Pro-life Democrats hail Minnesota primary win

[Wampa]

I meant to post this a week and a half ago when it happened, but better late than never. Since we regularly discuss how few elected pro-lifers are left in the Democratic Party, I thought some would find this worthwhile. This is my state, though not my Congressional District.

Pro-life Democrats hail Minnesota primary win | Catholic News Agency

There’s some interesting (and strong) pro-life comments from the President of Democrats for Life of America.

 

[Frank92]

The link is not working. What is this individuals name? Is this a re-election to this office for him or is this his first election? Is this for U.S. congress or state legislature?

 

[puer.dei]

The link is not working. What is this individuals name? Is this a re-election to this office for him or is this his first election? Is this for U.S. congress or state legislature?

Works for me. Rep. Collin Peterson. Primary for re-election to the U S. Congress.

 

[Frank92]

Ok, unfortunately, quite a few problems with this thinking. The Democratic Party’s national platform has abortion as an absolute, and inviolable. One of the few things that are inviolable according to their platform. Unlike the Republican Party, Democrats who break rank do suffer major consequences in regards to national funding. Due to this, no Democrat at the U.S. level has a 100% on pro-life issues. Not a single one. Mr. Peterson’s score for the 116th congress was 58 percent. Congressional Scorecard

Any Democrat legislature at the U.S. level who is “pro-Life” is not really Pro-life. What that means is that they may hold a swing district/state, and for votes that are irrelevant or in votes that they know will end up losing (meaning there won’t ultimately be a change to the abortion laws in favor of life) they will be allowed to vote “Life” in order to argue for their re-election. They would never actually vote life if it had the consequence of actually making real change, they just do it for piddling stuff or for stuff they know wont end up getting passed.

Quite frankly, this is the thinking that is killing us in the Supreme Court as well. Chief Justice John Roberts flipped once it was realized that their rulings could change the abortion laws. For conservatives, its always just “one more”. In other words, don’t bank on roe v. wade being overturned, ever.

Back to the topic of the article, the whole DFL thing is kind of a phony. Its more of a way to trick people into thinking they can vote for a democrat. At the U.S. level, it is inexcusable, as a Catholic, to vote for a Democrat.

Quite frankly, it is even hard to vote for a democrat locally that may be pro-life because that official ultimately still is obliged to campaign and promote the democratic party. So the question is, do you really want that person given that they still do ultimately promote abortion causes?

In conclusion, it is difficult to make a case to vote for a democrat at any level, impossible at the U.S. level, and likely at the local level as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Any Democrat legislature at the U.S. level who is “pro-Life” is not really Pro-life.

“No True Scotsman” fallacy.

At the U.S. level, it is inexcusable, as a Catholic, to vote for a Democrat.

I strongly urge everyone in the US to take your guidance for the morality of voting directly from your bishop, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or from the Magesterium in Rome. Definitely not from random postings on the Internet. There is no shortage of people telling you who you “may” vote for, and are only too happy to interpret the Church’s teaching for you. Beware. Have you seen anything from Rome that forbids voting for a Democrat in all circumstances, even a pro-life Democrat? No.

My personal take on all this “can’t vote for a Democrat” business is that it has nothing to do with abortion. The real sin that Democrats commit in the eyes of the right is to be in favor of higher taxes on the rich, environmental regulation, labor unions, consumer protection, free health care, compassion for refugees, criminal justice reform, expanding access to voting, etc. The abortion issue is just an excuse to avoid having to argue against these other things. That is evident by the treatment of this pro-life Democrat we see here. I dare say that a pro-abortion Republican would not be treated this harshly by the right, even though he is pro-abortion, because he is not also for these other Democratic values.

 

[ProVobis]

Its more of a way to trick people into thinking they can vote for a democrat.

Maybe Governor Rauner (R-IL) can convince you otherwise.

 

[Victoria33]

Yes, Colin Peterson is a good man. Also, in Louisiana, there are many pro-life Democrats, that case that went to the Supreme Court was about a bill written by a Louisiana Democrat and an African American woman at that. That was all well done in that.

At the same time, Planned Parenthood is the Democrat party, I suppose one could say, in a sense, the NRA is the Republican party as an example. No way, will I vote for most Democrats, the national party.

There are pockets of those who respect the sanctity of life.

