Why I left the Democratic party

Michelle Bachmann wrote in her autobiography.

“In 1976, I was still a Democrat. The Democratic Party, while it was then edging toward an abortion-on-demand stance, still allowed room in its ranks for pro-life leaders. Carter himself proved to be a clover waffle in the abortion issue, suggesting that he was pro-life to the pro-lifers and prochoice to the prochoicers--and yet the media, always Carter friendly, never nailed him on his hypocrisy. So in our naiveté, we failed to realize that Carter was playing a duplicitous double game. And the Republican Party, meanwhile, still seemed at that time to be dominated by defenders of the proabortion stance.

Yet back in the seventies, the parties had not yet sorted themselves out on the rival issue of abortion. So in 1976, many pro-life and socially conservative Americans could be found conscientiously voting for the Carter-Mondale ticket, thinking they were voting pro-life. And Marcus and I did more than that; we helped on his campaign, handing out fliers and making phone calls.”

I remember it was still possible to be a pro-life Democrat and a Christian evangelical back in the 80s—at least in Ohio--maybe even into the early 90s. Although I wasn’t particularly political then.  Campaigners kept quiet about the issue.  But then they really clamped down. By 1996, there was no point in even struggling with the issue.  The party of the poor and dispossessed and minorities had become the party of death on a huge scale—with 38% of the 50 million abortions being for black women--and much wealthier.  Now abortion was included in the Democrat platform—promoting killing the smallest and weakest of society in order to placate the lust for power in the women’s movement and to “cure” poverty.

Abortion and Obama

Except for the early days of the 70s woman's movement when I attended lunch talks in the OSU library and carried my poster down at the courthouse in support of the ERA, I've met almost no women who identify themselves as "pro-abortion." They always say, "I believe in a woman's right to choose," or "I wouldn't have an abortion myself, but I want other women to make their own decision." We generally don't say that about other laws that involve killing. I try to be consistent about life and death issues without lapsing into values clarification, the parlor game liberals like to play.

I don't support the death penalty even for the most heinous crime; I believe in certain health regulations like required vaccinations and safety codes, because the lives they save are more important than the rights you choose; I wouldn't have tobacco stock in my portfolio no matter what the returns; I believe good intentions sometimes have disastrous results--like removing DDT from the international market which killed millions of Africans; I believe communism in the 20th century killed more human beings than all other despotic forms of government combined; I believe the US government and its flipped coin the anti-war movement contributed to the deaths of millions of Vietnamese when we fled our responsibilities, and we're getting pay back now from the resurrected 60s radicals. So, am I concerned about a presidential candidate who is vigorously pro-abortion? As Sarah would say, You betcha!

"Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

. . . Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it."

What is going on here?

Democrats for Life will have to buck their own President

Moral leadership on this issue is important. Democrats are about to put a man in office who believes the outrageous abortion rate among black women is just another informed choice, a decision between a woman and her “health care provider.” This is a parent who would have his own daughters get an abortion if it weren’t a convenient time in their lives (or his career). This is a man who will shut down opposition to his views in the media. Does DFL really think Obama is going to buck feminists and the left on this notification issue? Feminists don’t want to save babies lives--even babies born alive, and neither do Team Obama and its obedient workers and followers! “. . . parental-involvement laws reduce the minor abortion rate by 13 to 31 percent when a state enacts laws to require parental consent or notification before a minor undergoes an abortion.” Story here.

I’m on the mailing list for the Pregnancy Distress Center, and when the women’s reasons are listed they are often the boyfriend or her parents doing the pressuring to get an abortion--so what's the plan to reach them?