Democrats for Life tells pro-lifers to "stop the hate"

democrats for life of america logo.png

Okaaaay. Someone just forwarded me a link to the following March 25 piece by Kristen Day, president of Democrats for Life of America, still up on its home page.

I think the timing of my receipt of Kristen's post is good because of the Politico article I just posted, which basically corroborates that the problem isn't with pro-life groups, the problem is with the Democrat Party and Democrat pro-lifers.

Kristen Day is my friend. I appreciate the extremely hard job she has undertaken for years now to attempt to remake the Democrat Party into a life-friendly group. I know Kristen has experienced several disappointments and not too many victories.

I also acknowledge it is widely thought in pro-life circles that National Right to Life is an arm of the Republican Party. I expect Kristen threw LifeNews.com into the mix because she considers it an NRLC mouthpiece.

All that said, I think Kristen's anger in this case is misdirected and not helpful....

Stupak received death threats from pro-aborts that he never publicized. Why?

Furthermore, pro-life groups should not be blamed for "encourag[ing] hate and violence" simply because they express disagreement about the pro-life merit of Obama's executive order.

Democrats for Life of America urges pro-life activists and media to stop the misinformation campaign that instigates hate and violence against pro-life Democrats and to focus on upholding President Obama's Executive Order prohibiting public funding of abortion in the healthcare legislation.

The death threats against Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH) are not mere coincidence. These members voted for the Stupak Amendment in the first House healthcare bill and against the motion to recommit on the Reconciliation bill. However, they did so only after receiving assurances from President Obama that his Executive Order would issue guaranteeing that the Hyde Amendment would remain the law of the land.

These pro-life Democrats provided the leadership for a truly pro-life healthcare bill that not only prohibits public funding of abortions, but also helps pregnant women obtain critical access to life-sustaining healthcare.

The National Right to Life Committee and LifeNews.com have led a misinformation campaign against these two pro-life leaders. NRLC has said Driehaus betrayed his supposedly pro-life views by voting for a bill that it called the "greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade." Following the lead of NRLC, Flint Right to Life dropped their support of Stupak claiming, 'His support of this national healthcare bill changed America forever and declared war on unborn babies, the elderly and disabled persons.' LifeNews.com March 24, 2010.

These meritless claims about the effect of the Presidential Order inflame people who rely on these sources for accurate information. There are consequences when leaders in the pro-life community make baseless claims.

They encourage hate and violence against the very people who brought about the historic Presidential Executive Order.

The truth is that President Obama's Executive Order will in fact prohibit any abortion funding because executive orders receive great deference in interpreting statutes. While orders can't contradict a statute, when reasonable in nature orders are routinely used to supplement statutes especially when they are consistent with established law.

Since the healthcare bill does not explicitly call for abortion funding, the President's Executive Order does not contradict any statute, and applying the Hyde Amendment is clearly a reasonable interpretation of the healthcare bill since Hyde has been the law since 1978.

Pro-life Democrats insisted on the Executive Order because there was not an express prohibition in the healthcare bill against abortion funding. With the President's Executive Order in place, we now have it.

Arguments to the contrary only encourage hate and violence that undermine the Consistent Life Ethic supported by pro-life Democrats. True pro-life activists will be working to make sure this landmark healthcare succeeds with its abortion prohibition intact.


Comments:

She's part of the misinformation campaign and she has the gall to blame pro-lifers of the result???

Posted by: RSD at April 14, 2010 12:29 PM


I am proud to announce the TN is on its way to being the first state to ban abortion in the upcoming exchange. House was the big fight and it was done Monday night. Senate should pass well.

I never voted R until I became pro life. Sorry Kristen you have to admit that if a party has this as a plank in their platform, they are the party of death.

Posted by: Susie at April 14, 2010 12:31 PM


I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that someone who vehemently disagrees with your beliefs is inciting "hate and violence".

Just because some unbalanced people have taken a vigilante stance as this country was being rolled over by the legislative branch, doesn't mean that the rest of us can't be truthful, civil and (peacefully) fight with every fire of our beings against a bill (now law) that would have been detrimental to the country even WITH the Stupak Amendment in place.

The sad truth of the matter is that SOME people, not naming names, are Democrats first and foremost. Any principles, morals or other dearly held beliefs, become less dear when held along side the All Mighty Bucking Donkey.

Posted by: Elizabeth S. at April 14, 2010 12:52 PM


Have to ask ... then does Mrs. Day approve or disapprove of the "NO" vote Democratic Congressman from Illinois -- a staunch prolifer --Dan Lipinski made on Obamacare?

Was he right or wrong? Does Democrats for Life support Lipinski's vote?

Posted by: Fran at April 14, 2010 12:56 PM


Abortion has never been about "women's rights", it's always been about power.

As this article demonstrates that in order to hold power, Democrats must always obscure the facts.

It is not we pro-lifers who espouse hate. We are merely trying to make abortion totally illegal. Democrats espouse that to be hateful, again, remember it's about power not about the doing the right thing. hey must therefore, twist and obfuscate to keep the house of cards from falling and it eventually will.

I guess therein lies the difference. Democrats want to be able to claim they are pro-life while at the same time, preserve "choice".