 

[ProVobis]

Planned Parenthood is the Democrat party,

Not entirely

 

[Frank92]

This video is when he was winning the republican primary. Many assumed Planned Parenthood did other things. It turns out that they dont really do anything else besides abortions. None of their facilities, contrary to reports, provide mammograms.

Ultimately, this is post is ill-informed as Trump ended up defunding planned parenthood.

 

[Frank92]

You mean those democrats in Louisiana who wrote the bill that was ultimately found to be “unconstitutional”? DId you read my first post on this thread?

Thats why they wrote it. It would never come to be. All it is is a re-election ploy.

 

[Victoria33]

You mean those democrats in Louisiana who wrote the bill that was ultimately found to be “unconstitutional”? DId you read my first post on this thread?

Thats why they wrote it. It would never come to be. All it is is a re-election ploy.

That African American lady who wrote the bill has a reputation as a pro-lifer, guess what? She was a speaker at the march for life and as to your assertion that it was written as an election ploy, that then, would make me wonder if Republicans write bills that the court nixes, is that also a re-election ploy?

March for Life 2020: Katrina Jackson Reminds Rally of Pro-Life Democrats’ Importance | National Review

I’m no Democrat, I will give credit where credit is due and Louisiana has a reputation for this, their Democrat governor signed on to pro-life legislation.

Lipinski was defeated in Illinois; but I know he was one of them.

From National Review above:

“Louisiana is the number one pro-life state. And do you know why? Because in Louisiana, the majority of Democrats who are elected are pro-lifers,” Jackson told the crowd. “Every day that I walk into the state capitol, I am greeted by pro-lifers regardless of whether they’re black, white, Republican, Democrat, male, female.”

Jackson’s presence at the event was a reminder of the importance of pro-life Democrats — that the right to life ought to be too important to leave at the mercy of partisan politics. Her presence was also a reminder of just how few elected pro-life Democrats there are left in the country. Although she is only a state representative, she was the highest-ranking Democrat to address the crowd. (Edwards’s wife, Donna, also spoke.)

In the U.S. House, there are only three pro-life Democrats left: Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, and Henry Cuellar of Texas. Lipinski barely survived a Democratic primary challenge motivated by his pro-life stance in 2017, and he faces a similarly tough challenge again this year. Cuellar, meanwhile, declined to join Lipinski and Peterson this year in signing on to an amicus brief calling for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Louisiana is different, North Dakota has a little bit of this.

Katrina Jackson has a lengthy history of this to say this is a stunt.

It went to the Supreme Court, I don’t know how justices vote but if Justice Roberts was not so disappointing, who knows.

I doubt a total phony pro-lifer would be allowed to make a major speech at the march for life rally:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/17/daniel-lipinski-katrina-jackson-pro-life-democrats/

Meet the pro-life Democrat behind one of the Supreme Court's most controversial cases for 2020 | Fox News

Jackson is only a State Representative, not federal.

 

[Frank92]

“No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Its actually the fallacy of killing babies and then claiming you are trying to do something about it when you really are not.

I strongly urge everyone in the US to take your guidance for the morality of voting directly from your bishop, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or from the Magesterium in Rome.

Ultimately, and I am sorry to say this as it seems you are quite involved with this DFL thought, is that you can’t square your faith with voting democrat. It is impossible, regardless of the church’s direct or non-direct guidance on the specific issue. The thing is, killing another innocent human being is a violation against natural law. Any law that specifically affords that ability is a violation against natural law. That is the end of the story. The church does not have the power to reverse or circumvent natural law. We can not use the authority of the church for evil ends. And I fear that this is what is happening here. I would strongly encourage you to delete your post.

The real sin that Democrats commit in the eyes of the right is to be in favor of higher taxes on the rich, environmental regulation, labor unions, consumer protection, free health care, compassion for refugees, criminal justice reform, expanding access to voting, etc.

So… your solution to this conversation is to impose a motive to someone without actually knowing why that person is doing something. How Christian of you. We are telling you you can;t vote democrat because of abortion. There is no other reason. Taxes are not a moral issue on the gravity of abortion. Governments have the right to debate that issue in what they feel is best for an economy. There are arguments to claim that not taxing large business owners stimulates the economy. Those tax loop holes that many billionaires enjoy was passed by just about all of the democrats.

