plans if I have a child now ; I can easily go get an abortion. Whereas if criminalized such pressure would not be so automatic or tempting.Criminalizing abortion does not work best for the unborn being killed. That is Orwellian.Ethics is not a numbers game. Countries that have criminalized abortion have higher rates? I would want to know what the economic/political conditions of those countries are.
I am not picking another way; I am picking both ways;your claim I am picking one way; as opposed to another , when I stated in the comment you read I supported government entitlements,is dishonest.You berate me for not being Christian[ no decent Christian would want to make it illegal to kill the unborn!]while you blatantly bear false witness against me.
Well Rose, Your answer does not address what I stated, and it could have, so I think both you and I know you don't really have a reasonable answer to my points. Your lack of belief in easily researched issues from the World Health Organization and our nation's own data pertaining to abortions does not quantify as a reasonable reaction to rational and provable evidence. I can believe grass isn't green but it will still be green. I didn't say any country had abortion supply on demand. I said countries with little or no restrictions on abortion have far less abortions than those countries that have some or many restrictions and that is true according to the World Health Organization and countries whose statistics they gathered regarding abortion.
You have not address the Old Testament Law regarding the allowance of stoning women who are pregnant, even while pregnant. Obviously, the law did not view abortion, through stoning to death, a murder of either the woman or the unborn fetus.
A fully complete human being is capable of feeling and functioning with it own organs without the use of another specific human being's organs supporting their functions, else it die. This is not the case with embryos and fetuses.
It is not an assumption I made about your lack of of desire to financially support social programs, it was an educated guess based on the contents of yiur comments and what is lacking from them. Even in your response here you are avoiding the supports that would be most expensive and are most necessary to support women considering abortion. Women do not need help just while pregnant but far more important helps like free quality day care for all mothers so the mothers can work to support their children, and universal health care so all babies, children and mom's have affordable care. Where is your high support for these far more taxing, costly and necessary social programs? Do you support publicly funded daycare and universal health care which includes free and quality birth control (which is the largest thing diminishing abortion numbers that exists)?
The definition of fully human is loaded. and arbitrary to allow for killing sentient capable of suffering humans in the womb.As well as many undesirables outside the womb.
What part of "I believe in the welfare state" do you not get? Progressive means all those programs you mention,and I said I was progressive on most issues[ except abortion].I called you out on your lying about me and so now you are gas lighting me. That's on you.
European countries don't as far I as know have abortion on demand.Again , do you believe in [legalized] abortion on demand?
Outside the Ten Commandments, Old Testament laws are not binding.Adultery and out of wedlock pregnancy are different situations with different ethical implications.Why would Mary be hiding for fear of being stoned for being pregnant? The socially acceptable remedy historically has been to get married. I doubt that it was different for Mary.
PS Oh and I love AOC, She's my Rep, and I think she's great! [I met her and told her and she is very nice;she held my hand warmly in hers and I even suggested she ditch the pro abortion thing; she knows[imo], everybody does, really. In spite of her pro abortion stance. [ most Dems are unfortunately brainwashed on that issue. Even Republicans when it comes down to it are not apposed to doing the right thing and criminalizing WHILE substituting good entitlement programs for all people, pregnant or not] these crimes against humanity that abortion is! The power of propaganda.
Rose, I am happy to hear that you support the programs I stated but if you re-read your comments to me, you will see that you did not mention this support previously and yes you do need to be specific with people. There are many people who think just helping only pregnant women while they are pregnant makes them progressive.
As for your suggestion of criminalizing abortion while offering all the social programs I mentioned (as well as free birth control? - I am not clear if you support that highly necessary item), existing evidence does show that if those programs include easy access to free quality birth control, then abortion rates will drop greatly but not still to the same amount as countries that offer those programs and allow legal, safe abortions. The difference is a 3 in 1000 % rate lower when the social programs are present and abortion is allowed basically on demand in countries compared to the countries which criminalized abortion outright or only allow it in cases where the mother will die without one but offer these same social programs. There is literally no existing evidence showing us that restrictive abortion laws ever lessen abortion, anywhere in the world, regardless of even great social programs being present. It is uncertain why this is true but that is the evidence. So there is literally no need for any Christian to feel inclined to support any abortion restrictions in our laws since these restrictions do not save any unborn children and are linked with greater abortion rates and greater maternal death rates.
