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.
[…]
About the courageous Jennifer Roback Morse, yours truly recalls her vigorous testimony before the Legislature of the state of Washington in 2012, when legalization of gay “marriage” was on the docket, or on the table, or the bed, or whatever.
Testifying that same morning, here also was a quite handsome young man of twenty years, a poster child in white shirt and tie and whose parents divorced when he was twelve. After having been shaped by his father’s absence, he had recently reunited with his father–for whom he discovered that he now had a deep attachment. He would like to find an older man just like his father to intimately share the rest of his life. The bobble heads of legislators nodded in compassionate sympathy. Only moments before, in the crowded front of the chamber, two sympathetic male staffers, also in white shirts and ties, embraced each other with prolonged excitement, each chortling aloud without blushing, “I have ‘straight’ love. . . .”
The rest is history…
“In the regular November 2012 elections, voters for the first time approved the legalization of same-sex marriage by popular vote in three states: Maine, Maryland, and Washington [an unsuccessful referendum]. Maine’s law took effect on December 29, 2012. Maryland started allowing same-sex marriages on January 1, 2013. In Washington state, the first [FIRST!] licenses were distributed on December 6, with the first marriages on December 9 following the mandatory three-day waiting period [Wikipedia].”
Then, of course, the United States Supreme Court climbed in bed (5-4), reversing millennia of Civilization with the stroke of a pen, or whatever. Said Chief Justice John Roberts: “Celebrated today’s decision, but do not celebrate the Constitution.” https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417720924/roberts-celebrate-todays-decision-but-do-not-celebrate-the-constitution
Well, I’m not surprised. The massive entertainment industry (even children’s entertainment), the artistic and creative industries (especially children’s authors of books), the political world, many influential companies that employ people at really good wages, and especially the academic community, along with many of the historically mainline churches (who seem to be bleeding members!) have all embraced and endorsed everything that the very powerful and visible Same Sex Lobby groups have presented as “facts”. These three social organizations, much more than the orthodox “religious world”, influence almost everyone, even devoted Christians.
I think that same sex couples can raise well-balanced children IF they include heterosexuals in their circles of friends and allow their children to spend time with coaches, teachers, friends, relatives, etc. who hold opposing views from them, and make it clear to the child that he/she is a unique individual who needs to follow the path that is really “them” and not try to be someone they are not. I think that’s tough for many younger people nowadays, who have swallowed the mantra that we can all “be all that we can be!”
I also think that’s tough for many “straight” (and LBGTQ+) parents who often expect their children to be something they’re not; e.g., very intelligent, or artistic, or “religious” or athletic (especially athletic!), or outgoing and popular, or contemplative and sensitive.
If SSA couples raise children who turn out to be well balanced it’s only through the Grace & Mercy of God, not because of their domestic circumstances.
It’s bad enough when a single parent has to raise a child without a mother or father due to death or desertion. Children can understand that. It’s entirely a different thing when a biological mother or father is purposely erased through an anonymous donor/surrogate.
Overturn Anthony Kennedy’s insane quackery woke-religion, which is absolutely abusive to all, especially children and young people.
Common Law [for the US the common law of England] conveyed to the legal mind traditions drawn from natural law, universally acknowledged legally observed standards, reasoned opinions, religious principles, stare decisis verdicts that were the basis for an ordered society.
As Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, the other dissenting justices during the 2015 majority decision to permit same sex marriage, the Constitutional based understanding of marriage exclusively between a man and a woman, drawn from tradition, was struck down by a radical, irrational intrusion into that commonly held understanding.
It is the same as saying a man can be a woman, or that we cannot define what a woman is – which is exactly what has transpired since the 2015 Scotus decision. Logical or Right Reason has been undermined. Only a reversal of that decision can remove legality from that immoral madness. Unfortunately, ending the practice requires a moral conversion of our culture.
Catholicism in context must first put its own house in order regarding the trend toward normalizing homosexual behavior in house to be effective in reversing it in the general population. Otherwise homosexuality will lead to the destruction of mankind.
