Monday 24 September 2012

Whole Life Democrats


I am a Proud Democrat.  I am a proud Pro-life Democrat.  And I often refer to myself as a Whole Life Democrat because I believe in the sanctity of lIfe from conception to natural death.  This believe wraps around the ideals of Social Justice, of honoring human dignity, of focusing on the Common Good.

As a voter, I have searched for candidates who had my values, who are truly pro-life.  I have found them few and far between. I am from Western Pennsylvania.  This is a traditional area of the country.  It is traditional versus conservative.  It is by and large a pro-life area.  Western Pennsylvania residents are mostly middle class; unions are strong; and there is a slight Democratic registration advantage.  But this part of the country often votes Republican because of the life issue.

In 2008 I won the seat for the 3rd Congressional District in Pennsylvania, a seat that had not been held by a Democrat for 32 years - since 1976. In my primary race in 2008 I ran against three other Democratic candidates, all pro-choice.  They and others often questioned if I was a ‘true’ Democrat because of my pro-life stance.  I went on to win the primary race by 20 points over the next closest opponent in that four person contest. That November I beat the 14 year Republican incumbent.  I know I was able to do that, in part, because I am a pro-life Democrat.

While I served in Congress for only two short years, they were some of the busiest and most productive years for the House of Representatives in recent history.  My votes supported significant Democratic legislative initiatives. I helped shape and voted for the Affordable Health Care Act.  The amendment that allows our young adults to remain on their parent’s insurance until their 26th birthday is my amendment.  Millions of young adults are now insured due to my advocacy for that legislation.  I voted for the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act and Wall Street Reform.  I strongly supported and voted for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and I was proud to cast one of my first votes in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.   My votes put to rest any lingering idea that I am not a ‘true’ Democrat.  I am proud that I helped pass many important pieces of legislation, some that passed by only a few votes.

My Former seat is now held by a Republican.  I was attacked by Pro-life extremist groups for my vote for the Affordable Care Act.  I left office with my head held high as I knew I had helped pass one of the most pro-life pieces of legislation in history.  A law that I believe will significantly reduce the number of abortions in our country. Being pro-life in the Democratic Party can be a lonely place.  There are factions of our party who want us, pro-life Democrats, to go away.  There are factions that state we are not ‘true’ Democrats. Yet, we can not win seats like mine and many others we held after the 2006 & 2008 elections without accepting pro-life candidates into our Big Tent Party.

I often receive calls from potential Pro-life Democratic Candidates.  They usually express great concern about the lack of support within the Party.  I encourage them to run.  I tell them how we need Pro-life Democrats to move our agenda forward.  They are the authentic Pro-Life candidates versus most Republicans who claim to be pro-life yet lack the commitment to social justice issues and the common good. As a woman who became pregnant at 21 while not married, I know from personal experience that the highly charged issue of abortion will only be solved when we come together to support women in their pregnancy and support the parent and their child after the birth.

Saving babies lives is complex.   Both mother and baby need access to affordable health care.  They often need access to good Childcare.  Educational opportunities need to be there for both mother & child to help them achieve a brighter future.  The mother needs to know there is a social safety net there if needed.  I myself relied on food stamps in those early years of motherhood.  The fear of not being able to feed and house your child is real for too many mothers. When these supports are in place, a mother will feel supported bringing her child into this world.   The incidence of abortion will decrease. People who are radically anti-government, who are pro-birth only, will not reduce the incidence of abortion in this country! This is what we believe as Democrats and that is why I am a proud Whole Life Democrat!


Two and a half years ago, I sat in a small storage room on the fourth floor of the Cannon Building to begin negotiations between the Obama Administration and a group of Pro-Life Democratic Members of Congress.  These Democratic Members, myself included, formed a small handful of critical votes necessary to secure passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, National Health Care legislation. These negotiations took place without the glare and scrutiny of the national media.  No staff members were present, and discussions were honest, frank, and respectful.  These negotiations, held several times throughout the weekend, resulted in Executive Order 13535, signed by President Obama, and upheld the principles contained in the 40 year old Hyde Amendment which prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.  The Executive Order also reaffirmed the “conscience clause” which states that no person or institution can be forced to accept, provide or comply with health care policies or medical procedures contrary to their religious and moral beliefs.

