I hear that members of the Religion Industrial Complex are taking credit for the abortion plank in the platform, even as they are vowing to change it. (Apparently, they want more emphasis on the "Juno Option" and want to restore the pithy "safe, legal and rare" language and insert some sort of "conscience clause" which will no doubt imply that people who are pro-choice are without conscience.) But nonetheless, they are crowing that they are responsible for the language about reducing poverty for women and supporting maternal care (which is quite a stretch considering that those policies been a mainstay of Democratic politics for decades.)
If we were dealing with people who were operating in good faith (no pun intended) and a media that wasn't completely brain dead on these issues,I would consider it a victory. If religious leaders like Jim Wallis want to take credit for feminist initiatives, then that's probably something we should let them do if it means bringing more people over to the liberal agenda. Welcome to the big tent. But sadly, I don't believe for a minute that that's the intention and neither do I think it will bring over anyone who has previously rejected the Democratic party on religious grounds. Unless they've been in a cave for the last few decades, anyone who cares about alleviating poverty for women enough to vote on the issue is already a Democrat. It's clear that these political operatives are trying to leverage their alleged constituency (which they lied about delivering in 2004 and 2006) in order to give themselves a seat at the table from which to push anti-abortion policy.
I am sure they are sincere about alleviating poverty for women. And I'm sure they are sincere about wanting to provide services for those women who opt for the "Juno Option." But I am equally sure that they want to make abortion illegal. They do not say otherwise. They are using this promise of millions of evangelical votes to gain clout within the party. And they are pros at using the prevailing media misunderstandings about religion's dominance in the political system to spin their influence as being determinative in elections.
Meanwhile, the right conveniently attacks the problem from the other direction. From "HuckPac" (which I have to say makes me giggle each time I see it --- especially when it's accompanies by a "family values" message.)
We now know he voted against the state equivalent (in the committee which he chaired) of the federally passed "Born Alive Infants Protection Act." To put that in perspective, the House and Senate of the U.S. Congress voted unanimously six years ago to pass it and not even NARAL campaigned against it. Yet Barack Obama did in the Illinois legislature.
If you are a pro-life conservative, this vote is chilling. We cannot risk an Obama presidency and we certainly cannot risk a Democrat President and Democrat Congress working together to pass an anti-life agenda.
This is why Huck PAC's mission is to help elect strong pro-life Representatives and Senators that will fight back against the Democrats' extreme anti-life agenda. Candidates like Luke Puckett, John Cornyn, Jim Inhofe, Sam Graves and many more. Candidates unafraid to embrace the principles of their faith and fight for these ideas in the Congress.
Life is a cornerstone issue. I will continue to fight for it. I will continue to campaign for candidates who will fight for it. We cannot, we must not tire in our support for pro-life candidates.
Today I urge you to make a contribution to Huck PAC of $10 or more in support of Life.
Fighting For Our Values,
The left and the right pincers of the anti-abortion movement are slowly squeezing together.