Sorry, can't have it both ways....fence sitters not allowed.

I'm not trying to be hateful, just factual and sometimes the truth hurts.

Let's call abortion what it is, the murder of unborn children.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 14, 2010 12:59 PM


Jill, I'm glad you emphasized DFLA's statement that they believe this to be a truly pro-life healthcare bill.

Because that kind of statement reveals Democrats For Life's irrelevancy to the pro-life/pro-personhood movement. Suppose you have a state election for Attorney General and the pro-life candidate is Republican, what is DFLA to do? Endorse him? Phht. Yeah right.

I feel they don't support what is "truly pro-life", unless its the Democratic version of pro-life.

Obamacare is loaded with no respect for the elderly, the comatose, doctors with consciences, and aims to shove contraception down the throats of American teenagers. "Truly pro-life" my BUTT!

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 14, 2010 1:03 PM


Pro-life democrats will never be trusted again. I think they know that their jobs are at stake and I smell desperation. The pressure from pro-abort democrats must be fierce.

Posted by: The myth is busted at April 14, 2010 1:12 PM


I agree with Kristen Day.

I know that most people here disagree with me, but let's be frank: one, abortion is about the only issue that the Democrats are not pro-life on (as opposed to the Republicans who cannot by any scope of the imagination honestly be called pro-life), and two, that the number one reason why abortion is still killing women and children around the world is our fault as pro-lifers. This tactic that we have is not working. We have to change our strategy otherwise more people will suffer injustice.

Posted by: Vannah at April 14, 2010 1:15 PM


Someone needs to ask Kristen: if Obama was so concerned with keeping federal funding out of abortion then why not just make it part of the bill?

Obama's not stupid. He knows the ExOrder is weak and can be overruled at any time. And the response from the pro-aborts proves it (as Jill has pointed out ad nauseum on this blog).

He also knows that the more than 110 federal bureaucracies the bill sets up are unregulated and unaccountable and will have free reign in determining what does and does not get paid for.

You could say that this was a political stroke of genius for Obama and a huge act of ignorance for Stupak and company.

I appreciate what Kristen does and think that her statement is a reflection of the anxiety she must feel day after day in the work that she does. It cannot be easy being a Democrat for Life knowing that there is a huge chance your work will not be successful. But I'm glad she's trying.

Posted by: Andrew at April 14, 2010 1:16 PM


Jill,

"I expect Kristen threw LifeNews.com into the mix because she considers it an NRLC mouthpiece."

Not sure why either you would say such a thing nor attribute it to Day since it is cleanly not factual and clearly not what she implied.

LifeNews.com is not affiliated with National Right to Life nor any other pro-life group. We have been an independent news agency since our founding in 2003 and since the days of our pro-life news clipping service known as the Pro-Life Infonet dating back to 1992.

LifeNews.com is no more a mouthpiece for NRLC than we are for Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Catholic Bishops, Christian Coalition, Students for Life, Feminists for Life, Priests for Life, Catholic Vote, Jill Stanek, Pro-Life Pulse, or the hundreds of state and local pro-life groups on whom we report on on a daily basis. All of those groups were diametrically opposed to the pro-abortion health care bill and the position of Democrats for Life saying the phony executive order was sufficient to stop the abortion funding in it.

LIfeNews.com is only a mouthpiece for the pro-life movement and the pro-life movement nearly unanimously opposed the bill and believed the executive order was no good. Other than DFLA, I'm unaware of any credible pro-life organization claiming otherwise.

I expect Day threw LifeNews.com into the mix because we provided the most comprehensive coverage of the abortion-health care debate and the reaction of every pro-life group, save DFLA, to the sellout by longtime pro-life Democrats for the pro-abortion bill in exchange for a an executive order that even Planned Parenthood admitted was a "victory" and "worthless." We also have provided extensive coverage to the numerous pro-life groups that have withdrawn their support for Stupak and company in the weeks since Obama signed the bill.

As far as Day's remarks are concerned, they're not worth responding to, given that she repeatedly accuses LifeNews.com, NRLC and pro-life advocates of "encouraging hate and violence." That's right out of the Planned Parenthood playbook, where pro-lifers are called terrorists.

These sort of childish, playground antics from Democrats for Life make me ashamed that I ever assisted in founding the group. The organization had a real potential to turn around the Democratic Party and help it abandon its pro-abortion extremism.

Instead, Democrats for Life, like so many Democrats before from Bill Clinton and Al Gore to Jesse Jackson, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, has abandoned its pro-life heritage in favor of its Democratic activist credentials.

But it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. In email after email over the last couple of election cycles, Democrats for Life has repeatedly trashed good pro-life Republicans on other political issues in announcing endorsements of pro-life Democrats.

In a world where help from both parties is needed to end abortion, that's a shame.

Any pro-life outfit that truly places the protection of the unborn first and partisan politics second would not tear down pro-life lawmakers of one party so supposedly pro-life candidates of another party can be elected. The unborn come first and I challenge Democrats for Life to prove they still care more about babies than political parties. Until they can do that, the only violence anyone here is advocating is Democrats for Life looking the other way at the violence of abortion and the forcing of Americans to pay for more. Hate that and then you can claim to be pro-life.

Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at April 14, 2010 1:22 PM


If Kirsten really thinks that the executive order will hold back the expansion of abortion, then why would Cecile Richards applaud the passing of the health care bill? I think the fact that Planned Parenthood's president was overjoyed by the passing of this bill proves, in fact, that the bill will provide funding for abortion.

Posted by: Julie Culshaw at April 14, 2010 1:37 PM


Kristen Day,

If you are reading this, perhaps you can help me understand who exactly you are, and from that, the nature of your motives.

On the one hand, I read your comments and see the awful bile of a woman who has been betrayed so badly that she lashes out against those with whom she ought to be allied, doing so because lashing out at her betrayers would mean confronting the terrible reality of her having been made a fool of on the national stage.

That is an understandable and human reaction. However, as a leader you need to work through this betrayal if you are to be at all effective in your job.

On the other hand, accusing NRTL and Lifenews.com as you do is a scurrilous charge that cannot be allowed to stand, not even for Christian love and charitable consideration of how you were betrayed by your own.

Those charges of engendering hate and violence, coupled with your defense of the worthless EO used as a smokescreen completely destroy your credibility.

How are we to accept you as a serious person when you scill for Obama and the people who sold you out? Your allegations make you sound more like a congressional aide from Pelosi's office than the leader of the pro-life Democrats.

If you want us to take you and what's left of your office seriously, you need to begin walking the rhetoric back in a big way.

This isn't about Stupak et al. anymore. This is about who you are and how you are presenting yourself. At the very least you should take a few weeks of vacation and not pick up a newspaper.

Your perspective is completely gone. Your credibility is not far behind.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 14, 2010 1:48 PM


That should have read, "...when you shill for Obama..."

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 14, 2010 1:52 PM


We have come to a crossroads for the pro-life movement and I am truly concerned about the future.

Pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans hold different political philosophies and it became very clear with the Health Care Reform bill. From the beginning a majority of pro-life Democrats wanted to address their pro-life concerns to pass the bill while a majority of pro-life Republicans opposed the Democratic led reform bill and opposed the House bill even with the Stupak Amendment included.

I was truly disappointed by the public reaction and attacks from my friends in the pro-life community against pro-life Democratic leaders as they made claims that this is the end of pro-life Democrats, withdrew endorsements and made public statements that they will never endorse pro-life democrats again. I did appreciate the private and respectful conversations and words of support and encouragement from those same groups and it helped us try to uderstand why we had very different opinions about the outcome.

But this does not help our overall problem of the partisan nature of the pro-life movement. Democrats For Life of America would not need to exist nor would it had formed if the movement were bi-partisan.

As a pro-life Democrat, I have never hid my allegiance to my Party nor to my belief that every life is sacred. I am not an expert nor would I ever claim to be about how pro-life Republicans are treated or what their position is within their own Caucus. LifeNews.com and other Republicans immediately worked to discredit the work that they accomplished and their strong influence within our Party. The truth is that the pro-life Democrats’ leadership and success was a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement. A strong voice within both the Democratic and Republican parties will benefit those infants in the womb who we speak for in our effort to end abortion. The Republican Party sees this as a threat for their attempt to regain control of the House.

The real problem we face as a pro-life community is not in the House of Representatives and it is not going to be solved by working to destroy the growing influence of pro-life voices within the Democratic Party. We passed the Stupak Amendment in the House with 64 Democrats. As a pro-life community we should be working together to elect more pro-life Senators. Had there been more voices and votes carrying the banner for the unborn in the Senate, the Nelson/Casey/Hatch Amendment would have passed there as well.

As a pro-life community, we need to respect our political differences and work toward our common goal to end abortion and promote a pro-life nation.

Posted by: Kristen Day at April 14, 2010 2:19 PM


Like you Jill, I consider Kristen a good freind, but she's absolutely wrong. Pro-lifers here in Cincinnati will be working extremely hard to defeat Steve Driehaus and elect a real pro-life congressman, Steve Chabot.

Posted by: Brad Mattes at April 14, 2010 2:21 PM


Kristen,

This is such a false statement I don't know where to start.

"From the beginning a majority of pro-life Democrats wanted to address their pro-life concerns to pass the bill while a majority of pro-life Republicans opposed the Democratic led reform bill and opposed the House bill even with the Stupak Amendment included."

You switch from talking about pro-life Republicans to pro-life groups in your post and leave the impression that pro-life groups opposed the health care bill even with the Stupak amendment intact. While Republican members of Congress may have opposed the bill even with the abortion funding neutralized, that was NOT the position of pro-life groups or the Catholic bishops.

"But this does not help our overall problem of the partisan nature of the pro-life movement. Democrats For Life of America would not need to exist nor would it had formed if the movement were bi-partisan."

The pro-life movement is only partisan to the extent that a) most Republican candidates are pro-life and b) most Democratic candidates are pro-abortion. This also doesn't address the concern that Democrats for Life has specifically supported pro-life Democrats running against pro-life Republicans with stellar pro-life voting records.

