Catholic Exchange

Democrats For Life Promises Counterfeit ‘Whole-Life’ PAC

Democrats For Life of America made an extremely misleading announcement in the July 3rd issue of the Washington Post. Kristen Day, DFLA’s executive director, said she’s forming a “Whole-Life Heroes” political action committee. I’m the founder and president of HERO’s Whole Life America. So, on one hand, I am flattered that the DFLA thought so much of our organization that they borrowed our name. On the other hand, I am greatly offended that they would use our name to undermine human dignity.

The name of our organization, HERO’s Whole Life America, conveys respect for the human person from the embryo to the elderly. We make a stand for human dignity when it isn’t politically expedient – against the prevailing ideologies of the age – and that takes courage, hence HERO.

It takes courage to consistently fight for human dignity. And, as a matter of fact, members of the HERO’s Whole Life America take our pledge to promote respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person regardless of ability, age, status, ethnicity or sex. We work with a coalition of people from diverse backgrounds and fight for the principle of whole life human rights – protecting everyone from the embryo to the elderly. We are rewarded every day as we strive to be consistent with our name. Some of our projects this year include drilling wells for the poor in Darfur, Sudan; delivering aid to victims of the earthquake in Haiti; sharing the message of human dignity in American prisons (even on death row); and partnering with 280 pregnancy centers to bring the message of hope and life to pregnant women in crisis.

In complete contrast, the Democrats For Life “Whole-Life Heroes” PAC undermines human dignity. After all, its purpose is to re-elect the Stupak Democrats who broke their promises and voted in favor of the mammoth federal healthcare bill laden with provisions for taxpayer-funded abortions. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), the group’s namesake, led that devastating betrayal for the empty promise of an executive order banning those provisions. Yet public outrage was so swift and widespread that Stupak and Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) abandoned their bids for re-election. More dramatically, voters rejected Stupak collaborator Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) during a primary election.

Still, according to Kristen Day, the Democrats For Life PAC seeks to re-elect Stupak’s other collaborators because, she said, executive orders “are rarely overturned.”

Did the Washington Post get the DFLA’s message right? For one thing, President Obama’s executive order on health care does not ban the abortion provisions that he signed into law. For another thing, Stupak and Day should have realized that Obama’s own record includes rescinding human rights orders issued by his predecessor. Within 72 hours of his 2009 inauguration, President Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby using the American taxpayers’ money to fund a campaign of cultural imperialism by imposing abortion on countries and cultures that respect the dignity of the child in the womb. Barely two months later, Obama also rescinded the executive order banning taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. This “research” requires the killing of human persons and it has consistently failed to produce cures or treatments.

Three days before announcing his betrayal, Bart Stupak complained to The Hill. According to him, fighting for the fundamental human right in health care was “a living hell.” Losing his integrity in front of the world and failing to muster the courage of his convictions must be “a living hell.”

Nevertheless, Stupak and the DFLA have achieved something greater than they intended because pro-life and whole-life voters are now laser focused on ousting 13 other cowards this year: namely, Reps. John Boccieri (D-OH), Chris Carney (D-PA), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Steve Driehaus (D-OH), Baron Hill (D-IN), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), and John Salazar (D-CO).

Years ago, when the late Rev. Richard John Neuhaus was a young, liberal Lutheran pastor, he was quoted as saying: “The greatest tragedy in contemporary American politics is that the pro-life flag is planted in the Republican side of the debate.” Rev. Neuhaus was half right. The greatest tragedy in American political history is that the Whole Life/Pro-Life flag is not firmly planted in both the Republican and Democrat parties. It will take both parties working together to reestablish respect for the human person from the embryo to the elderly.

One pro-life Democrat courageously stood his ground during the healthcare vote. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) is reason to hope that Democrats, Republicans and independents can work together in grounding our nation on the founding principle of this great Republic: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If Democrats For Life drops its campaign to re-elect the Stupak 13 and concentrates on Lipinski’s race, that would be a good start.

Comments

11 responses to “Democrats For Life Promises Counterfeit ‘Whole-Life’ PAC”

  1. fatherjo Avatar
    fatherjo

    “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” 2008 Democratic Party Platform

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Father Joe Blonski, anita crane. anita crane said: by Jason Jones: Democrats for Life Promises Counterfeit 'Whole-Life' PAC http://tinyurl.com/2bngeam […]

  3. dennisofraleigh Avatar
    dennisofraleigh

    Fatherjo is so right. Unless and until these self-described “Democrats for Life” “strongly and uniquivically” repudiate their own party’s pro-abortion platform and their Speaker of the House for their unabashed defenses of abortion they can use the “hero” label all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality. As we saw just a few months ago, it only takes a little arm-twisting from the Party enforcers to get most of them to vote to maintain the status quo (or even worsen the situation).

