Can Democrats be pro-life? Are there any pro-life Democrats?

From Life News. (H/T Alliance Defense Fund)


When members of the Senate voted yesterday on whether taxpayer money should continue flowing to the Planned Parenthood abortion business to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually, pro-life advocates had no friends in the Democratic Party.

When members of the Senate voted yesterday on whether taxpayer money should continue flowing to the Planned Parenthood abortion business to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually, pro-life advocates had no friends in the Democratic Party.

Guy Benson, a writer at TownHall, a conservative web site, noted the unanimous pro-Planned Parenthood posture of the supposedly pro-life Democrats and says they are now officially extinct.

“Can we finally dispense with the myth of the pro-life Democrat?” he said. “In the Senate last night, three “pro-life” Democrats voted in lockstep with America’s Official Abortion Party to maintain federal funding to Planned Parenthood in a stand alone vote.”

“There was nothing to camouflage or obfuscate the issue,” Benson continued. “In case you’ve forgotten, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s number one provider of abortions.  Ninety-seven percent of women who enter its doors are no longer pregnant when they exit, and almost 40 percent of the group’s revenues stem from abortions.  It was founded in racism (remnants of which remain alive and well today), it is systemically corrupt, and its moral degradation reaches far beyond its abortion-related services.”

“Planned Parenthood receives nine figures in government funding each year, and presented with the chance to shut off the spigot, “pro-lifers” Sen. Joe Manchin, Sen. Ben Nelson, and Sen. Bob Casey all declined to do so,” Benson said. “If one cannot bring him- or herself to strip government funding from the nation’s largest abortion mill, one should abandon the pretense of calling oneself “pro-life.” It’s an insult to the movement, and an affront to the intelligence of pro-life voters.”

He concluded: “The Democratic Party is a pro-abortion party.  Last night’s vote confirms that sad truth.”

I think the last “pro-life Democrat” was Bart Stupak, and we all know how that ended.

14 thoughts on “Can Democrats be pro-life? Are there any pro-life Democrats?”

  1. “Planned Parenthood is the nation’s number one provider of abortions. Ninety-seven percent of women who enter its doors are no longer pregnant when they exit, and almost 40 percent of the group’s revenues stem from abortions.”

    That is exactly wrong. Abortions account for 3% of PP’s services, and none are federally financed. 97% of its services are for non-abortion related activities.

    ‘Recently, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has been lampooned in recent days after his office clarified his wildly inaccurate comments about Planned Parenthood on the Senate Floor last week by telling CNN it was “not intended to be a factual statement.” ‘

    Kyl’s misstatement was that 90% of PP’s services were for abortions (again, the figure is 3%). It’s one thing to feel passionately about this issue, but also important to not misstate the numbers.

  2. McSpinster,

    I also saw the Colbert Report episode where Senator Kyl was lampooned by Steven Colbert.

    It’s absolutely ridiculous to obfuscate the issue this way.

    1)The 3% number really boils down to what you count as a “service”. See this article for details:

    2) This is an organization that half of the country believes is in the business of murdering children. If 99.99999% of the services it provided were non-abortions, that would still be irrelevant to the issue of whether it needs to be supported by tax payers.

    Should half the country be compelled to financially support an organization that aborts hundreds of thousands of children a year?

    Planned parenthood has an established track record of supporting only democrat pro-abortion candidates in elections. Again, WHY should half the country, who are not liberal democrats, be in the business of providing tax payer support to an organization that has as one of its stated goals the election of as many liberal pro-abortion politicians?

    Planned parenthood also has an extremely unsavory reputation of hiding evidence for rape and assisting prostitution and child trafficking. ANY other organization that was within a 100 miles of this type of activity would be blasted by any politician trying to get elected. But because of the pro-abortion zeal of the democrats, this blatantly evil behavior is overlooked.

    Steven Colbert and people like him are a joke. They can’t compete on facts so they look for any excuse to belittle or lampoon anyone who disagrees with their worldview. Colbert is a joke. And the people who lap up every silly little word that comes out of his mouth are willingly ignorant lackeys.

    There are plenty of other ways to help women get mammograms if that’s what you are trying to defend. Wait a second, how about if we take the planned parenthood money and give it all to PRO-LIFE clinics that provide mammograms and other health services.

