By DEXTER DUGGAN
Democratic presidential candidates are out over their skis, and not only in primary-election states with snowy mountains.
The candidates’ national pro-abortion extremism has reached the point where even pro-life Democrats who had kept wishing the hopefuls would come to their senses have started to give up about remaining faithful to that party.
New York liberal pro-life university professor Charles Camosy declared in an article posted February 6 at the New York Post, “If the party was willing to go all-in on the most volatile issue of our time with a position held by only 13 percent of the population, it was time to take no for an answer.”
Not only was Camosy turning to a political party he considered more appealing, the third-party American Solidarity Party, he wrote, but he was resigning from the board of a Democratic group that swore by pro-life principles, Democrats for Life of America (DFLA).
When Democratic leaders deigned to meet with DFLA, Camosy said, the bigwigs “didn’t take us seriously. When we showed them that pro-life Democrats would beat Republicans in certain districts, it didn’t matter….Anything even hinting that abortion is less than good now violates party orthodoxy.”
Republicans often have been urged not to “get ahead” of Americans in being pro-life, but a similar counsel to be cautious wasn’t pressed on Democrats, no matter how radical they became favoring abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court invented the imaginary right to national permissive abortion in 1973.
And Kristen Day, veteran executive director of DFLA, wrote at the Fox News site that despite her members’ longtime support for that party, “in 2020, we’ve had enough. . . .
“So,” Day added, “I’m sounding the alarm to 2020 candidates: If you want the votes of 21 million pro-life Democrats — you have to earn it. We’re not going to give it to you for free.”
National conservative commentator Quin Hillyer told The Wanderer on February 10, “Kristen Day’s warning is of utmost importance. The Democratic Party has completely lost its moral compass by adopting the most extremely pro-abortion positions imaginable, including, at times, murder post-birth. They do lose elections because of their extremism, and will lose plenty more.”
Meanwhile, a large bimonthly magazine dated for February for older Americans had two unashamedly pro-life articles featuring pro-life leaders, one written by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, and a Q-and-A interview with Live Action founder Lila Rose. There also was an article promoting adoption.
The AMAC Magazine cover showed a visibly pregnant young woman next to the headline, “The Beauty of Human Life.” AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, was founded in 2007 as an alternative to the considerably older, left-wing AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons.
Wikipedia says that as of March 2014, AMAC claimed 1.1 million members.
While Democratic candidates scramble for a blessing from a small elite whose views are pumped large by dominant left-wing media, the AMAC magazine shows the thinking of a larger segment of the population.
Dannenfelser wrote a two-page article titled, “Trump: An Effective Pro-Life President.” She recalled that when she and a like-minded group founded the Susan B. Anthony List in 1992, “pro-life Democrats were being expelled from the party, but many Republican politicians were also afraid to talk about abortion or dismissive of pro-lifers.”
But, she wrote, “there has been a striking realignment,” with the pro-life movement enjoying “a standing welcome in the White House. We must take advantage of this moment and not let the greatest pro-life opportunity in half a century slip away.”
Lila Rose, the Live Action founder, received five pages in the magazine, a full-page photo of her speaking and a four-page Q-and-A.
Rose, 31, recalled starting with a small group of her friends at age 15 that has grown to today’s Live Action, “the digital leader of the pro-life movement, with over four million followers on social media and over 840 million video views.”
Maintaining ignorance about the preborn baby’s development has gotten harder due to technological advances, she said. “The abortion lobby needs people to remain ignorant and afraid in order to support abortion, which is exactly why Live Action focuses so much on education.”
She tweeted on February 10: “Of Democrat voters: 77 percent reject their party platform of abortion through all nine months. 64 percent support significant restrictions. 34 percent identify as pro-life. 17 percent want abortion completely banned. Yet @BernieSanders claims it is ‘absolutely essential’ for Dems to be ‘pro-choice’.”
Camosy, the liberal professor, wrote at the New York Post: “Until recently, I spent much of my time working hard to elect Democrats to public office — but the early presidential campaigning pushed me away from the party, as well prompting my resignation from the board of Democrats for Life, where I had served since 2014. For someone who is progressive on most issues, this decision doesn’t come easy.”
He continued later: “The straw that broke this camel’s back was Pete Buttigieg’s extremism. Here was a mainstream Democratic candidate suggesting, at one point, that abortion is okay up to the point the baby draws her first breath.”
Although he’ll cast his lot with the American Solidarity Party, Camosy concluded, “millions of others who don’t share my broader values will reluctantly feel forced to check the box for a Republican in November. And Democrats will have no one to blame but their own extremism.”
Day, the DFLA leader, wrote that pro-life Democrats had stayed loyal to that party despite its increasing extremism, but “the worsening treatment of pro-life Democratic candidates and their supporters has reached boiling point.”
She added later: “Fifty-nine percent of Democrats support some restrictions on abortion, and one in five Democrats say they’d only vote for a candidate who believes abortion should be always or mostly illegal.”
However, “We’ve been taken for granted for 20 years by the Democratic Party,” Day said.
Day gave an example of Dem presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg’s extremism by his saying life begins when the baby takes a breath outside the womb — which, Day said, doesn’t “acknowledge the basics of modern prenatal science, which states unequivocally that life begins at conception.”
Buttigieg, who has taken to saying that the Bible supports abortion, ignores what that holy book says about defending the innocent. And he seems to think that God regards the Bible as a scientific textbook whose ancient authors represent the furthest that scientific knowledge is allowed to go.
But would Buttigieg want to be treated for an illness by physicians limited, at most, to first-century medicine? Or have his personal computer taken away because Jesus didn’t use one in Nazareth?
What about modern neonatology? Ultrasonography? Are they to be outlawed because they expose the brutality of permissive abortion?
Posting at USA Today on January 30, Day wrote: “This week, at a town hall in Iowa, I finally had the chance to ask Buttigieg directly whether he would support more moderate platform language to include pro-life Democrats. He refused — twice — to even answer that part of my question and instead focused on his unyielding support for abortion and did not really seem to want the vote from me or people who share my views.”
Anytime, For Any Reason
Northern California conservative commentator Barbara Simpson told The Wanderer on February 11:
“With all the political caterwauling among the candidates about issues as we get closer to primary voting, there’s one that’s being avoided. It’s an issue that affects everyone in the country in one way or another. The issue is abortion.
“But it’s more of a hot potato for the Democrats because the party has moved from ‘Abortion — safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘Abortion — anytime, for any reason’,” Simpson said. “All the Democrat candidates favor taxpayer-funded abortions, and Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg favor abortions up to birth, with no government limits. . . .
“Funny, isn’t it — how you don’t see this information in mainstream news? It’s mainly because the liberal media support abortion on demand, and don’t want voters to know there is any opposition to the Democrat position,” Simpson added.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress