I had to read this article twice, and it still didn’t make sense. Wooing “pro-lifers” to the Democratic Party by implementing more laws restricting abortion? No. Just no.
Many pro-lifers were already frustrated with a party that merely goes through the motions and lacks a coherent plan when it comes to protecting prenatal children from violence. After last year’s conservative-led effort to defund Planned Parenthood failed, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the pro-life Christian Defense Coalition, charged Republican congressional leadership with the “betrayal” of “the pro-life community that helped elect them”; and when Republicans yet again failed to pass antiabortion legislation last year, conservative commentator Erik Erickson declared that “the pro-life movement must stop being whores of the Republican party.”
Democrats can make a home for these stranded voters. Opening a big tent to pro-lifers would not only offer a hospitable climate for Democrats who value a “whole life” ethic, which weaves together common Democratic concerns like care for the impoverished and elderly with an equal interest in the unborn; it would also put them in a good position to win the next generation. Millennials and Latinos, after all, are trending more antiabortion than any other young generation in recent U.S. history. Only 37 percent of young people think that abortion is morally acceptable — while 54 percent of Latinos think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Hey, I know another way to add more D voters. Let’s embrace the NRA! Just look at all those new voters we could get. This is Nixon’s Southern Strategy all over again. How’s that working out for the GOP?
It’s difficult to predict just how many disaffected pro-lifers currently attached to the Republican party might cast their votes for Democrats given the opportunity. But there is good reason to believe that, especially among Millennial voters, such a strategy could have meaningful returns for Democrats. In 2010, research conducted by NARAL found that there is a significant “intensity gap” between pro-life and pro-choice Millennial voters: While 51 percent of pro-lifers under 30 considered abortion a “very important” voting issue, only 26 percent of pro-choice Millennials said the same. The fact that such a high percentage of young pro-lifers consider abortion a top priority suggests that, should Democrats shift their stalwart pro-choice stance, the next generation of antiabortion voters may well lend them much-needed support. Judging by the example of 2006, such a groundswell could bring about a real, lasting boost for local and congressional Democrats.
It’s difficult to predict? But there’s good reason to believe? I should have stopped reading right there. It’s tempting to flip this argument. Republicans could win if they welcomed pro-choice Dems. If it works one way, then it works the other. The reason for the “intensity gap” is obvious. Abortion is still legal. Change that and watch what happens to the “intensity gap”.
The idea that “pro-lifers” would be satisfied with a few tweaks to abortion waiting periods and access is a big lie – and Professor Charles C. Camosy knows it. If you are “pro-life” then your end goal is to outlaw abortion. (I’ll eagerly await a “pro-lifer” to tell me I’m wrong and explain why.) And for many in this group it also involves banning contraception. It always comes down to one thing: controlling women. It’s not enough for you to be “pro-life” and to not have an abortion, you have to make sure everyone lives by your rules. And if they disagree with you? Too bad. Abortion will be illegal so it doesn’t matter what they think. It only matters what you believe. “Pro-lifers” are always in everybody’s business.
There’s plenty of room for anti-abortionists in the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. See? Problem solved. But that’s not their agenda, and it’s why they fit in so beautifully with Republicans. They, like the GOP, are authoritarians. They are quite comfortable in telling (legislating) everyone what to do and what to believe. They have been quite capable of justifying their abortions while limiting the choices of others. This group does it all the time. Their welfare is different. Their tax based roads, libraries, internet access, etc. are different. Their Medicaid and unemployment benefits are necessary… and merited.
But what is this professor really proposing? That Dems should have a “pro-life” and pro-choice platform? How would that work? It wouldn’t, because there really is no compromising with “pro-lifers”. And I get that. They are entitled to their beliefs. Right now Dems enjoy the women’s vote – they win with it. Why would they ever take this article seriously and risk losing their major voting block?
I’m very sorry “pro-lifers” feel like they don’t have a home, but they don’t get to come into mine and rearrange the furniture so they’re comfortable.