by Matt Tuman

Today’s front-page article of the Washington Post discussed the enormous electoral losses Democrats have taken since President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. Since then, Democrats have lost 13 Senate seats, 69 House Seats, 913 state legislative seats, 11 governorships and 32 state legislative chambers.

The natural question that follows is, “How did this happen?”

Pro-life Democrats have been alienated from the Democratic Party. The 2012 Democratic platform stated the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade” and “opposes any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” With this uncompromising stance, the party excludes over one third of all Democrats. In a CNN/ORC poll released last year, 36 percent of Democrats said that abortion should be illegal before the fetus is viable. The Democratic Party cannot thrive when it ostracizes such a large part of its membership.

Continue reading →

Friday, January 20, 2017 is a cold day in Washington, DC.  The scene outside the Capitol building is familiar to many political aficionados, although the cast of characters is somewhat different.  It is now Hillary instead of Bill raising her hand to take the oath of office, and the faces around her are more diverse than before.  After thumping Republican nominee Donald Trump (yes, that actually happened), the Democratic Party is full of optimism.  After electing the first African-American president and reelecting him four years later, the presidency can now no longer exclusively use the pronoun “he”.  Democrats are the party of diversity and progress, as astounding numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans carry Hillary to the White House.

On this date, it is easy to fall into the Democratic talking points of an ascendant party, one that will control at least two branches of the government in the near future with maybe the Congress within reach.  However, if this future occurs, it will be a house built on sand, to borrow a biblical phrase.

Continue reading →

John Wesley Leek

The Mississippi Democratic Party platform in 2012 left little room for pro-life Democrats stating among other things that the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade” and that “we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine (abortion rights).”

I went to my county convention Saturday March 12th with proposed platform language adapted from statements provided by Democrats for Life of America.

I felt suddenly nervous as I stood to speak. I hadn’t met many of the people there before and had heard many times that most Democrats identify as pro-choice. Here is what I read: Continue reading →

By Celia Wolf-Devine

***Originally Published by Providence Journal

You want to be on the side of the angels.  You are concerned about the growing gap between rich and poor, cut backs in services provided for the most vulnerable members of our society, environmental degradation, loss of jobs through downsizing and corporations moving to other countries where labor is cheaper, harsh immigration policies, racial prejudice, expensive wars overseas, erosion of democracy, threats to civil liberties, and attempts on the part of right wingers to curtail women’s right to abortion.  WAIT A MINUTE!

“Abortion rights” simply do not belong on this list of “good guy” causes.  I’ll sign on for all the other things on the list; I believe that makes me a progressive.  But the dirty little secret here is that abortion is being used to keep down the numbers of the poor, especially people of color.  It is cheaper than doing something to help them.  Black women are more than three times as likely to undergo abortions as white women.  Abortion clinics are located in poor neighborhoods and abortion encouraged among people of color.  Under a mask of compassion lurks the ruthless destruction in the womb of those who would be born poor and perhaps make some demands upon us and threaten our comfortable position.

Continue reading →

By Robert Hay

In the past month, two high-profile incidents have shown how powerful a hold the pro-choice movement has on the Democratic Party, and its hope to “expand the playing field” and win more elective victories is imperiled as a result.

The first incident involved DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an unabashed pro-choice politician and one of the architects of the “war on women” campaign strategy.  In a Q&A with The New York Times, the Chair when asked about abortion rights said, “Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.”  The quote could have been a moment to examine within the Democratic Party its unwavering opposition to any abortion opposition, or at least a soul-searching about whether she was right, and the reason record numbers of abortion restrictions were being passed was because younger Americans didn’t know what life was like without unrestricted abortion.

Instead, the pro-choice machine went into full court press, going to the media declaring that Wasserman Schultz was wrong and that the younger generation was the most passionate and most open in their caring about this issue.  This despite the fact polls show the Millennial generation just as divided about abortion as previous ones.  Wasserman Schultz, faced with pressure, immediately back tracked from her comments and the party lost a chance to think deeply about itself and abortion.