So to answer your question, I do believe now in abortion being, legal on demand, because it is in these countries that allow abortion on demand that have the lowest abortion and maternal death rates. Evidence does not lie. That does not mean that I don't think the campaign to remind people that life exist in the womb and that it matters and that choosing life is more rewarding than choosing abortion is not important. I do believe this is important and if Pro-Life would drop its choice of tactics in battling abortion and drop the legal option entirely, and choose other more humane tactics instead, I would become Pro-Life.
As for outside the womb and viably born infants, there is no law that allows for killing a child born capable of sustaining its own life-functions ongoing (meaning without the help of machines of extreme measures). So abortion does not include killing any born healthy viable children regardless of when or what term the abortion took place during. That does not mean that sometimes to save a women's life during a birth gone bad or pregnancy going bad or one that is life threatening to mom that fetuses that could have possibly survived outside the womb are not aborted in order to save mom but these make up 1 % of all abortions in the U.S., and I do still believe that mom and her Dr. need to be left the right to decide what is necessary to save mom.
Did it ever occur to you Rose that our Church has been the one brainwashing women? Our hierarchy is awful quick to condemn women and real slow at condemning men. I don't know why you think I am gas-lighting you. I have merely responded to what your comments actually included.
As for the Old Testament Rules, the point wasn't that they are binding now (and they were certainly binding in Jesus' time). The point was that Scripture does not support that life is complete at conception since it would then be murder to stone a newly or possibly pregnant women to death before she gave birth and it wasn't. Abortion is not considered murder in scripture, that we can find, and types of it did exist back then, and the original 10 commandments in the Old Testament state 'Do not Murder' not 'Do not Kill'. There were types of killing allowed such as stoning male and female adulterers and soldiers killing for Israel's needs, etc. - we don't really know where abortion stood in scripture.
I think AOC is great too! So who would of thought it Rose - we may have more in common than we thought.
You can keep Biden - he is faker Democrat misogynist anyway. He didn't allow fair testimony of other abused women, other than Anita Hill, at the Justice Thomas hearing (I guess she wasn't black enough for Biden to bend over backwards), and he stood against publicly funding daycare, in the 1980s, in the hopes this would force more women to stay home and give up their careers (he stated this publicly), he still only wants to fund public pre-k not what is actually needed - full daycare and starting at 6 months, he was for the Hyde Amendment so only desperately poor women could not have access to abortions, and he also loves the banks and credit card companies so he is no Democrat. Feel free to take him to the Republican side as far as I am concerned. He was really never one of us.
Yeah, I agree about Biden. The people who seem to love him the most are Independents and former Republicans.
Dignitatis Humanae ended the requirement that every nation be made Catholic and reflect Catholic teaching in doing so, including suppressing other sects. While the Council Fathers certainly did not foresee legal abortion is part of this, Cuomo's position defending pluralism is consistent with it. Your argument is in violation of the respect for local constitutional law, including ours, which is part of the Magisterium.
How Catholics believe also has no bearing on questions of state government power, equal protection and privacy behind Roe. It is a shame that Catholic politicians did not simply explain the law and argue with the bishops openly on the law. That reticence was the problem. I don't have that problem and hopefully Biden will drop the act.
I am a Democrat and my view about abortion is, that they should be safe, legal, and rare. And here’s the thing- there are many people who are morally opposed to abortion for themselves, yet don’t think it should be out of reach for other people who feel differently.
IF a Democrat holds that view, I am fine, but if he/she would work towards limiting the rights of a woman to have control over her body, than we must part company.
What's a pro-life Democrat?
The Democratic party is pro-life in the sense of promoting policies that exemplify gospel values ... caring for the stranger, for the powerless, for children, for the poor, for the sick, for prisoners, etc.
And this sense is a more effective way of reducing abortions, as evidenced by the lowest rates of abortions in countries that not only have programs like our WIC, TANF, SNAP, Medicaid but also paid parental leave for up to two years for parents of infants--and where abortion is legal. It takes more than the law to reduce abortions. (We had higher rates of abortion in the 1890s and 1930s economic depressions than now; starving families could not afford more children.)
I see this way (these programs) as more following Jesus and the apostles' examples, meeting others' needs before satisfying their own wants.
I, for one, am a Democrat who is pro-choice and pro-life. The GOP folks call themselves pro-life, although it is a party platform to cut programs that help the unborn receive vital intrauterine nourishment and regular medical care as well as financial and medical aid for the pregnant woman. There is no clear cut line between pro-life and pro-choice. We aren't that far apart. Pro-choice people don't like abortions or want them. They don't want to focus on women as the problem, when it is us guys who cause all unwanted pregnancies and in many cases pressure the woman to have an abortion.