Environmental regulations, again, not necessarily a moral issue. There is a component of protecting the environment, but there is also a component of not over regulating and stifling business. It is a balancing act in which, ultimately, there may be no correct moral answer at the end of it.

Labor unions can help employees, but labor unions can also really hurt employees. I have been in union environments where employees wanted out of paying their union dues because they made such a toxic environement and rewarded mediocrity. Again, this is not a moral issue like abortion.

Compassion for refugees, well, no country lets more people from out of the country in than the U.S. We are the most permissive, always have been. So… you are complaining about nothing here.

"“Expanding access to voting” is a nothing issue. Everyone can vote in this country. There has been no consitutional blocks against this. This is code language for allowing non U.S. citizens to vote, which is non-consitituional anyway. You have to become a citizen.

Trump has been incredible on healthcare, better than the democrats I would say.

 

[Frank92]

That African American lady who wrote the bill has a reputation as a pro-lifer, guess what? She was a speaker at the march for life and as to your assertion that it was written as an election ploy, that then, would make me wonder if Republicans write bills that the court nixes, is that also a re-election ploy?

Katrina Jackson Supports Hillary Clinton

As I cited in my previous post, is it really worth supporting someone who supports Hillary Clinton? If she is really pro-life she is just hurting her own cause. Which she ultimately does not care about anyway. Its about keeping her power in Louisiana while still cow towing to the democratic party when it really matters.

Again, her only function is to pass bills that ultimately do not effect change or vote for bills that wont end up passing. And yes, there are establishment republicans at the U.S. level who are guilty of this as well. Those would include folks like Marco Rubio and others. The thing is though, there are many republicans who are not establishment. Republicans hold the only true grass roots movement in the country that has elected positions in coingress.

. . . . Trying to find rare examples of something that is not really happening is not really capturing the main point of this discussion, and it is a point that Catholics need to understand above all else. The Democratic Party is an enemy to this country and all people of good will.

Any Catholic who votes democrat betrays their faith and Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Victoria33]

Those would include folks like Marco Rubio and others. The thing is though, there are many republicans who are not establishment. Republicans hold the only true grass roots movement in the country that has elected positions in coingress.

Unfortunately Victoria, I would describe your post as manipulative at best, dishonest at worst. Trying to find rare examples of something that is not really happening is not really capturing the main point of this discussion, and it is a point that Catholics need to understand above all else. The Democratic Party is an enemy to this country and all people of good will.

Any Catholic who votes democrat betrays their faith and Lord Jesus Christ.

I have criticized the Democrats, as long as they are linked to Planned Parenthood, however, if you describe my posts in certain ways, I think your posts could easily be criticized, however, I will not resort to personally insult other members of the forum and you should be cautioned over this.

So, she supported the nomination of her party. That does not negate the good she has tried to do. I will leave it the organizers of the march for life on allowing her to speak. Louisiana is different, it is not full-Republican despite what people claim about the Southern strategy.

This was all slinging mud at Rubio, he authored the bill in Florida against getting abortions over statelines without parental consent which was signed by the Governor into law. Likewise, in the Senate, if he co-sponsored any pro-life legislation, it was also signed by Cruz or Rand Paul. So, again, this is pretty much a non-substantiated charge.

 

[ProVobis]

Lipinski was defeated in Illinois; but I know he was one of them.

The mayor of Chicago campaigned viciously against him and his anti abortion position. Time to defeat her next election.

From my perspective the worst thing that happened in Illinois was Dixon being voted out for his pivotal vote in confirming Clarence Thomas. Carol Moseley Braun who defeated him in the primaries ironically went out and later voted for partial birth abortion.

 

[Frank92]

Rubio simply does not show up to life bills that he does not want to vote for. He is famous for that.

I did not personally insult you, but what I am saying is that this Democratic party thing has to stop with Catholics. Championing every little faux action they take is not helpful and it does not paint the full picture and you know this. Life is not made up of small gestures and one off moments. The whole picture is that democrats, each and every one of them to a man, create an environment where abortion is acceptable. It is manipulative at best, dishonest at worst to assert otherwise. That is the truth. If you dont like it, then that is your problem. I am very sorry.

 

[Frank92]

Victoria, I also want to be clear of something else. You said Colin Peterson was a good man, but didnt you see his scorecard that I posted? 58 percent last congress on life. Meaning that the other 42 percent of the time he is championing choice issues. And the thing is, that 58 percent that he is carrying, is fluff stuff. Stuff that either does not really change anything or stuff that he knows wont pass.

