Baton Rouge, La., Nov 19, 2019 / 10:00 am (CNA).- Pro-lifers are hopeful that the re-election of Democrat John Bel Edwards as Louisiana governor could turn the tide in a party whose leadership has grown increasingly more pro-abortion with each election cycle.
John Bel Edwards was re-elected as governor of Louisiana on Saturday by a 40,000-vote margin, winning more than 51 percent of the state’s vote.
A Catholic, Edwards first ran for the office in 2015 on an explicitly pro-life platform and won more than 56% of the vote. His campaign aired a TV ad revealing that Edwards and his wife, then 20 weeks pregnant with their daughter, had discovered she had spina bifida in utero. They couple faced down encouragement from a doctor to abort their child.
Edwards signed a “heartbeat” bill into law earlier in 2019, banning abortions in the state as soon as a baby’s heartbeat is detected in utero—as early as six weeks gestation–with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Josh Mercer, editor of The Loop at CatholicVote.org, told CNA that Edwards’ signing the heartbeat bill into law proved his pro-life credentials and “made the difference” in what was “a tight race.”
Katrina Jackson (D), an outgoing Louisiana state representative and incoming member of the state senate, said that the “heartbeat” bill landed on Edwards’ desk as the state legislature was departing to focus on the election. Edwards signed it promptly despite widespread opposition.
“What it said when he signed it that quickly without doubt, was that ‘I’m pro-life, and regardless of a campaign, regardless of pushback, regardless of what’s being said, I’m going to stand on that principle,’” Jackson said.
“And do I think it made a difference in this election? I believe it did, because what it said to people is ‘I am who I say I am.’”
Edwards has also tried to link other issues with to his pro-life stance, and make it part of a broader platform.
Earlier this year he cited his administration’s three straight years of record numbers of foster care adoptions. Edwards also oversaw an expansion of Medicaid access in his state for adults making less than 138% of the federal poverty line. In 2018, he appeared with Vatican officials at the Louisiana Summit on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and in 2017 at the opening of a shelter for human trafficking victims in the state.
In December of 2018, he told America magazine that “The idea of not doing the Medicaid expansion, I just couldn’t reconcile that, because I am pro-life. And the pro-life ethos has to mean more than just the abortion issue. [Abortion] is fundamental, and I understand how important it is, but it’s got to go beyond that. The job isn’t over when the baby’s born if you’ve got poor people who need access to health care.”
“He is just the real deal,” Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told CNA of Edwards. “We like to think he’s the future of the Democratic Party.”
On marriage, Edwards in 2015 said that he personally opposed same-sex marriages but that marriage licenses from the state should not be denied same-sex couples, as the Supreme Court had ruled that it was the law of the land.
He issued an executive order in 2016–later overturned in the courts–that established employment protections for state and state contractor employees, on the basis of many categories including sexual orientation and gender identity. The order included a religious exemption for churches and religious organizations.
Despite Edwards’ pro-life stance, questions remain of how a similar Democratic candidate might fare with leaders in the Democratic Party who may say there is no litmus test on abortion, but without the evidence to support such a claim.
At the national level, the Democratic Party has increasingly adopted an absolutist line on abortion in recent years to the alienation of millions of potential voters, say Day and Charlie Camosy, a theology professor at Fordham University.
Edwards’ victory could “jolt” Democratic Party leaders “out of what is just an untenable position” on abortion, Camosy told CNA, calling the current party platform “about as extreme as it could possibly get.”
In 2016, the DNC platform called for the repeal of the Hyde and the Helms Amendments—policies barring taxpayer funding of abortions. President Obama’s 2012 faith outreach campaign director Michael Wear even called the platform “extreme” on abortion.
In 2017, DNC chair Tom Perez stated that “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health.” He subsequently met with Day after she requested a meeting on behalf of pro-life Democrats.
In the 2020 presidential election, Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden reversed his position on the Hyde Amendment this summer after backlash against his decades-long support for the policy. Other candidates have called for taxpayer funding of elective abortions, federal statutory protections of abortion, or have even said that the mother should be able to choose abortion up until the birth of the child.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in September that “there’s room in our party” for pro-life candidates. However, the party’s most pro-life member in the House, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), has faced repeated primary challenges from an openly pro-abortion candidate and seen the chief of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) withdraw her participation in a fundraiser for him earlier this year after pressure from pro-abortion advocates.
The Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) on Monday announced a litmus test on abortion for any party candidates running for a state attorney general office, saying that it “will only endorse candidates who support the right to access abortion.”
“What is it saying about people like John Bel, and like me, and Senator Casey, and all the elected pro-life Democrats across the country, the Democratic voters who are pro-life?” Day asked. “If there’s a litmus test, does it apply to us too? That they don’t want our votes?”
While, according to one study, nearly seven in ten of the party’s voters identify as pro-choice, many voters might still be turned off by more extreme stances on abortion, Day and Camosy said.
Gallup in 2019 reported that 45% of Democrats say abortion should be legal “under certain” conditions, and 14% say it should be illegal in all conditions.
To what extent those “certain” conditions of legality amount to, however, is unclear. Gallup reported that 58% of Americans nationwide would oppose a “heartbeat” bill, such as the one Edwards signed into law.
In 2018, Gallup reported that while 60% of Americans supported legal abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, nearly two-thirds of Americans wanted abortion to be illegal “in the second three months of pregnancy”; that support rose to 81% for illegality in the final three months of pregnancy.
And in advance of the 2020 presidential election, pro-life Democrats in swing states—and even in some heavily-Democratic states—are reportedly disgusted by the party’s extreme support for abortion.
“We have pro-life democrats in New York who are just so upset about the trajectory the party has taken,” Day said. Earlier in 2019, the state’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law that could allow for many late-term abortions even up until the birth of the child.
Even before the law was enacted, New York had one of the highest rates of abortion in the country, Day noted. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the state had the highest rate of abortions per 1,000 women age 15 to 44, in 2014, of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
“What has it done to address that?” Day asked.
A recent New York Times poll showed President Trump level with or beating Democratic frontrunners Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in key swing states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, although he was slightly behind Joe Biden in most of those states. Abortion “has got to be one of the major reasons why,” Camosy said.
In Wisconsin, Camosy said, he knew “without any hesitation at all that there’s a ton of religiously-minded Democrats who are Democrats mostly because they share their views on economics or about a social safety net or about supporting unions in particular, who would identify as pro-life or at least identify as abortion skeptical.”
These voters “in fact are totally turned off by what is in the Democratic Party’s platform.”
Yet for now, some pro-life voters are wary of a party whose leadership has supported abortion access at the top and whose presidential candidates support taxpayer-funded abortions and at least some late-term abortions.
“Catholics long for the day when both parties nationwide try to outdo each other on the pro-life issue, but that day is sadly not here yet,” Mercer said.
[…]
In California, it might behoove the pro-life movement to limit the discussion to minority LGBTQ babies.
Who are registered Democrats.
(Sigh.)
Archbishop Cordileone should punish the students who walked out by denying them communion.
Aside from that, the students should be punished by requiring them to read and write about Archbishop Cordileone’s recent pastoral letter on abortion.
It sounds like Archbishop Cordileone should be more concerned about his own flock rather than a USCCB letter that will never see the light of day and which Bergoglio has effectively rendered meaningless.
Multiple generations of pseudo-Catholicism. Why should we expect the children of the latest generation to not be, well, charitably speaking, airheads?
That is it in a nutshell with the San Francisco location as the topper.
You had to guess it happened in California. Lemming behavior is all they have. A private Catholic school is not a place for this sort of behavior….it was rude, childish and unchristian for the students to walk out on a speaker. Since most left, it has the feel of a planned political action. One would suspect the ring -leaders among the newly admitted girls. Students do not run the school or make the decisions on speakers. In a catholic school one would think that learning aspects of catholic morality would be part of the expectation. The students who walked out should be disciplined with several weeks of detention and a long essay assignment about why their behavior was inappropriate, and their parents should be informed. Those who decline to cooperate should be expelled. .
Their parents are pro-abortion “catholics” who vote Democrat, so this cannot be a surprise. The Catholic Church in America is mission territory, and the USCCB is merely a self-promoting welfare agency of the Federal Government. This is why I now support the SSPX without reservation.
Accepting that their parents are politically Democrats, there is also the propaganda the students are exposed to due to the ubiquitous presence of their cell phones. The world of the woke and progressives is always at the tips of their fingers.