You mention the withdrawing endorsements, but you've never addressed, for example, why Democrats for Life supported a candidate against someone like Steve Chabot -- the main House sponsor of the partial-birth abortion ban in the House -- and trashed him on unrelated issues when issuing your endorsement of his opponent (who ultimately voted for the pro-abortion bill). It's hard to take seriously any attacks on partisanship when Democrats for Life has been endorsing Democrats to take out pro-life Republican members of Congress across the country.

"LifeNews.com and other Republicans immediately worked to discredit the work that they accomplished and their strong influence within our Party."

I'm sorry you've chosen to attack the very pro-life news service that gave you advertising space for Democrats for Life even as your organization attacked pro-life Republicans. I'm also sorry you fail to offer even one shred of evidence of how LifeNews.com is "Republican" even though we've written dozens and dozens of articles over the years praising the work of Democrats for Life and highlighting pro-life Democrats or how we are now supposedly "discrediting their work."

If by discrediting their work you mean exposing how Democrats who claim to be pro-life voted for the greatest abortion expansion since Roe, then of course we're guilty.

We agree that a "strong voice within both the Democratic and Republican parties will benefit those infants in the womb who we speak for in our effort to end abortion" but that can only happen if Democrats and pro-life Democratic groups actually oppose abortion and abortion funding instead of signing off on fraudulent language.

Regards,
Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at April 14, 2010 2:52 PM


Donnelly lost a lot of support here in Northern Indiana too. Just disappointing they all caved.

Posted by: Grace at April 14, 2010 2:53 PM


Posted by: Vannah at April 14, 2010 1:15 PM

..."abortion is about the only issue that the Democrats are not pro-life on"...
--------------------------------------------------

I will not 'defend' republicans, but I will challenge your assertion that liberal/progressive/humanist democRATS policies and programs are 'pro-life'.

How about infanticide and euthanasia?

How about sex selection abortions?

How abortions targeted at specific ethnic groups?

How about embryonic stem cell research?

Liberals/progressive/humanist pro-lifers could hold their annual convention, if they have one at all, in phone booth.

Vannah, how many liberal/progressive/humnanist events have you ever attended?

'pro-life' is anathema to liberals/progressives/humanists.

These foos are certain the planet is already overpopulated by several billion people, that is why these 'human rights' protectors are completely silent about forced abortions in communist China.

These folks only look at humans as a resource for votes and revenue. Beyond that humans are only a necessary evil cause someone has to dispose of their trash and mow their lawn and wash their Prius.

They are the 'more equals' who have to protect themselves from the 'less equals' and from each other.

They are by and large egocentric control freaks who are not satisfied to regulate their own miserable existence but have a compulsion to require everyone else to adhere to their relatavistic politically correct code of behavior.

But then maybe I am operating under false notion of what it means to be 'pro-life'.

I am quite sure I am NOT confused about what it means to be a liberal/progressive/humanist/democRAT.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 14, 2010 3:40 PM


This caught my eye on Ms. Day's response:

"As a pro-life community we should be working together to elect more pro-life Senators"
=============================================

I say we should and are doing this as a true pro-life community (wait and see on Nov)...as for so-called "pro-life" Democrats, it boils down to the question of TRUST.

The pro-life community trusted these Democrats to uphold and protect the innocent and unborn lives. To be the voice of the voiceless.

It was a breath of fresh air to hear/ read Democrats on the side of life.

But, as history will note, when it came down to the final decision at the final hour, they betrayed the cause.

Now tell me, Ms. Day...Why would pro-lifers want to continue supporting people who betrayed that trust?

Rest assured, Pro-lifers everywhere WILL be working to elect more Pro-life senators...unfortunately, these will NOT be Democrats.


Posted by: RSD at April 14, 2010 3:52 PM


Kristen, you do not know me well, but I am pretty sure you know who I am. I do not live in the Beltway, but I am very active in pro-life circles. I am posting this using my handle for the time being, but if I feel it is appropriate, I will reveal my identity.

I have one question for you. If you can give me a good answer, I will forever hold my peace about the "Stupak Compromise."

Here it is.

Premise 1: Abortion Rights groups (NOW NARAL Planned Parenthood) clearly wanted to see abortion funding in the health care reform bill.

Premise 2: Abortion Rights groups hate to lose ground. They fight tooth and nail against the most incremental restrictions and regulations

Now, if the executive order actually prevented public funding of abortion, explain to me why not ONE abortion rights group came out in opposition to the health care reform bill. Furthermore explain why not one abortion rights group encouraged their members to Call Congress and voice their opposition to the health care reform bill.

President Obama cannot have this both ways. Either the health care reform bill allows for public funding of abortion -- or it does not. One side got played here and frankly -- it was us.

Posted by: TheCardinalRules at April 14, 2010 4:04 PM


The inherent problem with congressional democRATS who purport to be 'pro-life' is they cast votes to make and keep a woman like Nancy as mad damn speaker of the their liberal whore house.

This missy has never supported a single pro-life measure and she has opposed every pro-life measure that has been introduced in the House, no matter what the political affiliation of the prime sponsor(s).

nancy is a CINO who's first allegiance is to her feminista dogma, not to God or the constitution.
The mad damn is a liberal loon with the intellect of a sterertypical bubble headed blonde.

She lies as casually as she breathes.

No thinking person could take seriously anyone who would continue to support a person as serioulsly flawed as this leftist babe.

