Signs emerge 2020 Democrats may court faith voters
Democrats officially kicked off the 2020 campaign season, with debates held on two nights this week featuring a total of 20 candidates. How or if individual candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president plan to engage people of faith remains an open question. During the debates, there was not much overt outreach to people of faith, with one exception. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who has not shied away from discussing faith on the campaign trail, challenged the Republican monopoly on faith based discourse during a discussion about immigration.
Responding to a question about the Trump administration’s family separation policy, Mr. Buttigieg pivoted to faith, taking direct aim at President Trump’s embrace of, and by, white Evangelical Christians, and to a lesser extent, white Catholics.
“We've got to talk about one other thing, because the Republican Party likes to cloak itself in the language of religion,” said Mr. Buttigieg, an Episcopalian. The candidate, who is gay, has attacked Vice President Pence’s claim that L.G.B.T. rights are antithetical to Christianity and he has previously credited his faith with helping him to accept his sexuality. Last night, Mr. Buttigieg admitted that Democrats often refrain from talking about faith, especially when compared to Republicans, but he suggested this was intentional.
“Now, our party doesn’t talk about that as much, largely for a very good reason, which was, we are committed to the separation of church and state and we stand for people of any religion and people of no religion,” he said.
But Mr. Buttigieg also said Democrats “should call out hypocrisy when we see it” and suggested that the G.O.P. has lost the right to claim that God supports its policies.
“[F]or a party that associates itself with Christianity, to say that it is okay to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages has lost all claim to ever use religious language again,” Mr. Buttigieg said.
[What did you think about the first 2020 democratic primary debates? Let us know in our short reader survey]
While most candidates were mum about faith, during the first debate Wednesday night, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey invoked his during an exchange about the feasibility of a proposed gun buyback program. “In my faith, people say faith without works is dead,” Mr. Booker said. “So we will find a way.”
The debates focused heavily on the economy, immigration and climate change, issues that Catholic leaders have highlighted frequently in recent years. U.S. bishops have called for political leaders in both parties to adopt more humane immigration policies and Pope Francis has emerged as a global champion for environmental protection. Democratic candidates may be able to reach a subset of Catholic voters on those issues. But the candidates seem to have abandoned centrist positions on abortion, a polarizing issue among U.S. Catholics, such as support for a once-popular ban on using federal funds to pay for abortions, known as the Hyde Amendment, in favor of policies that contain few, if any, restrictions.
Faith outreach is not confined to what was said at the debates. Other candidates, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro, have also discussed their own views on faith. But the candidate most closely associated with religion in this cycle appears to be Mr. Buttigieg.
Some pundits praised Mr. Buttigieg for bringing up faith while others questioned what message he sought to convey.
“Buttigieg's religious rhetoric is so inconsistent,” Michael Wear, who worked on faith outreach for former President Barack Obama, posted on Twitter. “Unable to decide if he believes Democrats have a seat at the table on faith or, as Republicans argued for decades, the other side is so awful and heretical that his views/party have the monopoly on faith.”
But Mr. Wear wrote in another tweet the fact that Mr. Buttigieg’s social media team posted video of the candidate’s discussion of faith showed the campaign takes it seriously.
“Have to say, it's significant that Buttigieg's team is completely bought in here, and when Buttigieg talks faith it goes on their social media,” Mr. Wear wrote. “Not uncommon for staff to bury/ignore their own candidate's religious rhetoric because they don’t get it or it makes them uncomfortable.”
Writing at The Atlantic, Emma Green speculated that Mr. Buttigieg’s rhetoric could appeal to older Democratic voters, who tend to be more religious than the largely secular block of younger voters.
“Buttigieg’s knack for speaking in the language of God makes him exceptional within his generation, but it may also be a strength in reaching the swing voters and voters of color whom Democrats so badly need,” she wrote.
While Democrats as a whole, especially younger members of the party, are less religious than Republicans, faith is still important to many voters.