  4. goral Avatar
    goral

    Prior to the Solidarity movement in Poland, there was a campaign called “Communism with a human face”. The idea of this campaign was to sway the Communists to think like pristine socialists, ie. just be concerned with the social welfare part of the ideology. Of course it failed. The tyrranical, godless, totalitarian and utilitarian side of the ideology is just too overwhelming to concentrate on the empty and mostly symbolic and deceptive component of social welfare.

    So it is with Democrats, read their Platform, examine their voting records, take note of their alliances with the radical left, note their deviously skillful use of political doublespeak. This Party can not in any way go pro-life without denying themselves and repenting of their same sex unions with everyone and everything that the Church abhors.

  5. hsmarc Avatar
    hsmarc

    Here, here for the article and the comments. Let us pray for a “change” in the make-up of Congress in November.

  6. blue8064 Avatar
    blue8064

    Unfortunately, the Republican party is not pro-life either. The main reason for that is their support for a policy denying an increase in welfare payments to unmarried welfare mothers who have more children while on welfare (the family cap). Such a policy implicitly tells welfare mothers to abort their babies instead of allowing them to be born, and is therefore pro-abortion. On the other hand, working families have dependency exemptions and child tax credits to help them with raising children.

    I must consider any penalties whatsoever for pregnancy and childbirth for any reason to be pro-abortion. Therefore, I must consider any attempts whatsoever to re-stigmatize out-of-wedlock pregnancies and childbirths to be pro-abortion. Although there may be a few individual exceptions, the family cap described above has completely discredited the entire Republican party’s claims to oppose abortion. Therefore, however awful the Democrats may be, the Republicans are simply NOT an acceptable alternative when it comes to moral values.

    If all abortions stopped tomorrow, the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and childbirths would undoubtedly increase, at least in the short run, since I believe that most abortions are currently being performed on unmarried women. Therefore, honest opposition to abortion requires being prepared to put up with such an outcome. When politicians complain about out-of-wedlock pregnancies and childbirths, it is extremely probable that they favor using the intrinsic evils of abortion and/or contraception as the means of dealing with the problem. (Such complaints also automatically make me suspicious on that score.)

    In addition, all supporters of the family cap described above ought to be completely barred from all Catholic and pro-life honors. This would probably include most Republicans and most conservatives.

  7. Mary Kochan Avatar

    blue8064, interesting. Here is what I want to know: Since you are so strongly pro-life and since there is currently a cap on welfare that you think is wrong, have you personally approached any welfare mother and told her that if she gets pregnant with another child, you will personally, out of your family’s resources take it upon yourself to support that child?

    If you have not done so, why not?

  8. goral Avatar
    goral

    Yes Mary, that last post required a second reading to make sure I got it.

    When I tell my daughter who is single and whom I support that there is to be no sleeping around and any consequences of unacceptable behavior will not be supported by me, am I pro-abortion?

    According to blue’s logic, I am.

  9. SMG 62 Avatar
    SMG 62

    Goral, interesting to consider. You are telling your daughter what is expected of her, and that she will have to accept the consequences of her own actions. Perfectly reasonable.

    So if she did tell you she were pregnant, would you kick her out of the house? I know I wouldn’t.

    There really is a two-edged sword here that I am trying to wrestle with. We really do need to change the attitude toward premarital sex – a huge task. Because while we are pro-life, we are pro-child, and the truth is, the best thing for a man, a woman and most especially for their children, is for those children to be conceived within a loving family. It could be argued that enabling irresponsible behavior (as in, the government continually trying to provide money as if money can replace a solid family life) in that sense is really not pro-child.

    So while we do have to discourage unwed pregnancy, we still have to welcome the child. We welcome the child, knowing that this child is being born in a situation that is not to its greatest advantage, and I think most of us would want to help in some way. Hopefully, we would not just expect the government to help, but would help ourselves. Because the children born in less than perfect circumstances will be with us always, and they need, and in their innocence even deserve, our help.

    I’m sure my message is enormously unclear. As I said, we have to balance the welcoming of every child with the need to promote a society that strongly recognizes that the child deserves to be conceived in the security of its parents’ marriage.

    And in regard to the original article, I’m saddened that Democrats for Life is such a mislead organization. If they are truly pro-life, they need to fight much, much harder to change the party platform.

  10. goral Avatar
    goral

    SMG62, jusy between you and me and (un)fortunately….. the www, I wouldn’t either.
    However, I think that the state should throw these people out in the street.
    I can further moniter and control and correct the situation so that it improves;
    the state on the other hand can not. It is supporting a totally loosing scenario.
    It is feeding the pitbull that will maul the provider and the kids of every taxpayer on the block.

Leave a Reply