Further evidence of the extraordinary catechetics in place for the last fifty-five years. The new evangelization has so many success stories. Given the locale one can only imagine the other moral issues held in mid-air by the next generation of katholics. Maybe they should be at the synod on synods…
But we don’t want to make them too rigid.
Ah, but these are difficult times they say.
One is left to wonder how less difficult they might be if we had not sold out to the world, the flesh and the devil while we were opening all the windows…
A couple of points. First of all, I graduated from the school in question in 1971. Secondly, the Society of Mary has not been at the school for a number of years. Frankly, I don’t know if they have any role in administering the school. Thirdly, I was disturbed at the idea of the girl who stayed for the assembly, but did not want to be quoted by name. I wrote to the CHRONICLE reporter to point that out. She replied that the girl did not want to be quoted because she wasn’t sure how her parents would feel about her talking to a reporter and that the reporter had witnessed an open discussion among that girl and classmates who felt differently about the issue.
Did Nancy lead the walkout?
Whomever is the spiritual leader of the Catholic kids in the school need to have a serious conversation with them. I, for one, will not be attending their graduation ceremonies.
California. San Francisco.
“We ask that all students listen respectfully to the speaker, who is nationally recognized for her work on this subject.”
Before we even get into the topic of abortion the issue to be addressed is the protester’s lack of respect for and unwillingness to hear an opposing viewpoint. Who empowered them to take such an action? They come across as a bunch of spoiled ignorant lemmings who think that the world revolves around them and their precious opinion, all other viewpoints be damned. There should be profound attention-getting consequences for their action and if they don’t like it then “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Clearly Catholic doctrine is lost on them.
Returning to the topic of abortion, ultimately what a sad statement they make of the condition of their soul. So young to be so poisoned.
Of course, I don’t know what has been going on in the school prior to this incident, but it appears there is not much about the school that is Catholic. How Catholic can these young people be or how Catholic do they perceive they are supposed to be, and then betray a fundamental teaching of the church.
I don’t have a problem making efforts to help them better understand why the church teachers what She teachers, but if there is continued resistance they need to be expelled. If the entire school is infected with compromise, then it might be time to close the school until A proper foundation is established allowing it to reopen as an authentic Catholic institution.
I think your comment could apply to a number of Catholic high schools, and even more so to a great number of the Catholic colleges and universities in this country.
So very sad. Very sad. These students at a CATHOLIC SCHOOL not only did not want to hear about the value of life and why we, as CATHOLICS, believe every life is sacred, they did not want to value the educational ideal of listening to what amounts to a “philosopher” speaking. Like walking out on Plato, for example, because he espoused a Republic. Closing their minds, let alone their spirits, to ideas they don’t want to hear about, so young, so sad. Better to keep an open mind and spirit to the wisdom of others, throughout life.
And their ability to protest a pro-life speaker was guaranteed by a mother who respect their right to life from conception.
And they wonder why people homeschoool…
…And don’t save several thousand dollars a year as well.
It’s very difficult to be a principal or president of a Catholic high school these days. That said, I believe the interim president of this school made two mistakes in this matter. First, he should not have, in effect, apologized to parents for programming authentic Catholic teaching on the protection of life from conception to natural death. The teaching is only “polarizing” in the sense that radical dissenters and apostates do not accept it, and it is relativistic to acknowledge any legitimacy in their positions. Second, the event should not have been a mandatory assembly, but rather an optional lecture during school hours. The walk-out, which was foreseeable, has caused scandal. Yes, it is sad that many people think they can claim to be Catholic and also pro-“choice”, but offering them opportunities like this to cause scandal only wounds the Church. My opinions on this matter are informed by the comparatively successful approaches taken by leaders of Catholic high schools where I have worked or sent my children.
This is happening in a lot of Catholic schools where parents send their children primarily for academic and less of religious studies of learning the Catholic faith. These are children of parents who failed to lay a good solid moral foundation prior to their children getting indoctrinated by the secular society. “… do not weep for me, but for yourselves and for your children.” Lk 23:28
If only Catholic schools weren’t concerned with filling seats in order to stay in business…
As mass population centers continue to lose Catholics more schools will close.