According to Tufts University political scientist Brian Schaffner, a sizable chunk of Democrats consider religion “very important.” In a tweet posted on June 27, Mr. Schaffner asked, “Will Mayor Pete's appeals to religious Democrats gain any traction? About one-third of all Democrats say that religion is very important to them.” His chart used data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
Mr. Buttigieg’s and Mr. Booker’s campaigns are in the process of hiring staff to work on courting people of faith.
Amy Sullivan, a journalist who co-hosts the “Impolite Company” podcast, wrote on Twitter that the decision of Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Booker to hire staff for faith outreach so early in the nominating process is remarkable.
“It's notable that Buttigieg & Booker are hiring faith outreach staff at all, much less while they're running in the primaries, because with the exception of Clinton 2008, that portfolio has always been an afterthought or an accident for Democrats,” Ms. Sullivan tweeted.
For its part, the Democratic National Committee just announced that it would also add staff committed to reaching people of faith, something it did not do in the 2016 election.
“We take seriously the relationships that we have with faith communities around this country,” said the Rev. Derrick Harkins, a senior vice president at Union Seminary in New York, who will oversee faith outreach for the party. Formerly a pastor in Washington, D.C., he held a similar position with the party in 2012.
Faith, Mr. Harkins said, “will be a priority going into 2020, but even more importantly, beyond 2020.”
Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary, said recently on Fox News, “Within the Democratic Party there is a huge spectrum of deeply faithful people.” She added that “for too long,” discussion of religion and politics has been “associated with the Republican Party and conservative politics.”
[What did you think about the first 2020 democratic primary debates? Let us know in our short reader survey]
Material from the Religion News Service was used in this report.
I am a registered Democrat and I am ashamed of them. As a married gay Latino male there is no room for me at the table of Republicans. However the Democrats stand for nothing. As much as I see Trump as an embarrassment and a reflection of the pathology in America, Democrats are just as shill, driven by nothing less than power, divisive using identity politics and as far from God as atheists for by their “works” we see what they really are: Left wing, not followers of God. Religious groups are a tool for Democrats to bait non-thinking, reflex believers. One will never forget how Senator Diane Feinstein treated Judge Amy Coney Barrett with her insulting “the Catholic Dogma lives strong in you” crass comment. Hillary and Obama disparage Christians with impunity, and the hateful ways the Dems treated Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS nomination was a reminder how unhinged the Dems are. Tit for tat, vindictive, crazed for power, fat cats like no other; Maxine Water, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerrold Nadler, et al. Nancy Pelosi, like Hillary, uses Americans for attention seeking behaviors and more grandiosity.
There is nothing Christian about the Democrats, and Republicans are as Christ-like as US Bishops which isn't saying much. Dismantle both political parties and offer us something of substance. Both parties are a sham and most ordinary Democrats balked at Hillary as the nominee but the political machinery mafiosos learned nothing or they think they know better than us little people.
trump has nothing to offer any American except the rich that are white.
The republicans are only about power and Democrats prefer people to be free. They certainly don't believe in open borders, however they do believe in immigration....trump does not.
Interesting you should say Obama disparages Christians especially he is a Christian. trump on the other hand has disparaged Christian almost his entire life and has been public about it until his presidential campaign. And if Hillary doesn't go to church so what? Christianity has brought the rage down on themselves.
Democrats may balk at Clinton, however the world balks at trump. I certainly have more faith in the world's people
As for Kavanaugh, he was treated as he was, a sexual predator. No excuse for him.
If you wish a change, one that is refreshing...quit the talk and do something about it.
Democrats have always been religious ... Hillary is a Methodist and spoke about her faith often ... but the conservative Catholics and Evangelicals have long acted as though the Republican party is the only party of faith. It's interesting that we may soon have a president, Mayor Pete, who the Catholic church considers "disordered" and who is in a marriage that, if the Catholic church had its way, would never have existed. Go, religious Left! :)
Oh no. Gotta love these hate filled greedy Republicans. They tell themselves they are Christian because they try to take the access to safe abortion and birth control away from women, even though such laws cause abortion to rise anywhere they are enacted. Yet they act shocked that Democrats might consider themselves Christian or religious because they support the poor, middle class, equality for women and all races and ethnic groups, and LGBT, not to mention the environment God created, and freedom for all people not just rich white people.