Upon his signing of the Executive Order, President Obama assured me this was an “iron-clad agreement”.  Until this time, the Obama Administration has kept its word and has faithfully upheld the Executive Order.  On three different occasions the Administration held true to this agreement as it implemented new national health care legislation.  Each time a state or entity applied for funds or agreed to participate in a program under the new law, the applicant was required to comply with the provisions of the Executive Order.  This included states applying for funding in the national high-risk pool, requests for funding and services by Community Health Centers, and the awarding of HHS grants. I am, therefore, perplexed and disappointed with the recent mandate put forth by HHS requiring faith-based employers to provide contraceptive coverage in their health care plans, including birth control, use of the RU-486 morning after pill, and contraceptive services resulting in the abortion of embryos.

As a practicing Catholic, I believe in, support, and take pride in the Ministry of the Catholic Church in the areas of social justice.  Throughout our Nation’s history, where there has been a social need, men and women of different faiths have boldly stepped forward to fill the void that individuals and governments are unable or unwilling to fill.  It is because of deep religious faith, strong belief in social justice, and solid moral compass that we develop our true conscience. It is through programs like Catholic Social Services, St. Vincent DePaul, Lutheran Social Services, and many others that we, as individuals, help provide services to the needy.  In many communities throughout this country, Catholic hospitals, and other religious affiliated health care facilities, provide care for the sick and elderly.  Parochial schools educate our children, from pre-school through our finest universities, passing along religious beliefs and moral codes of human behavior.

No individual or organization should be forced by government to set aside deeply held religious convictions, abdicate moral beliefs, or deny one’s own conscience.  Yet, the recent HHS rule requires faith based employers to abandon principles and provide contraception coverage for all employees.  This rule clearly violates Executive Order 13535. Section One of the Executive Order states that “…longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment 42 USC 300a-7) and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions”.

Our Nation has strived to provide health care coverage for all its citizens for almost 100 years.  I was proud to play a critical role in achieving that goal.  We must not allow the HHS contraception rule to derail the opportunity to provide 32 million more Americans with quality, affordable health care. It is my hope that reasonable men and women will once again gather to negotiate, away from the glare and scrutiny of the national media, and engage in honest, frank, and respectful discussions that will result in an “iron-clad agreement” aimed at resolving differences by protecting one’s conscience, promote social justice by encouraging one’s sacrifice, and uphold the opportunity to develop a solid moral compass while protecting one’s freedom.


Why do I call myself a pro-life Democrat, and why do I work with an organization called Democrats for Life?  For two reasons: I believe in the overall values the Democratic Party has stood for, and I believe the problem of abortion cannot be seriously addressed without those values. Democrats have historically taken the side of the vulnerable and insisted that society has a role in protecting them.  Pro-life Democrats continue to follow those values and call on the Party to follow them concerning unborn children, who are human beings in positions of total vulnerability.

We also believe that there is no way of solving the problem of abortion without strong social supports for women and children.  Preventing abortion requires addressing the economic and other pressures that make abortion seem, for so many women, like the only choice.  Supporting women and children is the right thing for a just society to do.  Pro-choice and pro-life people can find common ground on that.  And supporting women and children is necessary for the pro-life position to succeed.  If women are in desperate circumstances because of holes in our social safety net, abortions will rise.  And pro-lifers can talk all the want about laws restricting abortion: public opinion will increasingly turn against those laws if people see women to be in desperate circumstances.  Only a whole-life approach can reduce abortion for the long term.

Steve Schneck will talk more about the evidence linking poverty and abortion.  Three-quarters of women having abortions listed inability to afford a child as a major factor in their decision.  Abortion rates are four times as high among women below the federal poverty level.  In Western Europe, despite its liberal social attitudes, abortion rates run well below those of America because of the European safety net. Unfortunately, today’s Republican Party threatens to eviscerate many of these supports.  One big problem lies in the Republicans’ approach to the federal budget.  Paul Ryan’s proposals try to reduce the deficit while still cutting high-income taxes and increasing defense spending.

As a result, as the Congressional Budget Office pointed out, under any realistic assumptions, Ryan’s plan must reduce all discretionary non-defense spending to less than 1 percent of the budget.  Even to get close to that means huge cuts not just to education and infrastructure but to food stamps and other programs serving the poor.  We must take steps to reduce the federal deficit, and both parties must face up to that, but there is nothing pro-life about doing so by gutting anti-poverty spending while increasing the military and cutting high-income taxes.

Another big problem lies in the Republican determination to repeal the Affordable Care Act, lock, stock, and barrel.  Evidence from Massachusetts suggests that mandatory insurance coverage there, achieved under Gov. Romney, has helped drive down abortions, especially teen abortions, since 2008.  If Republicans repeal the ACA, there will be no chance for it to accomplish similar results nationally.  And the ACA includes a number of pro-life benefits, including funds to colleges for pregnancy and parenting resources for students—an important initiative because one-fifth of abortions are performed on college students.  The ACA also provides other funding for pregnant and parenting teens and expands the adoption tax credit and adoption-assistance programs to make adoption a more attractive alternative to abortion.  The GOP’s promised repeal of Obamacare will kill all these programs.

It is a challenge to be a pro-life Democrat, as this year again shows.  The formal platform again gives no consideration to the millions of Democrats who identify as pro-life, who support even simply reasonable regulations such as informed-consent laws to show regard for unborn life.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to work to encourage and elect pro-life Democrats who will advance those views. And the GOP is currently driven by an anti-government, Tea-Party-inspired mindset that is ill-suited for pro-life goals.  During the 2000s, I respected and, as a church-state scholar, I publicly supported President Bush’s program of compassionate conservatism to cooperate more with faith-based and other community organizations fighting poverty—a program, by the way, that Obama has continued.

But you hear nothing like that from Republicans now.  A telling example is Rick Santorum, who as a senator in 2006 championed increased tax incentives for charitable giving and stood with leaders of religious charities in front of a “Fighting Poverty” backdrop to oppose cuts in federal community-development grants.  This year, running for president, Santorum supported freezes or cuts not only in Medicaid but also in housing, food stamps, education, and job training. I identify as a pro-life Democrat, and I work to advance that position, because it’s crucial in the long run for achieving and sustaining a just society for all.


The current GOP presidential ticket is a good reminder for pro-life voters why they should support DEMOCRATS for Life of America. Why pro-life voters, despite our continuing opposition to abortion on demand in America, should support the Democratic Party and President Obama’s re-election.

The most powerful abortifacient in America is poverty. The abortion rate is 300% higher below the poverty line. More than 3 out of 4 women who choose abortions cite economic reasons for their decision. Examples from other countries around the globe have demonstrated that effective social programs and health care for the poor correlate with much lower incidence of abortion. The Dutch and Germans have abortion rates of less than 1/3 of America’s in part because they have such programs that include comprehensive health care, special pre natal, natal, and post natal programs for all, and generous programs to encourage adoption. In the US, when states have adopted such programs, the abortion rate has fallen dramatically, as for example in Massachusetts where its mandated health care programs have reduced the rate of abortions among teens by 21%.

As the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) begins to roll out, all the evidence is that we will see similar reductions nationwide. The ACA extends Medicaid upwards to cover millions more of America’s working class. Within its provisions is the Pregnancy Assistance Fund that allocates $250 million to help at-risk women have their babies. It triples the level of America’s adoption credit and proposes to make that credit permanent. Through community health centers it directly offers the kind of pre natal, natal, and post natal programs that poor women desperately need. That’s pro-life policy… These are the kinds of policies that make a difference in rates of infant mortality and abortion.

The contrast with the extreme proposals of Romney-Ryan is frightening. Romney and Ryan want to rescind the ACA.  So, no more Pregnancy Assistance Fund. No more tripled adoption incentive. No more special pre natal, natal, and post natal care. They even want to cut the Child Tax Credit. Far from extending Medicaid to a greater percentage of America’s working poor, Romney and Ryan’s dangerous plan is to actually to cut Medicaid. Devastate it really. According to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at a minimum they are proposing cutting Medicaid by 29% by 2016 and by 40% by 2022. That’s right: 40%. Other analysts have pegged the proposed Romney cuts to Medicaid at a shocking 59%.

Let me put that 40% slashing in perspective. Medicaid now pays for more than 1/3 of all births in America. Pregnancies are expensive. The medical costs of newborns are expensive. An abortion by contrast costs hardly anything at all. So what will gutting Medicaid by 40% mean for abortion? I’m convinced that the number of abortions in America would skyrocket if those cuts are made. The rate of abortions will likely skyrocket if Romney and Ryan are elected and have their way with Medicaid. As an aside: nearly 2/3 of the elderly in nursing homes pay for their care with Medicaid. Pro-lifers should think hard about what Romney and Ryan’s anti-life policies will mean for end of life issues too – like elder abuse and euthanasia.

Nor does the shocking plan of Romney and Ryan end there. Food stamps would be slashed, public housing funds would be gutted, early childhood education programs would be chopped, WIC would be devastated, HHS and HUD grants to critical relief organizations like Catholic Charities would be cut.  Catholic Charities gets large portions of its budget from such grants, as do many similar religious organizations.  I fear that the combination of the Romney-Ryan cuts is a perfect storm for rising abortion rates and related pro-life concerns.

Pro-life voters should think long and hard about this election. Can you vote for Romney if it means that infant mortality rises by four percentage points? If it means large numbers of America’s elderly can no longer receive nursing home care? If means more hunger for America’s poor? Can one vote for Romney if it means a 6 or 7 or, God forbid, 8 percent increase in the number of abortions in America? If it means ANY increase in the abortion rate? If it means thousands of new deaths among the unborn? I’m 100% pro life and would overturn Roe if I could. I’m a faithful Catholic who believes in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. We Democrats for Life understand the challenges facing pro-life voters in this election. But the Romney-Ryan ticket offers no pro-life guarantees and raises profound moral questions that pro-life voters can neither shirk nor ignore.

And John:

I especially like Steve Schneck's statement that the "most powerful abortifacient in America is poverty." These words should be emblazoned on red flags and flown at every pro-life and social justice rally in the nation.

As should the key points made by Nicholas P. Cafardi (with my emphasis added):

A few weeks ago, I publicly defended Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York against onslaughts from the left that accused him of paying off pedophile priests to leave the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee. As I explained then, the archbishop was simply recognizing the rights to sustenance that a priest, good or bad, child abuser or not, has from the diocese according to the Code of Canon Law. We might not like it, but sustenance is the law of the church, and then-Archbishop Dolan was following the law.

Now I find it necessary to defend Cardinal Dolan, whose openness and personal character I truly admire, from onslaughts from the far-right, those folks who have created their own parallel magisterium in which the Catholic church sings one note: Making abortions illegal is the highest, truest (maybe only) teaching of our church.

Dolan is taking flak from the parallel magisterium for inviting the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to the traditional Al Smith Dinner this year, along with the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. According to the parallel magisterium, it is also a doctrine of the faith that Obama is pro-abortion and Romney is pro-life, and the church and its bishops and cardinals can associate only with the latter and not the former.

Let me say a few things about that comparison. First of all, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. Think about what that word means. It means you favor women becoming pregnant so you can help them abort their child and maybe profit from it. It is an ugly word, and it is used to emotionalize the debate when what we are really talking about is people who do not favor criminalizing abortion because they believe criminal statutes are ineffective ways to solve social evils. This makes them pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

There is no doubt Obama is pro-choice. He has said so many times. There is also no doubt Romney is running on what he calls a pro-life platform. But any honest analysis of the facts shows the situation is much more complicated than that.

For example, Obama's Affordable Care Act does not pay for abortions. In Massachusetts, Romney's health care law does. Obama favors, and included in the Affordable Care Act, $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion. This support will make abortions much less likely, since most abortions are economic. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's budget, which will cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the federal plans that support poor women. The undoubted effect: The number of abortions in the United States will increase. On these facts, Obama is much more pro-life than Romney.

But let's not stop there. Obama does not financially profit from the abortion industry. Romney does. Bain Capital, in the time Romney was listed as its legal head and even when he was attending Bain board meetings, was an owner of Stericycle, a major disposer of the dead bodies of aborted children in the United States. (See: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show.) Bain owned a share of Stericycle until 2004, selling its interest for a profit in the tens of millions of dollars. We can parse what Romney's 1999 "retroactive retirement" from Bain means, but he still gets an annual payout from the firm. To the extent those dollars are part of Bain's Stericycle profits, a strong argument exists that Romney is an abortion profiteer. How pro-life is that?

And it has long been known that millions of Bain Capital's original outside funding, solicited by Romney himself, came from wealthy El Salvadorian clans, some of whom, while they were funding Bain, were "linked to right wing death squads." (Salt Lake Tribune, 1999; See also: Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads.) Death squads killed tens of thousands of mostly poor people in El Salvador. They also killed priests, nuns and Archbishop Oscar Romero. How pro-life is that? How pro-life is taking the money of these people and doubling or tripling it for them? And did any of their Bain profits fund more death squads? Before we endorse Romney's "pro-life" claims, isn't it important for us to know that?

So speaking as a temporary, part-time member of the parallel magisterium, I think that if anyone should be disinvited from the Al Smith Dinner, it is Mitt Romney. Based on the above record, he, and not Obama, is the anti-life, "pro-abortion" candidate.

The fact is, the personable Dolan did right to invite them both. The Al Smith Dinner is not a religious event. It is a political dinner at a ritzy hotel where folks who look gawky in tuxes make jokes and raise money for a good Catholic cause. No one should think that, by inviting the "pro-abortion" Mitt Romney to the dinner, Dolan is endorsing him and all of his "pro-abortion" anti-life positions.

No comments:

Post a Comment