HOW YOU CAN SPREAD OUR MESSAGE IN THE MEDIA

by Mary Ann Chimera
Writing letters for publication is a dicey gamble, but also a great tool for educating the public. It’s dicey because before your letter is published it has to meet criteria set by the editorial page editor and staff. These vary from not only from publication to publication but from editor to editor.

Nevertheless, editors are aware that a diversity of opinion, especially by local readers, sells newspapers. Readers are very interested in what friends and neighbors have to say.

Especially with hot issue topics like ours, we often find ourselves in opposition to the beliefs of today’s media people. Our letters accordingly must be crafted to overcome antilife biases. Here are some of the criteria I impose on my own letters before submitting them.
Continue reading

Vulnerability and the Culture of Life

Smart take on the culture of life and vulnerability from Kimberly Baker:

The pro-life perspective does not fear vulnerability in the human condition – it embraces it. A culture of life does not pressure people to live up to an artificial standard of health or physical perfection in order to feel a sense of self-worth and purpose. Rather, each person is regarded as special and unique, as a gift to the community in a profound way, no matter their state of health and mental or physical abilities. A society that reaches out to and accompanies its weaker members in their suffering and vulnerability is a truly strong and courageous one.

Our acceptance of our vulnerability, individually and as a society, is the measure of our humanity.

Read the full post here.

The abortion stranglehold: The misadventures of Tim Ryan

*** The following was published in The Hill. You can read the article in its entirety by clicking the link below.

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) recently publicly shared that he is no longer pro-life. Why tell us something we already know?  His pronouncement is a symptom of a larger problem within the Democratic Party – the abortion litmus test. 

Democrats once held a 292-seat majority in the U.S House with 110 pro-life Democrats. Today, we are in the minority and there are only a handful of pro-life Democrats. The number of pro-choice democrats has remained about the same over the last 30 years – around 180 give or take. It is the number of pro-life Democrats that can win in pro-life districts and states that propel us to the magic number for the majority. 

The truth is you cannot get funding from national Democratic spigots unless you pass the pro-choice litmus test. Tim Ryan, former champion of pro-life and common ground initiatives, former Advisory Board member of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), offers the latest evidence. That litmus test, more than anything else, continues to undermine the Democratic Party’s development of candidates who can contest red-leaning and purple states and districts. In so doing, it cedes control of Congress to the GOP.

(more)

Progressives should support the 20-week abortion ban

by Janet Robert

Published in The Hill on January 22, 2015

Progressives are pro-science, right? From clashes over climate change to school text books, the common refrain from progressives is that we stand on the side of the most credible and advanced scientific evidence. Yet on abortion, we see far too many progressives closing their eyes to the breakthroughs that have occurred through technological innovation in understanding development in the womb.

For those who oppose any further restrictions on abortion, the motives seem clear. The Roe v. Wade decision used trimesters to provide guidance for laws regulating abortion. Restrictions on abortion were not to be permitted until the child was viable—capable of surviving outside the womb—and viability was linked with the third trimester of pregnancy.

(more)

At the Supreme Court: The Meaning (and Meaningfulness) of Pregnancy Non-Discrimination

(From Tom Berg:) The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Young v. United Parcel Service, the case involving accommodations for pregnant workers under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (the PDA).  As I’ve mentioned in a prior post, Peggy Young had sought and been denied the same sort of light-duty accommodation that had been given to workers with similar work limitations from other causes, such as on-the-job injuries, disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and conditions or circumstances (medical problems, drunk-driving convictions) that led to a driver-employee’s loss of a Department of Transportation commercial truck-driving license.  And as I’ve detailed, 23 pro-life organizations, including Democrats for Life, filed an amicus brief arguing that the PDA should be interpreted to require pregnancy accommodations when the employer made accommodations for other such categories of workers who were (in the words of the statute) “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

Many media outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, remarked on the convergence in this case of pro-life groups and pro-choice feminist groups.  It was indeed striking, at the press conference after the argument, to see Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals followed by Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, both expressing support for strong protections for pregnant women.  Democrats for Life’s own Kristen Day was one of the two featured pro-life speakers (DFLA played a key role in bringing the pro-life brief to fruition).  And Kristen nailed it:

As a pro-life advocate, I am proud to stand here to support Peggy Young. In our movement, we are often accused of caring only for the unborn child and ignoring the needs of the women. The fact that I am joined by 22 other pro-life groups is a testament to our commitment to the value of life and of raising children. Denying benefits and not providing reasonable accommodations for a pregnant woman is not pro-life.

Continue reading

Building a New Party in the Heart of Dixie

by Matthew Tyson

Beginning in the 1960’s, the Southern Strategy brought about a war between the Republican and Democratic parties in Alabama. That war dragged on for decades. Then, in the early part of the 21st century, the GOP took down Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and clinched a Republican-controlled state house and senate for the first time in over a century.

The effects of that victory are still very prevalent today. The Democratic Party in Alabama isn’t waning. It’s dead. Outside of a few districts in the Black Belt, Alabama is as red as the day is long. The war is over, and the Democrats lost.

Being a Democrat in Alabama is rough. I should know. As both a proud Alabamian and dedicated Democrat, I’ve dealt firsthand with the frustration of living in such a divided house. Thanks to the burning rhetoric and idealism of the right, Democrats in the Heart of Dixie might as well be card-carrying communists. The GOP has so successfully predicated us as socialist, big government, America-haters that we can’t even have a constructive conversation without the dark cloud of presumption hanging over our heads.

Our state party is in shambles, and we have little to no voice, but worst of all, we are forced to sit and watch as two decades of total Republican leadership have pushed Alabama even deeper into economic turmoil.

Alabama is consistently ranked at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to healthcare, education, poverty, and unemployment. Our prisons are overcrowded. Our jobless rate is higher than the national average. Even worse, it was recently revealed to the public (conveniently after Bentley waltzed back into the governor’s mansion) that our debt is hundreds of millions of dollars worse than originally thought.

All this under the watch of the GOP. Continue reading

Run Like It’s 2004!

I feel like we are in a time warp.

Ten years ago, I wrote a post-election analysis on why Democrats failed in the 2004 election. Senator John Kerry had been the Democratic nominee for President. Kerry used the abortion boilerplate language endorsed by NARAL and embraced by most Democratic strategists since New York’s Governor Mario Cuomo’s famous speech years earlier arguing that an elected official should not try to impose his or her personal position on abortion on anyone else nor legislate on it. Therefore, even though Senator Kerry believed that life begins at conception, he stated that he would not vote to protect life. The party used Kerry’s example as an excuse to usher pro-life democrats out the back flap of the big tent with an arrogance that said our vote did not make a difference.

As a result, Senator Kerry lost to George Bush. The Republicans secured their 233-seat majority in the House and built to a 55-seat majority in the Senate. In the 2004 post-election analysis, I wrote, “Pro-life Democrats are not surprised by the outcome of this year’s elections. In fact, pro-life Democrats have been pleading with the national party for respectful inclusion in the party. Unfortunately, the “big-tent” party has allowed itself to be controlled by pro-choice forces and the Democratic party has suffered as a result.  For the past 25 years, pro-life Democrats have been leaving the party over the issue of abortion.”

Continue reading