Washington D.C., Jan 9, 2020 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in Congress, has questioned the commitment of some pro-life groups to bipartisanship in the movement to end abortion.
“I’ve gotten some support from pro-life groups, but honestly, not as much as I’d like to see,” Lipinski told CNA in an interview on Thursday.
“I am not someone who’s a big self-promoter but, look, I have put myself on the line in a more difficult political situation than almost any other pro-life member of Congress,” Lipinski said.
Lipinski is an eight-term pro-life Catholic congressman now fighting for his re-election in Illinois’ third congressional district, in the suburbs of Chicago. The district is safely Democratic, but this election cycle marks the second straight challenge Lipinski has seen in the primary.
In the 2018 Democratic primary, his opponent Marie Newman raised more than $1.4 million while making Lipinski’s pro-life support a focal point of her campign. A significant amount of outside money went into the race, and Lipinski barely held her off with a slim 2,145-vote margin. Buoyed by her strong challenge, Newman promptly announced her intent to run again in 2020.
“Some people in the pro-life movement do not seem to believe it’s that important to protect pro-life Democrats. And I think you just have to look at what the other side is doing, see the value that they place on defeating someone like me,” Lipinski said.
Actively pro-abortion groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood have lined up in support of Newman.
Lipinski had to dig deep to survive the 2018 primary, raising more than $1.5 million and spending almost $2.4 million. Although he has not had to spend as much this election cycle, Newman’s campaign presents another stiff challenge just two years after the last one.
Democrats who wear the pro-life mantle are few and far between. Lipinski was one of only seven candidates for the House or Senate endorsed by the group Democrats for Life in the 2018 elections.
The re-election of John Bel Edwards—Louisiana’s governor who signed a “heartbeat” bill into law in an election year—was seen as a boost to hopes that more such Democrats could win in red or purple states.
Yet in a presidential election year, the top candidates have issued a stern challenge to the party’s voters—stand behind abortion access.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called abortion rights “human rights” and “economic rights” at a November debate; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at the same debate called on American men to support abortion, saying that “if there’s ever a time in American history where the men of this country must stand with the women, this is the moment.”
Joe Biden, meanwhile, reversed his longstanding support of the Hyde Amendment and now supports taxpayer-funded abortion. Pete Buttigieg has said that decision to have an abortion, even until birth, is up to the woman.
As Lipinski told CNA on Wednesday, he has not seen the support he has desired from pro-life groups and individuals while he faces one of his toughest re-elections yet.
While Democratic party leaders have acknowledged the possibility of pro-life Democrats—House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Mary.) said in September that “Absolutely there’s room in our party” for pro-life members— and some of Lipinski’s colleagues refuse to undermine him, others in the party, including progressive Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have openly or quietly supported Newman’s campaign.
“So it disappoints me at times, when people say that they’re not going to support me,” Lipinski said of pro-life voters, giving the example of his vote to impeach President Donald Trump in December as a possible sticking point with some in the movement.
“I think that [vote] should have nothing whatsoever to do with supporting a pro-life candidate,” he said.
The day that the House voted to impeach President Trump, the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony issued a scathing indictment of the vote and said it “will be a huge political liability for House members going into 2020.”
The pro-life movement needs both parties to thrive moving forward, Lipinski said.
“I think that if the pro-life movement is going to be confined to one party, it would be even more difficult to ever get anything done to protect life,” he said. “It will be easier for the Republican Party to take pro-life voters for granted—even easier than it is right now.”
Lipinski will not be attending the national March for Life in Washington, D.C., as the House will not be in session that week. He said he will be campaigning in his district with the primary approaching on March 17.
However, Lipinski will address the Chicago March for Life this Saturday, and will speak at a pro-life dinner around the march as well.
[…]
Honor to this President for standing up for Palestinian rights and for warning our nation against the inordinate influence of Israel.
May God grant salvation to President Jimmy Carter.
Yes, let’s pray for his soul. But let’s not forget that Carter—in addition to being pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, and slanderous towards pro-lifers—praised Castro and Cuba, China, Tito (“a man who believes in human rights”), Kim Il Sung, Yasser Arafat, and the PLO, Mengistu, Cédras, Assad, and Hamas. Jimmy was most inept (whereas Joe is mostly corrupt), but he was also a sanctimonious embarrassment far more often than his hagiographers (that is, the legacy media) will ever admit. For more, see my July 2009 post at Insight Scoop.
Upon Carter’s election, the astute and long-time Singapore President Lee Qwan Yew wrote (of world leaders) in his own autobiography, “we knew we would just have to put up with him for four years.”
And, on the domestic scene, we recall that it was President Carter who gave us the cabinet-level position U.S. Department of Education, surely as a reward to the teachers’ unions that helped him get elected (formed on May 4, 1980, as a result of the Department of Education Organization Act–Public Law 96-88–of October 1979; President Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law.) The gift that keeps on giving.
Educationally speaking, Shakespeare gives us a clue: “The fault is not in our ‘stars,’ but in ourselves” (“Julius Caesar”). That is, the fault is not in those who are elected but in those who elect them. The corporate Peter Principle transferred to the gummint.
Yes, the establishment of the Department of Education was foolish. Yet, who kept it going, despite, as I recall, promises to the contrary? Oh, yeah, his successor, that “great conservative” Ronald Reagan.
Bravo! Sick to death of the hagiographies popping up everywhere.
Not that Pres. Carter endorsed this policy, but something to keep in mind from the late, great Huey Long:
“I don’t know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards.”
— Huey Long
For all his faults, Huey had some wise insights. May he & Jimmy Carter rest in peace.
Palestine must earn nationhood. Terrorism must never be rewarded. For over three quarters of a century, the only thing that Palestinians have excelled in is their ability to inflict incalculable suffering on a global scale, not only on others, but also on themselves.
It will only be by a direct intervention from God Himself that the hearts and minds of radical Islam will be converted.
It is for this we must pray.
Aside from rationalizing numerous acts of Islamic terrorism, possibly to downplay and make his years of cowardice not seem so bad while president, the post-president, “great humanitarian,” Carter met with leaders of the terrorist group Hamas. He embraced Nasser al-Shaer, the man who ran the Palestinian education system, brainwashing children into believing Jews are the descendants of pigs and dogs. He laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, the most notorious terrorist thug of the 20th century.
Oh I forgot. Francis seems to indicate the Islamic world can’t do much that is morally wrong. He once reminded us that beheading children was the equivalent of domestic abuse, which he assumed was done by Catholic men since he read it in an Italian newspaper.
Freemasons defend the reputation of fellow members. Not suggesting that is what Bergoglio is doing at all, what so ever.
Thanks for your counter-witness, Carl. I confess my (naive) views of Carter have hitherto been based on the so-called mainstream media.
If Carter was mainly inept, what does that make Francis with his (supposed) assessment of him?
I volunteered in Jimmy Carter’s campaign & he was the first president I ever voted for . (And the last Democrat.) He really was a decent & faithful man in many ways but a very incompetent president.
In the beginning we believed he was a solid Christian believer but over time he veered off in some strange directions. God rest his soul.
Good question. I think there are a few factors involved. First, Pope Francis had to say something nice; it would be uncharitable to do otherwise. Secondly, Francis (I’m guessing) knows very little about Carter’s faith, life, policies, etc. Some of that is to be expected, as the Pope isn’t supposed to be an expert on all previous and current world leaders. But, thirdly, his remarks (praising “the deep faith” of Carter) just follow the standard, mainstream line, which is par for this pope and his inner circle. Fourth, I think that Francis is so keen on politics and political gestures that he probably believes Carter was a good president of deep faith. After all, that’s what the media legacy is trying to feed us here, even though the record says otherwise. Fifth, I think both men, in real ways, are 1970s liberals who have “evolved” on certain stances. Carter (as noted already) ended up embracing a hazy form of liberal Protestantism—or, better, of Protestantized liberalism—and jettisoned core moral beliefs, which in turn meant dismissing any sort of traditional, biblical Christian anthropology.
The bottom line, for me, is that Carter was mostly a disaster as POTUS and while he did some good things afterwards, he was a pro-tyrannical, pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage”, post-1970s liberal whose Christianity was thin at best.
Carter’s was a failed presidency and American voters rejected him and his policies. I find it amusing and laughable how the leftists (inclusing Bergoglio) are tripping over themselves to canonize this man. Some of us are not fooled by the posturing. The guy was book smart but had the leadership skills of an idiot.
Carter was not a good President. I voted against him twice. He let the Iranian Shiite fanatics push him around, that said, he did become a decent ex President with the Habitat for Humanity business. I recall seeing a picture of him years ago, after he left the White House, wearing a tool belt and hammering nails at a construction site. I thought that was nice that he found some task that he can accomplish.
🤭
Agreed on his presidency. It was, overall, a train wreck. Carter was a nice guy, and that meant that he did some nice and good things. But “nice” isn’t the same as principled or strong, and Carter (in my estimation) was neither of those.
Jimmy Carter’s single greatest accomplishment was in giving the United States of America eight years of Reagan.
👍
I took your recommendation, Carl, and read your 2009 article. I believe I am now sufficiently inocculated against the current media and papal hagiography.
I do think Habitat for Humanity does good work.
Respectful farewell to Jimmy Carter. RIP.