True, Father Peter. It is, in essence, discriminating against the essence of being, in essence, a Loving Husband or Wife, Father or Mother, in order to accommodate the engaging in or affirmation of sexual acts that regardless of the actors or the actors desire, even if the actors are a man and woman united in marriage as Husband and Wife, deny the Sanctity and Dignity of every Human Person, and are thus Physically, Psychologically, Spiritually, and Emotionally harmful. We can know through both Faith and reason, any follower of Jesus The Christ who desires to accommodate the engaging in or affirmation of demeaning sexual acts , which are disordered because they deny the Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and thus The Sanctity and Dignity of every Beloved Son or Daughter from the moment of conception to natural death, ipso facto separates oneself from The One Body Of Christ, due to the fact that Love, which is always rightly ordered to the personal and relational inherent Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love, is devoid of every form of Lust.
“Catholicism in context must first put its own house in order regarding the trend toward normalizing homosexual behavior in house to be effective in reversing it in the general population. Otherwise homosexuality will lead to the destruction of mankind.”
Respectfully, Catholicism is ordered to The Word Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Incarnate, Our Savior, Jesus, The Christ, thus Catholicism is in order and practiced by The Faithful, The One Body Of Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
Those who deny Christ’s Teaching on Sexual Morality, having ipso facto defected from The Catholic Faith, until they repent and affirm Christ’s teaching , are not to be counted among The Faithful, least it appear one can remain in communion with Christ and His One , Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, while denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ.
That divine ordering of the Mystical Body doesn’t ensure that all its members are living lives that reflect that order. That includes hierarchy. As such there’s sin in the Church today, the egregious sin of homosexuality. A faithful elect will remain to the end. In the end the Church teaches it is Christ who will be the victor of Satan and evil.
Natural Law, the reflexion of the Eternal Law as Aquinas teaches the Natural Law Within, refers to the innate ability to distinguish good from evil. We find it recognized by Cicero who said the law of nature is the same in Rome as it is in Athens.
It is prescient knowledge realized in the act of deliberation of a moral act. Which is why the Church says the Decalogue is a reminder God gave to Man through Moses. As a natural faculty we don’t require grace to apprehend the natural law, thus it’s the bedrock for conscience. Although grace assists in its apprehension and consistency in practice.
Apart from Natural Law there are laws or principles of behavior that surpass Natural Law and are revealed by the Holy Spirit. These revealed principles of behavior are those that are necessary for salvation and best recognized in Christ’s passion, and the willingness to suffer deficit to oneself for the good of others.
Tullius Cicero in De Legibus Book I says, “And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times”.
If the Ruth institute was founded for the purpose of defending traditional Christian marriage, would their endorsing any study pertaining to a defense of their position be a credible reason for believing it? Since we all tend to stack the deck in our favor there is little hope that their case is presented objectively. Is it likely that they would ever cite a study which came to opposite conclusions as being good or accurate? No not at all.
I am not making any statement about the mission or reputation of the Ruth Institute ( about this I am totally ignorant) , I’m only trying to make the point that it is very difficult if not impossible to defend our moral values by citing sociological studies. Professionals on both sides of the fence can come up with “studies “ which support their biases.
I am 100% pro traditional family values and I don’t need any study to confirm it and no number of opposing studies will ever change my mind. Period.
I think you might have it backward, James – the Ruth Institute isn’t endorsing the Regnerus study; the Regnerus study affirms the Ruth Institute’s positions. I’m no sociologist, and I haven’t poured over any of the data or read the study; but based on the commentary provided by the Cornell Sociologists from their Multiverse Analysis on Regnerus’ data, it sounds like they were hoping to discredit Regnerus’ study; but instead re-affirmed his result. That said, the point of the article seems to say that there is scholarly, robust research (even in the field of Sociology! and even from a school like The University of Texas!), that reaffirms the value of providing traditional marriages and family composition for the material welfare of offspring.
I think i remember that The Ruth Institute tries to help victims of the Sexual Revolution. Defending marriage would correlate with that goal I guess.
Surely you wouldn’t reject every study an organization like The Ruth Institute makes public on the grounds that studies with differing outcomes exist?
I’m cautious about these kind of things too but you’d have to look at the criteria and populations studied to make a comparison.
Studies and polls do mean something but they can also be set up for certain outcomes.
From an NCR article today:” Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which helps the victims of the Sexual Revolution recover from their experiences and become advocates for positive change.”
A premise for homosexuality’s universal expansion and the destruction of mankind is the dissolution of moral principles that correctly direct the will toward its correct object. Remove those rational, religiously held principles and the will loses its direction toward a due end. Reason wanders where pleasure leads it, abnormal sexuality becomes an option solely based on pleasure.
