FILE - In this Sept. 9, 2015, file photo, Planned Parenthood supporters rally for women's access to reproductive health care on "National Pink Out Day'' at Los Angeles City Hall. With a deeper-than-ever split between Republicans and Democrats over abortion, activists on both sides of the debate foresee a 2016 presidential campaign in which the nominees tackle the volatile topic more aggressively than in past elections. (AP Photo/Nick Ut, File)

For Dems, There Will Always Be A Litmus Test

So when Ben Ray Luján, a Democrat representative from New Mexico who also happens to be his party’s Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, gave an interview to The Hill yesterday, he caused something of a stir when he mentioned a new tactic they’ll be trying in order to entice potential voters during the 2018 elections.  Concerned about the party’s rigidity on certain issues, Luján thought it might be useful to soften its image a bit by welcoming candidates who have a greater diversity of viewpoints, perhaps inching the Democrats away from the hard left position it currently occupies and moving it a little closer to the center.  In a saner time, this would be considered simple retail politics, appealing to the broadest swath of the electorate possible–but this isn’t a sane time, especially when it comes to the third rail of Democrat politics:

Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill.

“There is not a litmus test for Democratic candidates,” said Luján, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman. “As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

That sound you just heard was Cecile Richards’ chardonnay shooting out of her nose.  What do you mean there’s not a litmus test, hoss?

“To pick up 24 [seats] and get to 218, that is the job. We’ll need a broad coalition to get that done,” Luján said. “We are going to need all of that, we have to be a big family in order to win the House back.”

big family?  Planned Parenthood is all about preventing big families!  Or did you forget to read the fine print on all those campaign checks?

Abortion rights were notably absent from the party’s new policy push announced last week, meant to unify the party around an agenda outside of opposition to Trump. That plan, called “A Better Deal,” focused on economic policy largely related to jobs, wages and reducing the burden on families.

Again with the families!  Don’t you know that more babies means more carbon means more warming means the world is going to end?  Somebody get Al Gore on the phone.  We need to have a chat with this guy before he ruins everything!

Naturally, it didn’t take the pro-abortion forces long to dump cold water all over the project:

“Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy,” said Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data.”


“Reproductive choice is fundamental to our platform. One of the most important financial decisions a woman makes is when and how to start a family. It’s also why we recruit pro-choice Democratic women and work tirelessly to elect them — because they stand up for that critical choice,” Leila McDowell, a spokeswoman with EMILY’s List, told The Hill.

“Democrats don’t need to choose between coal miners in Ohio, nurses in Georgia, or home healthcare workers in Arizona. This isn’t a choice Democrats need to make. It’s a coalition we need to win.”

Pro-lifers might also point out that terminating a baby or securing your financial future isn’t a choice a woman needs to make either, but that’s another discussion.

I certainly understand why Luján and other Democrats are floating this idea.  They know the polling data that puts a vast majority of the country in favor of reasonable restrictions on abortion.  It’s pretty much the same position the Democrats held back in the day when Hillary Clinton said that it should be “safe, legal and rare.”  If they could somehow re-adopt this view, it would not only broaden the appeal of the party, it would also represent a hopeful step away from the polarization that has so divided the country.

Polarization, however, also serves its own purposes.  By casting any opposition to abortion as anti-woman, pro-abortion forces have advanced quickly from “safe, legal and rare” to “on demand and at any time.”  To facilitate that advance, they’ve also tried to turn a grisly, dehumanizing procedure that snuffs out a human life into just another routine visit to the clinic.  All of this has been done in service to not only keep abortion legal, but to expand its practice and acceptance.  That’s how we ended up with Planned Parenthood doctors casually discussing the sale of harvested body parts from aborted infants, and how to best obtain them.

And did I mention all the money being made in the process?

It’s a multimillion dollar business, fed by taxpayer dollars no matter what the Hyde Amendment says–which means it’s a multimillion dollar racket, with close ties to big government.  The abortion industry has spent decades building that racket up, and they are not simply going to stand by and let somebody like Ray Luján undermine their position.

That’s why there will always be a litmus test for abortion in the Democrat Party.


About the author

Marc Giller

View all posts