The 'republican establishment' has taken for granted and taken advantage of conservative christians who are pro-life, but they at least have the good sense to know they cannot succeed politically without our support.

The democRATS have determined that they do NOT need or want to succeed with pro-lifers.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 14, 2010 4:16 PM


Response to TheCardinalRules.

Here are the statements from the pro-choice side. I think they speak for themselves and answer your question.

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
Health Care Reform Victory Comes with Tragic Setback for Women's Rights

Fact: The bill contains a sweeping anti-abortion provision. Contrary to the talking points circulated by congressional leaders, the bill passed today ultimately achieves the same outcome as the infamous Stupak-Pitts Amendment, namely the likely elimination of all private as well as public insurance coverage for abortion. It imposes a bizarre requirement on insurance plan enrollees who buy coverage through the health insurance exchanges to write two monthly checks (one for an abortion care rider and one for all other health care). Even employers will have to write two separate checks for each of their employees requesting the abortion rider.

This burdensome, elaborate system must be eliminated. It is there because the Catholic bishops and extremist abortion rights opponents know that it will result in greatly restricting access to abortion care, currently one of the most common medical procedures for women.

STATEMENT BY NARAL - Nancy Keenan
The House passed health-reform legislation that included Sen. Nelson's dangerous provision on March 21. In a statement, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the organization "determined that, because of the egregious abortion-coverage restrictions, we could not endorse this bill.

Planned Parenthood
While we celebrate the passage of health care reform, we're going to need your help to fix the damage caused by the Nelson amendment. If left intact, the Nelson amendment would be the most severe restriction on private health insurance coverage for abortion in 35 years.

Posted by: Kristen Day at April 14, 2010 4:49 PM


More from the pro-choice side:

CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
Access to abortion in the U.S. is undermined not only by restrictive legislation, but also by bans on the use of public funds, facilities and employees for abortions, and by restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions. These restrictions patently discriminate against women and pose significant obstacles for women – particularly low-income women – seeking to exercise their constitutional right to have an abortion.

CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE
Now, to add insult to injury, President Obama has agreed at the last moment to issue an Executive Order that extended the antichoice elements of this already restrictive law. He extended refusal rights of a kind that he had previously denounced when they were introduced by President George W. Bush. He also extended the Hyde Amendment, which bans all federal funding of abortion, to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.

In short, we were assured that nobody would be worse off under a reformed system. On each of these points, the American people have been misled.

NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
The Nelson Provision in the Senate health care bill is a significant departure from the
compromise language in the Majority Leader’s original bill. The provision creates an arbitrary
and burdensome system which will deter individuals from purchasing abortion coverage for
themselves and their dependents, and deter health care plans from offering it.

GEORGE WASHINGTON SHCOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH SERVICES
Experts at the George Washington School of Public Health & Health Services concluded in an analysis of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment that
the Amendment’s prohibition on abortion coverage in the Exchange will have an industry-wide effect and will eliminate coverage of abortion for
all women, including those who seek coverage outside of the Exchange. Although the Nelson Provision is different than the Nelson-Hatch
Amendment, we believe it could result in the same shift in the insurance industry.

Posted by: Kristen Day at April 14, 2010 5:04 PM


Kristen, nice try. But you swung and missed. You did not answer my question.

I know that abortion rights groups engaged in some rhetorical arm waving when the Stupak compromise was announced.

But again, not one abortion rights group:

1) Publicly opposed the health care reform bill ("not endorse" is not the same thing as "oppose")

2) Encouraged their members to contact Congress and voice their opposition to the health care reform bill.

The bill passed by a narrow margin. If abortion rights groups wanted to defeat the bill, they could have stopped it.

Keep in mind, the Democratic Party receives alot of money from abortionists and abortion rights supporters. They are the tail that wags the dog. I cannot think of one time abortion rights folks have fallen on their own sword for the good of the Democratic Party. In short they always get what they want.

Remember, back in the 1990s many Democrats engaged in a politically damaging (and embarrassing) opposition to partial birth abortion bans at the insistence of abortion rights supporters.

So again, with regard to the executive order:

1) all the abortion rights groups got fooled

or

2) they realized the executive order accomplished little to nothing and engaged in nothing more than rhetorical arm waving.

Which do you think is the case?

Posted by: TheCardinalRules at April 14, 2010 5:11 PM


This may not be new information to most of you but here is a concise article stating the pro-life objections to the Executive Order.

http://catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php?p=1149

How is this "misinformation"? How could anyone in their right mind who considers him or herself pro-life/anti abortion claim that the new health care laws have no federal abortion funding?
Until the Democratic Party removes abortion from its party platform, no Democrat is completely pro-life by simply stating they are. They must act on it with their vote and their efforts to reform their party. Individual Republicans are also far from perfect. Many are "pro-life with exceptions". I have been stuck with the dilemma of voting/not voting for Mark Kirk, who describes himself as pro-choice but personally against abortion. What good is that? Now he is running for the U.S. Senate.
As long as part of the battle to end abortion involves changing the laws, we are unfortunately stuck with having to wade into the political swamp from time to time.