We should not seek out the "Faith" vote, instead, just be real democrats, with real integrity, and create real plans to install universal health care which includes free and quality birth control and safe abortion to all women, universal free quality daycare for all children, and funding for environmental protections, and innovation, which will foster new and better paying jobs. Just be Christians, and people will see the works and seek to be a part of the Dems. party. The separation between state and religion should be respected. We should not support legislating religious morality because we stop being a country with freedom of religion or to have no religion, the moment we do this.
Also, we need to concentrate on getting as many states as possible to support what 12 have already made into law which is: put aside the influence of the electoral college by supporting a bill, in your state, to give automatically all of its electoral college votes to which ever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote. Its high time we dumped the electoral college, or routed it to answer to the popular vote, so we can be in a real democracy where finally everybody's vote counts the same. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is the title of this new movement I believe - check it out!
Good Lord!!! another political group courting a 'faith group.' (i think that i am going to 'turn in my shield.' this is getting embarrassing!!!'
The Democrat's attitudes to faith and family are deeply cynical and obviously transparent political ploys. The Biden-Obama administration deported more than Trump by this time in their presidencies, and the detention facilities, now called cages, were built under the Obama administration. Democrats could stop the separation of minors from parents in a minute by agreeing with Republicans that families be detained as long as the parents were, or together in Mexico. They will not do it, because it would hand Trump a victory. When it comes to racial tensions, Buttigieg & Booker have both failed as mayors, in South Bend and Newark. Both demand zero legal protection for the unborn, and use the immigrants as political pawns. All the Democrats make promises about the environment and health that are completely impossible, making Trump's wall building seem like child's play in comparison.
I only had to read your first two sentences to know that you know nothing about the Obama administration. trump made the original statement that Obama's admin separate families and he changed it...he is a liar. The previous admin ONLY separated families if there was danger to the children. trump does it for ALL families. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/fact-check-trump-claim-obama-separated-families/index.html
If addition, trump has been in office for two+ years with most of that being a republican majority.....trump and his Congress could have stopped all this then..yet the did not. The Democrats should not agree with the republicans on this. The republicans started it....they need to take responsibility for their work, own up to it...and stop it.
The unborn is under the legal aspects of their mothers. Children after being born are under their parents legal aspect to 18. The law says a woman has the right to choice, so unless you are a woman butt out of other people's business. If you have a problem with abortion then as a man take 100% responsibility for birth control...otherwise butt out of other people's choices. Remember a woman can only have one (1) full term pregnancy in one year. On the other hand a man can get as many women in one day pregnant as he can ejaculate. Keep it in your pants, use condoms, have a vasectomy, or cut it off. Otherwise, butt out of what is not your business.
Kat - Your link confirms that Obama separated children from parents, even if less than Trump. It also confirms the "cages" were built and used under Obama. The rest of the fake "fact" checking is CNN doing its new job of 24-7 attacking Trump, even when Obama did the same thing. You should go back to articles published during the Obama presidency, when many raised their objection to the Obama policy. Here is one from 2015, titled "‘The beginning of the end’ for Obama’s migrant family detention?" (link below): "Once an almost abandoned practice, family detention has surged over the past year as the Department of Homeland Security has significantly increased its capacity to house women and children. Since July, more than 2,500 immigrants, mostly women and children, have been detained at four family detention centers... The growing use of family detention centers is a direct response to last year’s wave of migrants from Central America who rushed to the United States fleeing violence and poverty. While most of the initial attention was on the roughly 50,000 unaccompanied minors, even more – 52,000 – so-called “family units” were apprehended as they sought safety in the United States. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24783763.html#storylink=cpy
Update - Glad to see the Democrats in both houses have today decided the non-emergency on the border is now an emergency and have signed the bill sending $4.6 billion to the border.
Kat - your "legal aspect" rationale for defending abortion is truly shocking. Being under the "legal aspect" of a mother is not a right to kill or maim the child, no more than a child can be morally killed by their parents up to 18. Then you respond to objections to this execution with the callous call that pro-lifers should "butt out of other people's business." Are you a member of the mafia?
It is a joke to pretend Democrats care about women's rights - you should read about Claire Culwell, Melissa Ohden or Gianna Jessen - three women who survived a "constitutional" attempt to kill them https://humandefense.com/meet-born-alive-abortion-survivors/
Actually,the FACT that every country and or Continent has much higher abortion rates when they make abortion a crime is the best reason of all not to illegalize abortion at any stage. These laws also give rise to maternal death rates in these same places around the globe.
Yet Tim, I have answered you with the factual stats from the World Health Org and Guttmacher, and even suggested you go to the individual countries websites, to see that what they have listed as abortion numbers, and that they do match what the W.H.O. has stated.
Obviously, you don't like the unborn any more than our hierarchy does because both you and they are fighting for more pre-born deaths to occur in our country due to enacting laws to criminalize abortion. Right now the U.S. has the lowest abortion rate it has had since it started documenting abortion and it has a lower rate than when abortion was a crime in U.S., largely due to our laws ensuring both easy access to birth control and abortion.
South America is perhaps the most Catholic Continent in the world, with the strictest abortion and birth control laws, and the harshest penalties for abortion, and the LARGEST ABORTION RATES IN THE WORLD! The caps are in case the reason you have ignored these facts the last 20 times I gave them to you is because you can't read small type. If you don't like abortion - you are on the wrong side with your choice of remedies. It really is that simple. Pro Life's choice of seeking the criminalization and restriction of safe abortion causes more abortions worldwide so therefore Pro Life is in reality a Pro Death Cause.
Nora - As you say, you have argued for legalization of abortion as the best method to reduce this great evil on several posts (you say 20+ times). So, let's assume that you really want a remedy to this great evil (at least we can agree it's evil and that more abortion is pro-death), and that you're not just a shill for PP and the abortion industrial complex. Let's extrapolate your principle - the best way to reduce rape is to remove all legal prohibitions of rapists; the best way to reduce executions is to remove all legal protections of accused murderers; the best way to end sex trafficking is to remove all legal obstacles to sex trafficking. So, we have found some common ground - we agree that anyone who is in favor of laws that increase abortion is evil. We just disagree on the best legal way to stop this evil.
Yeah, there's no getting around that abortion fetish held by all the Democratic candidates. Killing children up to the moment of birth is "Christian' in their eyes. Can't Square that circle.
It's not a fetish, it's a constitutional right. Embryos and fetuses aren't "children" yet. There is no place in the US where it's legal to kill fetuses at the moment of birth - that does not happen except in the imaginations of pro-lifers. Do you guys actually believe your own lies?
It's not a fetish, it's a constitutional right. ???Do you guys actually believe your own lies?
It was an erroneous SCOTUS decision passed by 5 men dressed in black robes with little to no understanding at the time of the medical science of embryology that all scientists know today. It will be overturned soon just like many other SCOTUS decisions have been overruled.
As for “our own lies”.... the prince of darkness is well ensconced on the culture of death camp. That you embrace and defend proaborts and attack pro-lifers speak for themselves
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OVERRULED BY SUBSEQUENT DECISION
(Over 230 decisions with only a few cited here)
Asterisks (*) identify cases expressly overruled.
Hudson v. Guestier 10 U.S. (6 Cr.)
Rose v. Himley 8 U.S. (4 Cr.) 241 (1808)
Wilson v. Daniel 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 401 (1798)
Patton v. Easton 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 476 (1816)
Powell’s Lessee v. Harmon 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 241 (1829)
Commercial and Railroad Bank v. Slocomb 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 60 (1840);
Strawbridge v. Curtiss 7 U.S. (3 Cr.) 267 (1806); and qualifying,
Bank of the United States v. Deveaux 9 U.S. (5 Cr.) 61 (1809)
The Steamboat Thomas Jefferson 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 428 (1825);
The Orleans v. Phoebus 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 175 (1837)
Brown’s Lessee v. Clements 44 U.S. (3 How.) 650 (1845)
Williamson v. Berry 49 U.S. (8 How.) 495 (1850);
Williamson v. Irish Presbyterian Congre- gation 49 U.S. (8 How.) 565 (1850); Williamson v. Ball 49 U.S. (8 How.) 566 (1850)
Sheehy v. Mandeville 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 253 (1810)
Allen v. Newberry 62 U.S. (21 How.) 244 (1858) (in part)
Hepburn v. Griswold 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603 (1870)
The Genessee Chief 53 U.S. (12 How.) 443, 456 (1851)
Gazzam v. Phillip’s Lessee 61 U.S.
How.) 427 (1861)
Mason v. Eldred 73 U.S. (6 Wall.)
281, 285 (1810)
2. Gordon v. Ogden 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 33,
3. Greene v. Lessee of Neal 31 U.S. (6
Pet.) 291 (1832)
4. Louisville, C. & C.R.R. v. Letson 43 U.S. (2 How.) 497, 554–556 (1844)
(20 How.) 372, 377–378 (1858)
7. Suydam v. Williamson 65 U.S. (24
231, 238 (1868)
9. The Belfast 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 624,
10. Knox v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases) 79
U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 553 (1871)
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OVERRULED
Hornbuckle v. Toombs 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 648, 652–653 (1874)
Union Pac. Ry. v. McShane 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) 444 (1874)
County of Cass v. Johnston 95 U.S. 360 (1877)
Fairfield v. County of Gallatin 100 U.S. 47 (1879)
Tilghman v. Proctor 102 U.S. 707 (1880)
United States v. Phelps 107 U.S. 320, 323 (1883)
Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co. 107 U.S. 378, 387 (1883)
Morgan v. United States 113 U.S.
Leloup v. Port of Mobile 127 U.S. 640, 647 (1888)
Leisy v. Hardin 135 U.S. 100, 118 (1890)
Brenham v. German-American Bank 144 U.S. 173, 187 (1892)
Roberts v. Lewis 153 U.S. 367, 377
158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Garland v. Washington 232 U.S. 642, 646 (1914)
United States v. Nice 241 U.S. 591, 601 (1916)
Rosen v. United States 245 U.S. 467, 470 (1918)
11. Trebilcock v. Wilson 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 687 (1871)
Roosevelt v. Meyer 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 512 (1863)
Noonan v. Lee 67 U.S. (2 Black) 499 (1863);
Orchard v. Hughes 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 73, 77 (1864);
Dunphy v. Kleinsmith 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 610 (1871)
Kansas Pac. Ry. v. Prescott 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 603 (1873) (in part)
Harshman v. Bates County 92 U.S. 569 (1875)
Town of Concord v. Savings-Bank 92 U.S. 625 (1875)
Mitchell v. Tilghman 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 287 (1873)
Anderson v. Dunn 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821)
Shelton v. The Collector 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 113, 118 (1867)
Stafford v. The Union Bank of Louisiana 57 U.S. (16 How.) 135 (1853)
Texas v. White 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)
Peik v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. 94 U.S. 164 (1877) (“substantially though not ex- pressly overruled”)
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 284 (1873) (“basic grounds of decision repudiated”)
Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)
Osborne v. City of Mobile 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 479 (1873)
Pierce v. New Hampshire 46 U.S. (5 How.) 504 (1847)
Rogers v. Burlington 10 U.S. (3 Wall.) 654 (1866);
Mitchell v. Burlington 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 270 (1867)
Giles v. Little 104 U.S. 291 (1881)
Hylton v. United States 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796)
Crain v. United States 162 U.S. 625 (1896)
Matter of Heff 197 U.S. 488 (1905)
Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. v. Smith 173 U.S. 684 (1899) (in part)
United States v. Reid 53 U.S. (12 How.) 361 (1851)
"That I attack pro-lifers ..." How dare I attack those paragons of virtue who bombed clinics and murdered doctors?
Crystal - what about the laws in Virginia (see quote below) and Illinois and New York? If the government removes any criminal penalty for not caring for a child at the moment of birth, then it is by default legal. The Democrats in Illinois passed the "Illinois Reproductive Health Act" that permits the following:
— Allow abortions for any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy
— Eliminate any restrictions on where abortions may be performed
— Allow non-physicians, including nurses and physician assistants, to perform abortions, both surgical and medical
— Undermine and threaten institutional and individual rights of conscience
— Jeopardize any meaningful regulation of abortion clinics
— Require private health insurance policies to include coverage for all abortions, with no exemptions, even for churches and other religious organizations
— Eliminate any requirement to investigate fetal deaths or maternal deaths resulting from abortion
— Repeal law prohibiting “kickbacks” for abortion referrals
— Repeal the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995, (responsible for a reduction of more than 55 percent in abortions among Illinois minors since 2012.)
Under provisions of the bill, parents would be required to pay for a daughter’s abortion even over their objections.
The Illinois law repeals the law from 1975 which had a lot of restrictions. All the changes made fit with Roe v Wade, which is the law of the land. If conservatives are upset about these kind of laws made to protect access, perhaps they should have considered that before they went with the extremely restrictive laws in Georgia, Missouri, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, Louisiana, etc.
This sounds like another of your interpretations - a bad interpretation of several sections - please instead cut and past the laws actual wording and not your interpretation of it . Thanks.
Nora - I looked for the sections of the Illinois law that protect those born alive but I could not find it to cut and paste it. I looked for the section that protects the consciences of doctors and nurses but could not find it. I looked for the part that required reporting of maternal mortality but could not find it. maybe, You can cut and paste those protections. Or, maybe you don't care.
No, it's a fetish. Many women now boast of their abortions. They believe it similar to having a tooth pulled.
The abortion of children up to the moment of birth is trump's slogan. Perhaps you better do some research. It is very easy to find out he started that phrase which is not the truth.
Kat - Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, before Trump ever raised it, said the following about abortion during labor and after: “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” The Democrat controlled state legislatures of NY and Illinois have removed all protections for the children inadvertently born during an abortion. So, please stop lying about this. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/30/virginia-governor-northam-abortion/
Let's not forget the republicans are killing children right this moment in detention centers. If you don't believe it, prove it.
More lies, Kat - the couple of children who have died in detention centers died of undiscovered infections they seem to have acquired on the tough roads through Mexico. Meanwhile, thousands of children are being killed every month to the glee of Democrats under the so-called right to kill in the womb.
At least 6 migrant children have died while in US custody. And these are actual children, not embryos or fetuses without hearts, spines, or brains.
Crystal - how callous you are! You can't have a heartbeat without a heart, or suck your thumb without a spine or brain. Here are 5 people who are adults today but who survived a murder attempt, what you and the PP Nazis euphemistically call a constitutional right, even though it was never written into the constitution. The NY, IL and NV laws are trying to hide these kinds of cases by removing the data requirements.
Gianna Jessen – survived a saline abortion at 7 months. She was left with a palsy in one leg.
Melissa Ohden – survived a saline abortion at 5 months.
Claire Culwell – an abortion at 5 months killed her twin. She survived because the killers didn't suspect twins, and was born at 7 months with dislocated hips and club feet.
Josiah Presley – survived a “failed” abortion attempt at 2 months, born with a maimed arm.
Nik Hoot – survived an abortion at 6 months. Both legs were severed. Now very active with prosthetic legs. https://humandefense.com/meet-born-alive-abortion-survivors/
You want me to transfer the feelings I might have for an existing person to an unthinking, unfeeling embryo. I don't think that makes sense.
Since you are responding to the accounts of five adults injured by abortion, I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that Gianna Jessen, Melissa Ohden,
Claire Culwell, Josiah Presley & Nik Hoot are not real people because they were marked for execution?
Are you trying to prove that embryos turn into people? I do already know that. The point is that when abortion is contemplated, they are not yet those people.
Crystal - don't you see the ridiculousness of your position? These adults were sufficiently developed at the time of their attempted murder to only lose minor parts of their bodies. They were not so tiny that a scalpel or saline injection would obliterate them. They have been maimed for life and all you can say is they were not people when they were attacked. That is why I cannot believe you or your pro-abortion allies care a whit for their human rights. Your only interest is power over another class of human beings.
Please see above comment to Tim and then please educate yourself below on the actual facts.
Laws that make abortion a crime cause more abortion to happen everywhere in the world and they cause dramatic raises to the maternal death rates as well:
From Guttmacher: Abortion and Birth Control Stats.
(Notes from my other research on this topic - bottom)
REGIONAL INCIDENCE AND TRENDS:
• The highest annual rate of abortion in 2010–2014 was in the Caribbean, estimated at 59 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, followed by South America, at 48.
The lowest rates were in Northern America, at 17, and Western and Northern Europe—at 16 and 18, respectively.
• Across regions, Eastern Europe experienced the largest decline in the abortion rate, from 88 in 1990–1994 to 42 in 2010–2014. Despite this decline, there is a persistent gap in rates between Eastern and Western Europe (42 vs. 16) likely reflecting lower use of effective, modern contraceptive methods in Eastern Europe.
• The overall abortion rate in Africa was 34 per 1,000 women in 2010–2014. Subregional rates ranged from 31 in Western Africa to 38 in Northern Africa. There has been little if any change in abortion rates in these subregions since 1990–1994.
• For Latin America, subregional abortion rates range from 33 in Central America to 48 in South America. Rates have increased slightly since 1990–1994, but not by statistically significant amounts.
• Abortion rates in Asia have also fallen since 1990–1994, although not significantly. Asia’s subregions all have rates close to the regional average of 36 per 1,000 women.
• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. When countries are grouped according to the grounds under which the procedure is legal, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age where it is prohibited altogether or allowed only to save a woman’s life, compared with 34 per 1,000 where it is available on request, a nonsignificant difference.
• High levels of unmet need for contraception help explain the prevalence of abortion in countries with restrictive abortion laws.
What I have researched from other appropriate sources agrees with Guttmacher but also indicates the below information on this subject:
The World Health Organization Research agrees with the Guttmacher Research. Their results are almost identical.
However, neither the W.H.O. or Guttmacher can give us a solid conclusion, due to lack of evidence, as to what happens when countries offer easy access to quality birth control but make their abortion laws stricter. This is due to the fact that most countries either are lenient on both issues or they are strict on access to both abortion and birth control.
We could make some confident speculation, based on the global evidence that does exist, that in countries, currently, where laws are strict for both abortion and birth control or where both are criminalized, that were these countries to loosen up laws on birth control access alone and not on abortion, the abortion rates would come down more, and likely closer to where the Western and developed nations are at. However, these countries are not necessarily or likely to get quite as low as the western, industrialized, countries since there does exist evidence that the mere difficulty of access to abortion alone lends, especially in certain cases, to higher abortion rates by itself.
Unfortunately, in the countries where the laws for abortion become much stricter than in the past, such as may exist in the U.S. for the future, the amount of abortions could increase quite a bit even if birth control access remains easy and free. One of the reasons this is true is due to the fact that, in these countries, many women who get pregnant in their later years, 40s or older, often now seek to get an amnio to see if their fetus is healthy. They can only get this during the late part of the 3rd month or beginning of the fourth month of their pregnancy. With stricter laws, some of these women may decide they don't want to take the chance the fetus is unhealthy or has downs syndrome, and instead may opt to get an early abortion thru more easily, anonymously obtained, although perhaps illegally obtained, abortion pills. These pills become not an option in later months, and testing would put women in a position to not be able to deny they are pregnant, publicly, if they wait, so this puts the women at risk they could be charged with a crime if abortion becomes illegal. (Please note: I am not suggesting this is right or moral or Christian behavior but only that the reality exist and I personally know quite a few women who would fit this category, today, in the U.S. despite anyone's opinions or beliefs)
A horrible side effect of the above situation is this: 50% of all downs fetuses naturally miscarry in the first trimester, and 40% that make it to the 2nd trimester miscarry then. Fetuses that have other severe health issues often miscarry, naturally, within the first three - four months of pregnancy as well. The amount of downs fetuses that become born infants are very small amounts even for older women. This illness is still quite rare overall. This means many women could end up aborting perfectly healthy fetuses, by the thousands, each year, or more, to avoid the possibility of having an unhealthy baby, and this number increases if women already have other children. One way some western countries avoid this issue is that they keep early abortions legal and allow later abortions into the 4th and 5th month if the fetus has tested unhealthy or the woman's life is in real danger if she remains pregnant. Many married older women think they aren't fertile when they still are and stop taking birth control.
Lastly, there is no existing evidence that easy access to abortions, even throughout pregnancy, equates to more abortions, in any country, that has free and easy access to birth control. In fact, countries with easy access to abortion and also free easy access to birth control have the lowest rates in the world, and these rates lower even more when those countries offer mandated longer paid maternity/paternity leaves, free quality universal health care, and free, quality, public daycare. (The only exception to this seems to be Sweden. Despite Sweden's similarly ease of access to both abortion and birth control and it's offering many of the benefits listed above that other Western European Countries offer, it still has quite a high abortion rate. However, there is no evidence suggesting that tightening Sweden's existing laws would lower its rate for abortion and doing so would likely only raise it even higher.)
The evidence we do have seems to indicate, on a global scale, that despite what seems reasonable in theory, i.e., harsh abortion laws will lower abortion rates, is completely false when put to the test in reality. It just may be that easy access to abortion, and lenient abortion laws, help more to reduce abortion rates than having strict laws against abortion, in any country. Perhaps some morality issues simply cannot be solved by force or threat but must instead be dealt with by respecting the situation of the people involved and helping them out of their place of fear or desperation, with physical and material protections and emotional and spiritual support. We could do much more perhaps by encouraging a choice for good, and for life, without attempting to control women. We could choose to help women in real ways, instead of trying to corner them into doing the Christian thing.
Nora Bolcon: please educate yourself below on the actual facts.
The scientific evidence affirms life begins at conception. When a DUI Driver kills a pregnant woman the driver is charged with double murder. When a woman is pregnant, she is counseled from first trimester to abstain from alcohol lest the baby suffer fetal alcohol syndrome, likewise with teratogenic medications, smoking, animals that carry pathogens like cats and Toxoplasma gondii, which lead to toxoplasmosis, etc. Proaborts like you live in the past with ignorance as their guide. Educate yourself with modern medical science like Embryology. Its pretty basic stuff nowadays otherwise youre just trolling these forums, a more likely explanation for you, Crystal, Kat, Lisa, et al
"Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary, said recently on Fox News, “Within the Democratic Party there is a huge spectrum of deeply faithful people.” She added that “for too long,” discussion of religion and politics has been “associated with the Republican Party and conservative politics.”" Why is that? I think that would have made for a more insightful article. I personally believe that the problem lies with the executives in the DNC. They tend to view religion the way the new atheist movement looks at religion. As a result, religion has been captured by the Republican Party, which is unfortunate. I bet many "white" Catholic voters would vote for the Democratic Party if the party had candidates that are unabashedly pro-life and or more respectful of social conservatives who support liberal economics. We unfortunately live in a polarized society controlled by the extremes of both parties (no room for nuance).