Missouri Party Chairman Closes Door on Pro-Life Democrats Eliminates Inclusive “Big Tent” Language Approved By Platform Committee

There is an important election coming up that will determine the balance of the U.S. Senate and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. The election could also determine whether or not there will be impeachment efforts to rid the White House of Donald Trump.  Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is in a very close battle, and all Democrats would like to see her continue her tenure in the U.S. Senate.

Missouri Party Chairman Stephen Webber thinks that the best way to support Senator McCaskill and other Democrats in Missouri is to create an unnecessary battle over abortion.

A few weeks ago, there was a meeting to amend the Missouri Democratic Party platform. A vote took place, and the amendment was accepted. The Missouri Democratic Party then said that they welcome Whole Life Democrats in the party.  The “conscience language” to include pro-life Democrats did not dilute the abortion-rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that the acceptance, along with the compromise language, lasted. Party Chairman Webber held a meeting this morning to strip the inclusive language from the platform because nothing says “We we want your vote” more than overturning a fair process of debate and approval. It is very unusual to remove language unilaterally after a platform has been ratified. It makes you wonder about the kind of pressure supposedly “progressive” groups exerted and why. They know that this removal will cause chaos. Continue reading

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)