Posted by: jim sable at April 14, 2010 5:22 PM


"pro-life groups should not be blamed for 'encourag[ing] hate and violence' simply because they express disagreement"

Jill, calling pro-life democrats "traitors" is not mere disagreement, and it encourages the unstable. If pro-life groups do not wish to be linked with the violent, they can post a non-violence statement like www.plagal.org did after the killing of Bernard Slepian.
but mostly, they can admit that the republican party used them shamlessly for more than 8 years... that the same SCOTUS that put Bush in office 5-4 could have just as easily over-turned Roe v. Wade but did not... and that maybe a pragmatic approach might be in order.
I proudly fought FOR this bill that enables middle-class women to have the same access to free prenatal care and birth that the poor do... so that she does not have to choose a $200 abortion as the only choice... she can now choose a $10,000 birth instead. What women given a REAL choice, chooses to kill? The abortion rate will go down thanks to this bill.

Posted by: Maria Krasinski at April 14, 2010 5:23 PM


Sheesh Maria. Who's going to pay for the free prenatal care for middle class women? What's the income level for "middle class"? Is there a limit as to how many houses, cars, tv's and other luxuries a middle class family can own to make them eligible for the freebies?
Everyone wants a handout at everyone else's expense.

Posted by: Janet at April 14, 2010 6:00 PM


(cont.)

When are people going to take responsibility for living their own lives? It looks we're headed in the wrong direction...

Posted by: Janet at April 14, 2010 6:04 PM


Maria says middle-class women can now choose a $10K birth because Obamacare helps them.

Huh?

If she's middle-class, why would she not be able to afford a $10K birth, which is going to be covered by her or her husband's employer-provided health care? She's middle class. She wouldn't HAVE to pay ten-grand for giving birth.

And women don't get abortions because they can't afford to give birth. They get abortions because they don't want the child.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 14, 2010 6:17 PM


Dear Kristen,

Here's a prescription for your democrat headache:

Stop being a democrat and call me in the morning.

I think you'll sleep much better at night.

Posted by: carder at April 14, 2010 6:27 PM


Kristen,

When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging. If you really believe this stuff that you're saying here, then I believe that there exists an unbridgeable divide between DFL and the rest of the pro-life community.

Please take my comments above to heart and take a good vacation. You don't know how much you sound like a shill for Obama and Pelosi. If the legislation were as wonderful as you say, then explain all of the drama with Stupak.

The reality is he sold you out and crawled away like the coward that he is and left you holding the bag. That we're more outraged about it than you is pretty telling.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 14, 2010 7:29 PM


Kristin, I consider you a friend. But the fact is that this time your Democrat friends threw you under the bus. If Stupak held firm, then he could protected the unborn in any bill considered, have run against Obama for president in 2012 and a lot of pro-lifers would have backed him. But he caved in. He probably was threatened and acted to protect certain self interests. Now that he is not running for re-election, we may not find out for awhile why he threw in the towel.
But the fact is that Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius and Obama are bad news for the babies. Any one who walks with them is not walking with the babies. They are out to divide and to destroy the pro life movement and weaken the Catholic Church.
It may be that the party may have to be gutted before it can be put back together in any moral fashion. Tragic.... some of you were making some real progress.

But barring some unknown between now and November, it is not going to bode well for those who turned their back on the babies or the country.

Posted by: John Jakubczyk at April 15, 2010 2:59 AM


It's all quite simple.
The name 'Democrats for Life' says it all: 'Democrat' first and then 'for Life' as needed for votes, conscience appeasement, whatever. But here is the Democrat Party Platform language:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Could they be more clear, cold, or heartless? Any person who can speak those words cannot melt an icecube in their mouth.

God bless DFL for trying to swim against the current but their fellow democrats will continue to dunk them underwater if they get too close to shore. Voters who know with all their heart, mind, soul and strength that abortion is not health care cannot continue to waste lifelines on anyone with a D beside their name.

Posted by: Question of Loyalty at April 15, 2010 6:28 AM


Kristin,

It says alot to me that your defense of your position is a posting of statements from pro-abortion groups.

How about responding to these statements from pro-life groups? http://www.lifenews.com/nat6166.html

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins: "there is no way that an executive order will protect the unborn or prevent the greatest expansion of elective abortion since Roe v. Wade.

National Right to Life: "The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing," NRLC said. "It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says."

"The order does nothing at all to mitigate the other abortion-related problems described in the NRLC letter, dealing with bill provisions that create dangerous regulatory mandate authorities, revise Indian health programs, and create pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by existing restrictions on funding of abortion," it adds. "Nor can the order correct the omission from the pending legislation of the necessary conscience-protection language that had been included in House-passed health care legislation last November (the "Weldon language")."

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation," he explained.

Others at that link who explain how the bill funds abortions and the executive order doesn't fix it:

Charmaine Yoest, the president of AUL
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America CEO
Kristan Hawkins, Students for Life of America
Lila Rose, Live Action
Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute
Brian Burch, CatholicVote.org
Day Gardner, National Black Pro-Life Union

Are we supposed to believe all of these pro-life people are lying? That's what you're saying.

