It’s no secret that the Democrat Party is caught betwixt and between on abortion. On the one hand, the unholy triumvirate of NARAL, PPFA, and EMILY’s List have pumped (and continue to pump) enormous of money into electing radically pro-abortion Democrats. Put bluntly, even if the Democrat Party wished to scale back its all-out support of abortion on demand (hint: it doesn’t), it would be highly difficult because Democrats are in thrall to pro-abortionists and their deep pockets.
On the other hand, the public simply doesn’t buy the Democrats’ and their masters’ embrace of abortion for any reason at any point in pregnancy—and paid for by the public. The election of pro-life Donald Trump was made possible in no small measure by the abortion issue which was crystallized in the final presidential debate held October 19.
In a piece written for the Los Angeles Times titled, “Democrats are entirely too focused on abortion,” Michael Wear described what took place at that debate moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace. Wear, about whom we have written before, “directed faith outreach for the Obama campaign in 2012.” He wrote
When she was asked about late-term abortion, Clinton did not call for abortions to be rare or note that under Obama, the abortion rate was at its lowest point since Roe was decided in 1973. Instead, she launched into an extended defense of late-term abortion that received rapturous praise from some quarters, with Vogue proclaiming that Clinton “awesomely defended abortion rights.”
To be clear, in his book, Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned in the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America and in an interview he gave to Emma Green of the Atlantic magazine, Wear painted a picture of President Obama that was wildly off-base.
If you were to believe Wear, Obama was like an unrequited lover, reaching out to pro-lifers who did not reach back. He told Green
I think Democrats felt like their outreach wouldn’t be rewarded. For example: The president went to Notre Dame in May of 2009 and gave a speech about reducing the number of women seeking abortions. It was literally met by protests from the pro-life community. Now, there are reasons for this—I don’t mean to say that Obama gave a great speech and the pro-life community should have [acknowledged that]. But I think there was an expectation by Obama and the White House team that there would be more eagerness to find common ground.
A man dedicated to preserving and fortifying Roe v. Wade and who would spend much of his second term abridging the right to religious freedom of large sectors of the Catholic community–this was a search for “common ground”?
Back to Wear’s weekend op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. He is correct when writing about the impending confirmation fight over President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy when he says
Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle may only make matters worse for Democrats. If the message the party delivers during the Senate hearings is single-mindedly focused on Roe and abortion rights, it may discourage support and turnout in many competitive districts crucial to switching the House and Senate from red to blue. (I’m thinking about states in the Southeast, the Rust Belt and Midwest, and even the Mountain West.)
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and the latest pro-life news.
But he is just as incorrect when Wear argues that there was a tremendous shift in his party’s position on abortion two years ago:
Until 2016, Democrats approached abortion as a “tragic choice” that nonetheless should remain generally legal and accessible out of deference to women’s health and autonomy.
It is part of the mythology circulated in some circles that it wasn’t until 2016 that the Democrat Party jettisoned the [Bill] Clinton formulation that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Mrs. Clinton had abandoned that position long before 2016, egged along by the likes of NARAL, EMILY’s List, and Planned Parenthood.
But does anyone really believe that either Clinton had ever sincerely sought to keep abortions at a minimum or saw abortion as a “tragic choice?” Of course not, and neither does the Democrat Party, then or now.
Abortion, to them, is a positive good, which means (literally, not figuratively), the more abortions there are, the better? Why?
Because there is an “unmet need” that is not being “met.” Why? Because of protective state and federal policies. And it they could ever gut the Hyde Amendment, pro-abortionists would win a huge victory: access to the federal spigot to pay for elective abortions.
Stay tuned. Wear’s admonition notwithstanding, the Democrat Party and the Abortion Establishment will pull out all the stops to defeat Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.