And the absence of a well formed conscience!
Do we really see distingush between a same sex home from a broken home? Perhaps I don’t.
God created two sexes, not one. Homosexual activity is abhorrent. But the progressive movement looks to expand recognition of Gay rights. The dilemma for straights is how we conduct our relationship with Gays going forward?
Can we isolate them? I have Gay friends. Will there be a bill to outlaw same sex marriage? Will that attempt at containment trigger violence? There have been many attempts to evangelize Gays. A major attempt was made in Minnesota…
Several years ago, former U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann and her husband Marcus created a “clinic” using the slogan “Pray the Gay away”. They practiced “Conversion Theory”. It was closed for improper record keeping. The “impact” of the clinic remains largely unknown, except for several men who said their mental anguish was the result.
We must continue our trek to “address” the issue. However, it remains an issue until we know how we do it. God help us.
‘Do we really see distingush between a same sex home from a broken home? ”
***************
Yes, Mr. Morgan I think so. While prison populations are largely boys from single parent homes that can reflect poverty as well as the absence of a father in the home.
I’m guessing psychological issues will look different when children are “created” through anonymous donors & surrogates. I know a woman who found out her conception happened in that fashion & she had a real breakdown. It completely turned her world upside down.
Children aren’t pets or commodities. They have inherent human rights & one of those is to know & have a relationship with their father & mother, if living. And their extended family also.
mrscracker: so much truth in what you write. Shout it from the rooftops!
Thank you, Deacon Edward and God bless you.
“Reality is greater than ideas” – what reality, which idea? When? How?
The reality that man is biologically grounded which necessarily informs his interior and his society
Or
That state of affairs where delinquents and criminality are not backing off “so therefore” -the therefore being a mental idea process- “therefore” they must be facilitated – a combination of moralized obliging “must”/“ought” and of creating activity and directing action for real
With the latter being given not only ascendancy but being presented as absolute.
Very sad. My cousin and his wife are still friends with two women (I knew them in HS, younger than me, but don’t think they were gay then or they hid it).
When gay started to be “accepted” in society they came out. They married when that became a thing you could do. They ended up “adopting” 2 babies who are mid/late teens. We were all at a picnic and my aunt heard the boy, sadly lament saying, “I’m never going to have a dad”. It broke my heart. Unfortunately, he did while growing up, had a lot of behavior issues. I suspected because his family wasn’t “normal” and wanted a dad like other families. Horrible. His sister also had some difficulty, but she “seems” sort of ok in comparison, but she has females that are like her. Although, not having a dad could cause bad decisions when dating/marrying. It’s hard to be around them, the boy is miserable, the girl trying to deal with it and the “moms” look miserable /unhappy too, bc the kids aren’t completely happy. I’m sure the son has told them what he thinks and resents them or even hates them for doing that to him. Extremely heart breaking.
I had thought what would I think if I was in that situation. I’d be confused, and feel like I wasn’t grounded. And I’d totally lament not having what most people had a dad and a mom. I’d probably run away and stay at a friend’s if I could or ask family members if they could adopt me! I would be beyond miserable.
Wish I could adopt their kids and get them out of that selfish situation. How could you make a decision to have kids without thinking about the repercussions that they would have to endure-being made fun of in school-haha you don’t have a dad/mom.
If one chooses to act on their propensity toward homosexual, don’t adopt or surrogate children. You bringing them up in an unnatural situation., that in most cases cause harm-confused, behavioral/ anger, self-harm or suicide. It’s one thing if people make their own decision to be gay, but, don’t drag children into it. 🙏🏻
Re Fr. Morelli above (7:17) – “Unfortunately, ending the practice requires a moral conversion of our culture”.
Agreed. A tall order but that’s what’s required.
I note that the Baptists have urged a rethinking of Obergefell.
From a phenomenological perspective, imagine for a moment the life experience of a person who comes to know the fact that his/her life began as a result of the union of donated ova and sperm in a petri dish adopted by two (or three or four since laws are indeed fungible) homosexuals. Imagine for a moment that this is you.
There will always be problems when we encourage the patients to run the hospitals and the lunatics to run the asylums. It is doubtful that the Creator made a mistake in creating men and women with their unassailable characteristics and function for reproduction of their species.