Abortion, the most divisive issue in the United States today, has been a topic at the Democratic Presidential Primary debates, revealing the extremism of those who hope to be the next occupants of the Oval Office. With one exception, all of those jockeying for the party’s nomination — and their party platform — have no problem with legal abortion up to and including when a mother is in labor.
In the October debate in Ohio, several of the candidates were asked what they would do about laws protecting the unborn that are being passed in a number of states.
Sen. Kamala Harris would mandate that states go through a “pre-clearance” process by the Justice Department to make sure the laws are “compliant with Roe v. Wade and the Constitution.” Never mind that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution — under a President Harris, Big Sister would be watching. And, for that matter, never mind state government either!
Sen. Cory Booker said he would establish an Office of Reproductive Freedom and Reproductive Rights in his White House. These are the same people, mind you, that say government should stay out of the bedroom.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was the only one who expressed what most people think about third trimester abortion, namely, that it goes too far. She was, predictably, pilloried by the pro-abortion press.
Then, at the November debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said the following:
“We should codify Roe v. Wade into law. That is what we should do. And this president indicated early on what he was going to do, and he's done it. …
“And what we have to remember is that the people are with us. And I predict this will be a big election — issue in the general election. And I just can't wait to stand across from Donald Trump and say this to him. You know what? The people are with us. Over 70 percent of the people support Roe v. Wade. Over 90 percent of the people support funding for Planned Parenthood and making sure that women can get the health care they need.”
Her stats are wrong, however, as even The New York Times acknowledged. Americans have never supported the Roe vs. Wade policy of abortion throughout pregnancy; nor do they want to pay for someone else’s abortion.
The next question wasn’t as easy for the candidates to answer: Is there room in the Democrat Party for a pro-life politician? This is relevant right now, after Democrat John Bel Edwards, who has signed pro-life legislation, was re-elected governor of Louisiana, and as the Democratic Attorneys General Association declared that it would not endorse anyone who opposes expansion of abortion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren got the question first, and when she neglected to answer it, she was asked again. And again, no answer.
“I'm not here to try to drive anyone out of this party,” Warren said. “I'm not here to try to build fences.” Whatever that means.
Also failing to answer the question, in varying degrees of absurdity, were Senators Bernie Sanders and Booker.
So we don’t have any Democrats on the record as to whether their tent is big enough to offer shelter (and campaign funding) to a pro-life politician. But in practice the answer has been clear for years: Pro-lifers, go home! (Just ask Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois.)
As for the popular rallying cry of “codifying Roe v. Wade,” it reveals, first of all, one of Roe’s weaknesses, namely, that it was never passed as a law. It was imposed by seven unelected men.
But as President Trump and the Republican Senate continue to fill the federal courts with pro-life judges, the pro-abortion Left is scrambling to protect its abortion gains.
But what does “codifying Roe” mean?
What it does not mean is that the 1973 opinion would become the law of the land.
Perhaps the Democrats on the debate stage don’t know this, but they would first have to decide what version of Roe they want. The Supreme Court, in dozens of subsequent abortion decisions, has vastly weakened Roe, abandoning most of its tenets and shifting the murky justifications for it, none of which square with the Constitution.
Moreover, codifying Roe would mean codifying something Roe says but that many forget, namely, that the “abortion right” it unleashes is not absolute, and that the state can in fact ban abortion in the last few months of pregnancy. Problem is, neither the Democrat Party nor its presidential hopefuls accept that position. Why, then, would they want to codify it?
I agree with Senator Klobuchar that abortion will be a big election issue in 2020, but not for the reasons she thinks. Rather, it will be for the reasons she fears: that America is in fact more and more rejecting it.
Fr. Frank Pavone is one of the most prominent pro-life leaders in the world. He became a Catholic priest in 1988 under Cardinal John O’Connor in New York. In 1993 he became National Director of Priests for Life. He is also the President of the National Pro-life Religious Council, and the National Pastoral Director of the Silent No More Campaign and of Rachel’s Vineyard, the world’s largest ministry of healing after abortion. He travels to about four states every week, preaching and teaching against abortion. He broadcasts regularly on television, radio, and internet. He was asked by Mother Teresa to speak in India on abortion, and was asked by then-candidate Donald Trump to serve on his Pro-life and Catholic advisory councils. He has served at the Vatican as an official of the Pontifical Council for the Family, which coordinates the pro-life activities of the Catholic Church. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.