    Would you be ok with that? Women could still go elsewhere to get an abortions. So if you are really pro-CHOICE, this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise.

    1. I’m not here to ridicule Senator Kyl, only to show that when he used the same wrong data that WK did, he was quickly corrected in every major news outlet. You may not like how he was made fun of (and I’m not here to comment on that). But his numbers were wrong and so were Wintery’s. That’s all. You may think it’s OK to base an argument off of false data. I say, let your argument stand on its merits. You don’t need false data to make it stronger.

      I’m interested in your claim that PP has “an established reputation of supporting only Democrat, pro-abortion candidates in elections.” Since PP isn’t a person and can’t vote, what do you mean by this exactly? Do you mean they, as an organization, donate to candidates (like the Koch Brothers, who give millions to support conservative candidates)? If so, can you please provide some support for your claim?

      Thank you.

      1. McSpinster,

        Google is your friend.

        How many D’s do you see in that campaign contribution list? How many Rs? And the few Republicans they did contribute to were radical pro-abortion candidates, with 100% rataings from NARAL.

        BTW, another thing I didn’t mention in my previous email is Planned Parenthoods odious history.

        Margaret Sanger started the movement with the intention of reducing the African American population, handicaps, and other people she saw as undesirable. As she wrote in a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., “we don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. . . .”

        Every time you look at the abortionists they are busily slaughtering unborn minorities and females. An unprecedented number of African American babies are murdered. There is also the fact that in some villages in China there are virtually no Chinese girls whatsoever, as the families are limited to one child and kill their unborn girls so they can have a boy to carry on the family name.

        Abortionists actions speak louder than their words. When they abort they slaughter girls and minorities. And they have the audacity to call us racists and anti-women. VILE HYPOCRITES!!! They will be judged most harshly at the great judgement when there will be no more media or politicians or comedians to cover up their murderous deeds and there will be nothing left but the truth as they stand before God.

          1. WK – Millions of unborn children are being murdered by an organization which gets taxpayer money that I’ve earned while we pile on trillions of dollars in debt. Politicians who try to defund Planned Parenthood get excoriated by the people in the popular media like Colbert and get accused of trying to kill women by people like Louise Slaughter. These people gave up the right to have a civil debate a long time ago.

            If you read through my comments, none of the remarks were specifically directed at McSpinster. IF she is one of those liberals who has the audacity to label pro-lifers as racist and anti-woman then if the shoe fits, wear it. If she doesn’t do these things, then there is nothing for her to feel insulted about.

            And while I’m not comparing myself to them in any way, but the various people in the Bible had no qualms speaking the truth to and about their societies. John the Baptist called the people around him a brood of vipers in Luke 3, and they weren’t even murdering children (as far as I know).

  3. McSpinster, don’t be naïve. Even if Planned Parenthood doesn’t receive a single dime with the tag, “This must be used for medically unnecessary abortions,” attached, you yourself claim that they perform other services. Government funding means that their non-Government-sourced money that might otherwise be needed to fund those other services (instead of abortions) can now be, shall we say, redirected. That’s assuming all the money (Government, private donations, and revenue from “services”) doesn’t just go into a big pot.

    Also, your claims and Wintery’s are not as contradictory as they seem on their face. Even if only 3% of PP’s “services” are abortions, what if a single abortion is so pricey that those 3% really do account for 40% of revenue? If I’m selling second-hand stuff, I might sell only one car and thirty other items, but I reckon I’d probably earn as much (or more) from the car as from all the rest put together. Same principle.

    Likewise, of the 97% of PP’s activities that you say aren’t abortions, how many of them concern women who are already pregnant?

  4. Hi Mr. G:
    I can’t address your other questions or argue. That’s not my mission at this time and place. It is, simply, to correct some false data. Like I said above, false data undermines an argument. If you’ve got a good one, you don’t need false data to support it. You can let it stand on its own.

  5. The article that wgbutler linked in his previous comment has good numbers about profit percentages, etc. However, I think he (she?) has a good point that it doesn’t really matter what fraction of PP’s services or profits are abortions. If they are performing abortions at all, money that goes to support PP supports an organization that performs abortions. The other things they do are largely irrelevant to the question of forcing taxpayers to fund an abortion provider.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s