One who is pro-gun control, pro-environment, pro-education, pro-child care, pro-healthcare, pro-immigration, pro-migrant and refugee rights, pro-worker's rights, pro-unions, pro-civil rights, pro-criminal justice reform, pro-solidarity with the poor, pro-economic justice reform, pro-living wages, as well as other gospel values previously mentioned in this thread. Pick up a book on Catholic social teaching or Catholic social justice where all these solidly Catholic beliefs and more are explained in detail. The reason I remain a Democrat is because the party stands for all these Catholic pro-life issues. I think part of our current problem is that the term has been hijacked and narrowed to one single issue.
Amen, sister. Jesus would have a very tough time today with these Republicans who would likely dismiss him as radical, liberal and socialistic. He did advocate the apostles and other followers pooling their wealth, to meet others' needs before satisfying their own wants. Ouch.
The Democratic Party is becoming more and more Socialist and I seriously believe is headed toward pure Socialism. Rep. AOC must be watched closely as her stance on Socialism is well proclaimed by her but she hides it right now under the Democratic model. I do not trust her
When it becomes clear that all 4 GOP justices since Thomas will not repeal Roe and "socialism" is the only way to reduce abortion, will you come down in the side of capitalism or the unborn? That is less a question for debate as your own conscience. How will you justify that choice to God?
The Republican bugaboo of socialism is just silly. Almost every country on the planet has a government that is a combination of democracy and socialism, and so do we. The government runs the public schools, law enforcement, the public library system, the military, the mail, etc., etc., etc. To say that if the government runs health care we will be a socialist country is ridiculous.
both john and bobby Kennedy were pro life. Ted instead inserted pro abortion into D party. he did this at a meeting in his compound in Hyannis, cape cod MA, in order to get women's vote. this is the break point in D party and pro life D were cast out. ignored , etc. its a horrible turn
and Ted near death wrote the Pope a letter . I can not but imagine it was for forgiveness for what he had done. of course no one knows, but it does seem likely as a death bed reach out
before judgement. I would be terrified too, if i were in Teds shoes
I would guess it would be more gratitude shown his family in the annulment process.
To the two Michaels: It bothers me when only partial truth is deemed worthy of writing because it supports a certain narrative. Much of this rings untrue about Edward Kennedy. He did not insert the pro-choice platform into the Democratic Party and he certainly did not need it to attract the women's vote. Edward held a pro-life position until Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973. It is true that the Kennedy's and the Shriver's held a meeting at Hyannisport with several renown theologians of the day (all priests) to better understand the emerging science of bioethics. The point of this was to “distinguish between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue.” This is called discernment and engaging critical thinking skills. We are not Iran, we have separation of church and state in this country. Our elected officials have to stand by the law of the land. President Kennedy gave a speech about this before being elected. When Edward died he was regaled for his stellar social justice legislation during his years in Congress that served to help countless Americans. He and his family have long been admirable public servants in this country. I think more gratitude for their lifetimes of service is appropriate.
As for the remainder of your judgmental comments, his letter to the pope was between him and the Holy Father. You talk about being in his shoes! Could you have walked a day in his shoes? Would you want to? You cannot know the intentions of his heart nor how much he suffered. And his greatest sufferings had to be borne in public. All of us are flawed humans and not yet saints. Your seeming righteousness reminds me of the scripture story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. With whom do you associate yourself?
People who state they are “personally opposed to abortion but” are not really pro-life. Would someone be right in saying “I’m personally opposed to killing 6 year old children but?” Of course not. So someone saying they are personally opposed but would not oppose it for others simply doesn’t believe it is wrong, just as murdering a 6 year old would be.
It is biology, not theology that life, albeit not a fully developed person, begins at conception. If we truly believe that, unlike cattle or other animals, human life is sacred and in the image of God, we would be very hesitant to characterize the taking of unborn life as “reproductive rights.” Having said that, for those rare circumstances where abortion might be appropriate (rape, incest, etc.), it should remain legal and safe.
Image of God, yes but for the unbeliever, pure reason says " what else is it but a baby" - Kierkegaard long ago showed this to be true. those who deny r simply
hostage to sin.
Well, I would say that all the people opposed to gun control (politically, Republicans), do say “I’m personally opposed to killing 6-year-old children, but.”