Continue reading →

By Lisa Stiller

Getting our party back – and returning to values that support life – was a major theme of speakers at a Democratic Revival that took place in Washington, D.C. during the last weekend of September.  We must work to “change the values that need to be changed for a pro-life culture,” said Reverend Jennifer Butler, chief executive officer of Faith in Public Life.  The challenge, said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, is “How do we revitalize the platform?”

Pro-life Democrats with the same question came to hear several speakers give us their thoughts and suggestions for returning the Democratic Party to its roots.

Butler reminded us that our tradition as a nation is really one of community, but, she said, we have become a very individualistic culture: The days when communities had a “barn-raising” collective culture have given way to an individualistic, me-first culture, perpetuated largely by Hollywood.  “What we imagine our history to be is not what it really is,” she said.  Butler ended her talk by invoking words of Pope Francis when he spoke while in the U.S., emphasizing the importance of community and our tradition of caring for the most vulnerable.  DFLA board member Jeanne French reminded participants that the history of our country has “always been to be inclusive”.

Continue reading →

In September, Pope Francis spoke to all Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic. At the White House, Pope Francis told us to take care of our “common home,” the Earth. He asks “all men and women of good will in this great nation… to protect the vulnerable in our world and to stimulate integral and inclusive models of development.” Addressing Congress, he said “the fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly,” and he challenged us to “help others to grow.” At St. Patrick’s, he said that “there is no social or moral justification, no justification whatsoever, for lack of housing.”

These sound like Democratic Party ideals to me—helping those that are less fortunate in society, accepting and respecting individuals despite our differences, and protecting our environment. Pope Francis also says to protect the vulnerable—and surely we Democrats support this, standing up for children without health insurance, new immigrants seeking a better life, and social programs that provide a safety net to the elderly and those in poverty.

But we must no longer remain blind to the most vulnerable in our society: the 1.2 million people who are absolutely defenseless against the suction machine or the abortion pill each year. We can show compassion for the unborn child while still championing the cause of women. There really is a war against women—in the form of discrimination, lack of maternity leave, and a culture that still tolerates domestic and sexual violence. We need to support women, and we need to support children—not just until their birth but throughout their lives.

Democrats for Life of America invites you to support their “whole life” agenda that supports women and children throughout their lives. We Democrats should be a “big tent” party that welcomes those whose conscience differs on abortion. All Democrats can work together on initiatives that support women, support children, and protect future generations from further environmental degradation.

The theme of Pope Francis’ visit to America was: “Love is our Mission.” What is the mission of the Democratic Party? To win? Well, I think it is actually to help people, to achieve progress for everyday Americans, and to protect the vulnerable in our society. These are the ideals that make me a Democrat and that also make me a pro-life Democrat. I am a Pope Francis Democrat, and I’m not the only one.

Vibha Sazawal has been a member of Democrats For Life of America since 2007.

by Lois Kerschen

We need to change the language and the focus of the discussion about abortion in the Democratic Party.  This was the consensus at the Democrats for Life Caucus at the Democratic state convention in Texas last summer.

For one thing, the pro-choice advocates in attendance didn’t want to be called “pro-abortion” because they said no one is in favor of abortion, even though that is the “choice” referred to in “pro-choice.” So, when asked if it would be more accurate to describe them as pro-choices, they said that might fit better as long as abortion is one of the choices.

However, the pro-life advocates said that they too are better described as “pro-choices” because they promote more than one option, and the concept of choice means selecting from a variety of options. It isn’t really a choice if there is only one option – that is a case of being forced to accept the default.

The pro-choice people said, though, that since abortion is legal, the pro-life people couldn’t be considered “pro-choices” unless one of the choices is abortion, in addition to raising the child or placing the child for adoption.

So it seems that both sides considered themselves to be “pro-choices.” In that case, if we all agree that a pregnant woman has three options for the future of herself and her child, then why are we arguing?

Continue reading →