The church has not “led” on this issue, even In the beginning. They left it to grass routes as a way of messaging truth. But too many changes accompanied the decades and for myriad reasons, we lost the young. Morality must be organic for it to be lived. Mixed messages from a video of the Pope and the President lockedin a seemingly harmonious handclaps all but adds a final period to the efficacy of the Church’s teaching authority.
We have been warned about being in the last battle against family and marriage ;
one has to wonder if Christianity is beeing seen by many any more just as a ‘nice , nice ‘ wimpy and effeminate , impractical faith and the related contempt against same .
The Way of the marvelous spiritual warfare in a bloodless manner that we have been blessed with – more focus on same could be one means . There is the occasion of Elisha, the mocking ‘kids’ and and the bears – invoking The Lord to bind and command away the spiritual bears in the lives of the mockers and to heal their wounds can be one good exercise in warfare for all involved –
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/elisha-little-children-and-the-bears/
Similarly , St.Joseph , from the Line of David who tore up lions and bears , to be invoked to help protect the ‘sheep ‘ – the inner thought life and purity of the hearts – being there to tear up all seductive spirits , to restore blessed thoughts and prayers as the saintly children in Fatima , to live in holy and good relatioships .
The Holy Father reminding us to focus on The Cross where in all evils get burned up in the Flames of Love , to bless us with New Life – as the Most Powerful in the warfare – thank God that families too have easy access to these truths and occasions in the Holy Mass and Sacraments .
May The Spirit help to burn away all lukewarmness in many hearts to keep us too from walking away from Life Giving Blessings and protection in The Precious Blood !
The pro- life lecture should not have been mandatory. The school administrators could have turned it into a “pro-choice” moment in which students are told they’ll have a choice, either attend the pro-life presentation or go downtown and work at the soup kitchen feeding the homeless and washing dishes.
Wouldn’t expelling all the walkouts be a life lesson to be remembered for the rest of their lives?
The chaplain of the school needs to be replaced. He seemingly wants woke friends instead of religious Catholics.
As a Catholic high school theology teacher, I would not be too hard on the students or the leadership. Most of the students who walked out were probably just ignorant. The leadership did well to bring in this speaker.
I’d suggest a way forward is to schedule a debate between two competent speakers on each side of the issue.
Kudos to the school for teaching the pro-life stance.
Shame on the students who walked out thus demonstrating they—the woke—cannot tolerate differing opinions. God save us from them. They, terrifyingly, are the future.
Sad commentary on the state of Catholic schools, but great comments except for the suggestions of “choice of activity” and debate. A wise spiritual director once amended my thinking, as he asserted there is no argument for abortion—there is no “pro” position that withstands the objective truth that induced abortion is always murder. How to help women in crisis pregnancies or what society can do to turn around faulty rationale are open to dialogue and debate. As for providing students the option of a corporeal work of mercy is rather than listen to this speaker still misses the larger objective: education. This is obviously sorely needed, as these students—by their demonstration—expressed their lack of a yi comprehensive understanding of abortion—not just as evil—but all of the realities of the procedures and aftermath—lifelong consequences. Yet, an option might have been individual library research that demonstrated a better grasp of those risks, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Finally, that this walk out caused scandal—for whom? Jesus Christ experienced numerous walk always but still affirmed truth. At least we know who needs our prayers.
Why all this “tolerance” of people protesting on Church property, in support of murder. Please, stop this acceptance of things divisive, destructive, and evil. This is the Church we are talking about! Defend Her, Protect Her, Boldly make our Biblical stand. Expel these students. Closet smokers don’t get as much tolerance.
Abortion is certainly one of the great spiritual battles of our time, and the devil seems to be winning many to his side.
In Ephesians 6:12,St. Paul writes: “For we are not contending with flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places.”
In John 8:42-47 Jesus said this to a group who opposed Him: 42 “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
And in St. Faustina’s Dairy (#1276) there is this:
“At eight o’clock, I was seized with such violent pains that I had to go to bed at once. I was convulsed with pain for three hours; that is, until eleven o’clock at night. At times, the pains that caused me to lose consciousness.
“Jesus had me realize that in this way, I took part in His Agony in the garden, and that He Himself allowed these sufferings in order to offer reparation to God for the souls murdered in the wombs of mothers.”
“If only I could save even one soul from murder by means of these sufferings!”