By Jonathon Van Maren
The Democrats have become the party of abortion, and that fact is one of the primary reasons that the GOP will have a solid base of religious conservatives and pro-lifers regardless of who they nominate (I genuinely think that a pro-life Democrat would be stunned at the level of support they’d receive from many, many people who only vote Republican over abortion and religious liberty.) But as the New York Times reported recently, that simply isn’t going to happen:
An association of Democratic state attorneys general will become the first national party committee to impose an explicit abortion litmus test on its candidates, announcing on Monday that it will refuse to endorse anyone who does not support reproductive rights and expanding access to abortion services.
To win financial and strategic backing from the group, candidates will be required to make a public statement declaring their support of abortion rights. The group, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, recruits candidates and helps their campaigns with financial support, data analysis, messaging and policy positions.
“Attorneys general are on the front lines of the fight for reproductive freedom,” Letitia James, the New York attorney general, said in a video promoting the group’s decision, which featured news media coverage of the new state laws. “They have the power to protect your rights.”
…But the new litmus test worries some Democrats who fear it could hurt their party in rural areas and the more moderate, suburban districts that won Democrats control of the House last fall and may represent their path back to the White House.
Former Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who served two terms as her state’s Attorney General, described the decision as “wrongheaded.” She lost her seat representing her deep red state after voting against the confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh last year.
The Democrats could quite easily guarantee more electoral victories by shifting to the centre on a handful of key social issues, but their unwillingness to do so proves that they believe the country is shifting in their direction.
Secular progressives have a sure-fire tactic that works every time: While a contentious social issue like assisted suicide is being debated, they scoff and mock their opponents when the inevitable consequences of such policies are pointed out. And then, once they have successfully achieved their legislative goal, they promptly and shamelessly begin to advocate for precisely the thing that they claimed would never happen. Thus we have Quebec politician Luc Ferrandez coming out and saying that euthanasia, which proponents consistently assured us would be available only in the narrowest circumstances, be made available to those who don’t want to be a burden on society. “Could we, for environmental, social, and economic reasons, decide that we want to receive help to die so as not to be a burden for our family and society in general?”
When asked about his Facebook comments, Ferrandez angrily asked whether it was “immoral to ask a question,” which is ironic considering that nothing is considered immoral these days besides opposing the progressive agenda. He then noted that the current law, which permits assisted suicide when the suffering patient’s death is “imminent” (although judges are already wreaking havoc with that word), is inadequate because it does not allow for the possibility that people might want to die for economic or environmental reasons.
From NBC News, an encouraging pro-life victory:
The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law, mandating doctors perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before they can perform abortions.
The high court declined, without comment, to hear an appeal brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the state’s lone abortion clinic. The Kentucky law, which requires a doctor to describe an ultrasound in detail while a pregnant woman hears the fetal heartbeat, was passed in 2017.
All eyes are on Roe v. Wade.
While Canadian commentators proclaim that social conservatism in Canada is dead, that argument is an objectively stupid one when you consider the data on issues ranging from the LGBTQ agenda to abortion. And then there’s this, which had the pundits gasping like guppies:
Nearly 40 per cent of Canadians want creationism taught in schools, a poll released Tuesday by Research Co. suggests. The poll, which was conducted online in November, asked 1,000 Canadians about creationism and how they believe humans came to be.
It must be very frustrating for Canada’s elites to be constantly reminded that people they have nothing but contempt for still exist—and live in the very same country that they do.