Over the weekend, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg created a nationwide controversy when he refused to welcome pro-life Democrats into the party. Now he’s creating another controversy — by refusing to condemn infanticide.
Yesterday, Buttigieg refused to say whether the supports or opposes the Virginia bill that produced nationwide outrage last year — coming to light when Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam defended it and infamously defended infanticide.
The Buttigieg campaign refused to say if the candidate’s position differs from that of Northam or New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who signed a bill last year that expands access to late-term abortions if the health of the mother is at risk or doctors believe the fetus in not viable. Northam faced a backlash over his comments, and both governors’ positions — considered the most extreme abortion policies in the country, according to pro-life groups — stirred weeks-long controversy in their respective states.
Asked directly whether Buttigieg’s abortion position is any different than that of Northam or Cuomo, campaign spokesman Chris Meagher said only that “I think he made his position clear in the town hall last night” and provided a transcript of Buttigieg’s exchange with Fox News anchor and moderator Chris Wallace.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has refused to condemn abortions up to birth or infanticide. Last year, he failed to condemn legislation in two states, New York and Virginia, that legalized abortions up to birth, and even infanticide. As he told MSNBC:
SCARBOROUGH: Do you support the late-term abortion legislation that was passed in the New York state legislature, as well as in Virginia?
BUTTIGIEG: I don’t think we need more restrictions right now. And, you know, what I’ve learned in Indiana, being in a place where a lot of my friends, a lot of my supporters even, come from a different place than I do, being pro-choice, I just believe that when a woman is in that situation, and when we’re talking about some of those situations covered by that law – extremely difficult, painful, often medically serious situations where life or health of the mother is at stake – the involvement of a male government official like me is not helpful.
Buttigieg’s steadfast defense of unlimited abortion — and now possibly infanticide — is not putting winning him any pro-life voters.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion nonprofit group Susan B. Anthony List, accused Buttigieg of “doubling down on abortion extremism.”
“Last night Mayor Buttigieg could not identify a single instance where he could limit abortion or even acknowledge room for debate on this issue within the Democratic Party,” she said. “The modern Democratic Party is the party of abortion on demand through birth, paid for by taxpayers, even infanticide.”
Buttigieg is no different than other Democrats when it comes to abortion. Like them, he believes in abortion on demand and will support abortion up to birth as president. Buttigieg previously went as far as saying the only way women can truly be free as if they are able to kill their babies in abortions.
The presidential hopeful is merely repeating the tired line that abortion (women’s legal ability to kill their unborn babies) is empowering for women as they compete with men for power. Yet Buttigieg demeans women by suggesting that women cannot be equal to men unless they can kill their own children.
Ashleen Menchaca-Bagnulo, an assistant professor at Texas State University, recently responded to this dangerous and pervasive idea at The Public Discourse.
“Identifying abortion with women’s freedom is conceding the idea that male biology and male experience are the paramount ideal for human experience,” Menchaca-Bagnulo wrote. “… freedom does not require women to become like men. The price of freedom should not force us to change something essential about ourselves and our capacities.”
Nor should freedom come at the price of one’s own children. Yet, this is what abortion activists like Buttigieg openly and proudly advocate for today.