You're saying you think Obama, Pelosi, Planned Parenthood and NARAL are telling the truth and these fine pro-life leaders are pulling the wool over our eyes. Sorry, but, I'll take their word over the abortion industry and if you can't see the difference that speak volumes about whether Democrats for Life is pro-life or a front group for electing Democrats and turning over Congress and the White House to the pro-abortion leaders who control it now.

Here's the truth: If every pro-life Democrat in the House were replaced with a pro-life Republican, we would never have had this pro-abortion health care bill.

Here's the truth: If every pro-life Democrat in the House were replaced with a pro-life Republican, real pro-life legislation would have been brought up instead of Pelosi and company denying a vote on Chris Smith's amendment to go back on the decision by President Barack Obama (the abortion advocate you praise in DFLA emails) to force Americans to pay for abortion and abortion promotion by overturning the Mexico City Policy.

It's bad enough that DFLA sold out on the pro-abortion health care bill, but enough is enough. Quit with these attacks and calling pro-life groups and people hate-mongerers, peddlers of violence, and liars.

Regards,
Steven

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at April 15, 2010 8:32 AM


Steve,

I think you missed the point. A previous person asked me why the pro-choice groups didn’t come out against the Nelson Amendment and Executive Order. I was merely posting the statements from the pro-choice groups to show that they do oppose both and see the Health Care bill as a infringement on their right to have an abortion.

As a pro-life community, regardless of our thoughts on the Executive Order, the Nelson Amendment or the Health Care bill, our main goal has to be ensuring that the intent of the Executive Order does remain in place and the promise that the Community Health Center funds will not be used for abortion and that the conscience rights will be protected. I work closely with pro-leaders around this nation and have a great deal of respect for Brad Mattes, John Jakubczyk, Jill Stanek and others. I have not questioned their motives nor criticized their position. We will continue to work together to ensure that we pass and protect pro-life ideals and legislation.

I do appreciate that you made your goal clear: to replace all pro-life Democrats. I do not agree with your agenda because I think we would be better off replacing pro-choice Senators and Representatives. We passed strong pro-life language (Stupak Amendment). The problem will not be solved by eliminating pro-life democrats in the House. It will only be solved by electing a pro-life Senate.

I do also appreciate the information you collect on pro-life legislation and pro-life victories around the Nation – most recently the pro-life Democrat led victory in West Virginia where pro-life Democratic Governor Joe Manchin recently signed the ultrasound bill into law. DLFA will continue our mission to increase our influence within the Democratic Party so we can achieve more pro-life victories. I will continue to send you information on victories and continue to contact you when I think your stories are slanted if you think that would be helpful.

Finally, it has been largely overlooked that almost 2 dozen pro-life Democratic Congressmen voted against the Health Care Reform bill, including Rep. Lipinski, Davis , Shuler and Taylor. They are all respected Members of DFLA’s Advisory Board. We will continue to work with them and other pro-life to protect the unborn.

Kristen

Posted by: Kristen Day at April 15, 2010 9:21 AM


Kristen,

Nice try. The pro-abortion roups don't oppose both the health care bill and the executive order.

“For more than a year, Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly for a health care" bill, its president Cecile Richards said in a statement. "It's a huge victory for women's health."

With passage of the legislation, "monumental progress was made toward achieving these goals" she said.

Richards dismissed the executive order, which has been slammed by pro-life groups, as a "a symbolic gesture."

'What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban ... that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon," Richards said. "So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban."

I notice you didn't post any of that in your statements from pro-abortion groups. The bill funded abortions, the order does nothing to stop it, and now you are deceiving pro-life people.

Therefore, I'm not sure why you would be concerned with enforcing an executive order that does absolutely nothing to stop abortion funding. Would have been better to be concerned about stopping the abortion funding in the first place...

You can talk all you want about respecting pro-life leaders and groups, but the fact that you have completely thrown out the window and offered nothing to refute their analysis showing how the bills funds and promotes abortions and how the executive order does nothing to allay those concerns undermines your claims.

"I have not questioned their motives nor criticized their position."

That's total BS Kristen, you sent out a statement attacking pro-life groups and saying we are promoting hate and violence.

"I do appreciate that you made your goal clear: to replace all pro-life Democrats."

Nice attempt at twisting my words Kristen, but you know I didn't say that. What I did say was if these so-called pro-life Democrats were replaced with pro-life Republicans -- all of whom opposed the pro-abortion bill -- we wouldn't have the abortion funding that every pro-life group except Democrats for Life opposes. I guess assigning some other agenda to me makes it easier for you to avoid criticism of the fact that you're on the side of abortion funding.

"I think we would be better off replacing pro-choice Senators and Representatives. "

Then why does DFLA gleefully attack pro-life Republican senators and representatives?

"We passed strong pro-life language (Stupak Amendment). The problem will not be solved by eliminating pro-life democrats in the House. It will only be solved by electing a pro-life Senate."

If pro-life means people like Ben Nelson and Bob Casey who voted for abortion funding after they voted against it no thanks.

You are welcome to send information about Democrats for Life to LifeNews.com, but as we have done in the past, we're not going to print the parts of your press releases that attack pro-life lawmakers on nongermane political issues as you seek to build a Democratic majority that results in naming Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the leaders of the House and Senate and enables them to push abortion.

LIfeNews.com will also not print your statements about how Obama is supposedly keeping his word on not funding abortions when he's aggressively promoted abortion funding since his first week in office and signed a health care bill that contains numerous methods of abortion funding that undermine the Hyde amendment.

And finally, no, it hasn't been overlooked that authentic pro-life Democrats like Dan Lipinski and Gene Taylor voted against the pro-abortion health care bill. We've covered them (http://www.lifenews.com/state4933.html) and how they think your analysis is full of holes. As members of your advisory board, as I suggest you take their advice.

Regards,
Steven

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at April 15, 2010 10:03 AM


Cranky Catholic @ 4/14/10 1:03PM, I appreciate your comment. Obamacare has other anti-life provisions, but the Dems successfully diverted attention from those by framing their argument around abortion funding.

He also knows that the more than 110 federal bureaucracies the bill sets up are unregulated and unaccountable and will have free reign in determining what does and does not get paid for. You could say that this was a political stroke of genius for Obama and a huge act of ignorance for Stupak and company. Posted by: Andrew at April 14, 2010 1:16 PM

I don't think it was ignorance. Stupak wanted nationalized health care, which means putting less control in the hands of patients and providers and more control in the hands of federal bureaucrats. Unless he failed to read the bill, he had to have been very aware that programs for home visits, school clinics, and other initiatives have wide latitude to promote an anti-life agenda even if they do not directly fund an abortion.

That's one reason it's difficult for me to swallow Dem rhetoric that Obamacare is consistent with a prolife position. But there are others too. How is it "prolife" to support Medicare cuts that disproportionately affect the elderly and the disabled? Are their lives less sacred? Or to dump half the uninsured into Medicaid, a program we already know is a miserable failure that doesn't improve outcomes? Are the lives of the financially distressed less sacred? To disincentivize physicians for making referrals to specialized (i.e. expensive) types of care, even if such care is essential to the patient? Those who require expensive types of care lead less sacred lives? To neglect the strengthening of conscience protections across all aspects of health care delivery? I could keep going, but "prolife" Dems have wasted enough of my time already.

As an independent, no "prolife" Dem is going to get my vote unless s/he shows commitment to the sanctity of life across the entire human life cycle. Show me a Dem who's got the backbone to fight to repeal Obamacare, and then I'll listen. Any Dem who claims to be prolife while supporting Obamacare isn't going to get my vote. Period.

Posted by: Fed Up at April 15, 2010 11:49 AM


Kristen:

" We passed strong pro-life language (Stupak Amendment). "

Kristen, that was a pathetic farce. Bart Stupak is on record (youtube video) as stating that even if his amendment failed, he would vote for the bill. Making that announcement took away any leverage the amendment might have had.

He told Obama and the world publicly that he was on board with this disastrous piece of legislation, with or without his amendment. Thus, the fix was in in November. Then Black Bart sold us all out and crawled away.

All of this drama was a sick sideshow.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 15, 2010 12:41 PM


Kristen:

You are a true believer. But now it is time for a reality check. The democratic party has no room for pro-lifers. Oh yes, they will happily have them if that is the only way to keep the seat from going to the Repubs. But as far as policy making and legislative agendas go make no mistake--the party leadership is 100% pro-abort. You may wish to pretend otherwise and hang in there in the vain hope that there is a chance they will become pro-life, but you are wasting your talents and your precious time and energy.

Let's do a brief overview of how far the Dems have fallen. In the late 1950's into the mid 1960's when the huge baby boomer generation was just a bunch of kids, the democratic party our families knew and many supported really was a party of the people on the side of the little guy etc. Or so it seemed. Then the party started to leave us, they became infaturated with so called "social issues" advocacy. Trouble is the social issues included abortion rights, homosexual rights and so on. Today it is so bad that you will not find the Dem bigwigs supporting any initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

They became more and more in favor of big government solutions. By the time the Reagan revolution came along it was due primarily to the millions of ex-dems who were fed up with the party that left them. Today the Dems are full blown statists. There is nothing the people can do that the state cannot do better. Next on the agenda is amnesty, aka the "democrat majority forever act" which will open citizenship and voting rights to millions of illegal residents. This while millions of Americans are out of work even as illegals hold millions of jobs. Cheers.

Posted by: Jerry at April 15, 2010 8:22 PM


"You may wish to pretend otherwise and hang in there in the vain hope that there is a chance they will become pro-life, but you are wasting your talents and your precious time and energy."- Jerry
==============================================

I wholeheartedly agree, Jerry. Unfortunately, the Pro-life community cannot afford traitors to the cause.

The Cost of betrayal in unborn lives is way too high...even the cost of a single baby's life is too much when somebody flip-flops.

The so-called Dems "For Life" had their chance to really make a difference and they blew it. Pro-lifers do not have the resources that PP and the liberal left has to blow it on flip-floppers, hence, it's just logical that we put our support behind people who can and do stand for Life.


Posted by: RSD at April 16, 2010 11:33 AM


RSD,

I agree. It's called doing triage. DFL just got moved to the hopeless cases category, fatally hemorrhaging from their self-inflicted wounds.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 17, 2010 3:16 AM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "k" in the field below: