Such as Kathy
Dahlkemper:
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