This is not a good man. I would highly recommend deleting this post.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…you can’t square your faith with voting democrat. It is impossible, regardless of the church’s direct or non-direct guidance on the specific issue.

It is very telling that you can say something this significant is not allowed by Church teaching and then add “regardless of the church’s …guidance”. The Church’s guidance is all we have. There is no “other law” that goes beyond the Church’s law. If you can’t support your position with Church teaching, it isn’t really Catholic teaching.

The thing is, killing another innocent human being is a violation against natural law.

But voting for someone who refuses to make it illegal is not necessarily against natural law, but is a prudential decision. It is fuzzy thinking to equate abortion with voting for a Democrat. In fact, none of the Democratic candidates I know of has every performed an abortion or forced someone to have one. So calling them baby-killers is just not logical.

So… your solution to this conversation is…

You can be sure than any time you see a post that begins with “so your solution is…”, that that person has proposed no such solution, and is an attempt to misrepresent the other person’s position. If you want to know what my solution really is, it is to start by changing the minds and hearts of the women who choose abortion and convince them that it is much better if they carry their baby to term. One of things we can to to encourage this change of heart is to remove the worry and financial burden of pre-natal care and delivery services, regardless of complications, so that no women ever has to risk the costs of these things. You do that and you will really change the abortion statistics. You elect a Republican and the abortion statistics will likely stay the same. If you are interested in stopping women for having abortions, you would want to do what works, and not what doesn’t work.

Trump has been incredible on healthcare, better than the democrats I would say.

That is highly debatable. No, I take it back. It is not debatable at all. He has done horribly.

You said Colin Peterson was a good man, but didnt you see his scorecard that I posted? 58 percent last congress on life. Meaning that the other 42 percent of the time he is championing choice issues.

That rating comes form the National Right Life, which is not an authorized arm of the Catholic Church, but is an advocacy organization independent of the Catholic Church. A Catholic believer is not bound to take them at their word.

 

[ProVobis]

One of things we can to to encourage this change of heart is to remove the worry and financial burden of pre-natal care and delivery services, regardless of complications, so that no women ever has to risk the costs of these things.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Frank92]

It is very telling that you can say something this significant is not allowed by Church teaching and then add “regardless of the church’s …guidance”. The Church’s guidance is all we have. There is no “other law” that goes beyond the Church’s law. If you can’t support your position with Church teaching, it isn’t really Catholic teaching.

I dont think you understand church authority, or you dont want to understand it. If the pope says one day that the rd soxs are better than the yankees, it does not mean that therefore every Catholic must belive it or else you are not a good Catholic. You have to consider the very real possibility that a priest or bishop could preach error. It has happened on numerous occasions throughout history (Martin Luther, e.g.), it is happening, and will continue to happen as long as the church is in its physical form on earth. Regardless of what the physical form of the church does, it CAN NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, validly preach the violation of Natural Law. This is because the church was put in place to hold up the natural law to the word. The spiritual church can never be seperated from the natural law.

But voting for someone who refuses to make it illegal is not necessarily against natural law, but is a prudential decision. It is fuzzy thinking to equate abortion with voting for a Democrat. In fact, none of the Democratic candidates I know of has every performed an abortion or forced someone to have one.

It is not a prudential decision. You are highly confused. Realizing that your nay vote wil result in the DIRECT, NOT INDIRECT, murder of another human being is a violation of the natural law. Also, it is not only a matter of not voting to roll back abortion, it is a matter of voting in favaor of laws that make the culture of abortion more accessible, accepted, and even less restricted. So you are misrepresenting the Democractic party position. It is not only a sin of ommission but commission as well.

One of things we can to to encourage this change of heart is to remove the worry and financial burden of pre-natal care and delivery services, regardless of complications, so that no women ever has to risk the costs of these things.

Everyone, regardless of their position in life, has been a financial burden to someone. It could be your employer, your parents, thhe state, etc. How would you like it if someone killed you because you were a financial burden?

The other problem with this thought is that no one will want to work in an industry that you dont get paid for. The only way you could do this is if you pointed a gun at a doctor’s head and told him to go to work. Which, actually, did happen in the Soviet Union. It is erie, some of the things dems are proposing.