OldSpeak
I'm a Pro-Life Democrat: An interview with the Executive Director of Democrats for Life
By Jayson Whitehead
September 24, 2004
In July 1992, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey was barred from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. Although he was a longtime Democrat, he was also avowedly pro-life. "Governor Casey was a diehard true Democrat who fought for the rights of not only the unborn but the working class," said Kristen Day, the Executive Director of Democrats for Life of America (DFLA). To most anti-abortion Democrats, including Day, the governor’s snub was a sign that the party had grown more strident in its support for abortion as a fundamental right.
Three conventions later, the Democratic Party has drifted even further from the middle. While its 2000 platform pledged a stand "behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade," it also stated that the Democratic Party "is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party." The 2004 platform contained similar language, including a pledge to support "a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay." However, this time around, Democrats rejected any sort of compromise, omitting the conciliatory language and declaring, "We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right."
Formed in 1999, the DFLA began to sense this shift and opened a Washington branch in 2002 to advocate for pro-life democrats and argue for a more moderate stance on abortion within the Democratic Party. "The party was just really going in the wrong direction we felt," Day says. "And we were going to have to take a much higher profile and more active level of interest if we were going to have any influence on the party whatsoever."
  |
To most observers, the concept of a pro-life Democrat is an oxymoron, and, in reality, pro-life Democrats occupy a peculiar position. Treated with antipathy within their own ranks, they are firmly set against the Republican Party (for various reasons, including the war in Iraq, health care, civil liberties and lack of support for social programs, save on the abortion issue). To pro-life Democrats, the Democratic Party best represents the interests of the average American as well as those the U.S. affects worldwide—if only the Party were for the rights of the unborn as well. "The pro-life issue falls right in line with some of the other issues that the Democratic Party stands for," Day said, "the WIC Programs and helping working families and children."
In the 1977-78 Congress, four years after abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court, Democrats possessed a majority of 292 seats, which included 125 pro-lifers. Presently, Democrats comprise just 204 of 435 seats, with only 28 pro-lifers. The DFLA attributes at least some of this slide to the party’s strict adoption of abortion rights. In their efforts to change their party’s attitude toward anti-abortion Democrats, the DFLA seeks to not only reduce the number of abortions in America, but return the Democratic Party to power. I recently spoke with Kristen Day about her group’s work and what a pro-life Democrat is supposed to do this election.
JW: Do you ever feel like the log cabin Republicans of the Democratic Party?
Kristen Day: Yeah… It’s changing, I think. Two and a half years ago, pro-life Democrats were afraid to speak out, and a lot of people I talked to—the members of Congress even said that their constituents would come up and whisper to them, "I’m a pro-life Democrat, keep up the good work"—were silent about it. More and more people are willing to speak out a little bit now. Hopefully, you will be hearing more frequently about pro-life Democrats down the line and people won’t be so afraid to speak out. Now there are just so many situations where they get negative feedback. For example, a woman who was running for a nonpartisan position in Florida had a "Choose life" license plate on her car, and the Democratic Party refused to let her speak unless she took the license plate off. And there was another state representative in Illinois who wanted to run, and the Democratic Party wouldn’t put her on the ballot because she was pro-life. Those are the kinds of things that we need to put an end to. If our party is going to be strong again, we have to start really being the big tent.
JW: It seems like the Democratic Party panders to the Planned Parenthood block, as the Republicans do with the so-called Religious Right.
KD: Yes, that is exactly true, and I think a lot of it has to do with money. Planned Parenthood has a big fundraising apparatus—huge amounts of money that they donate to the Democratic Party—and there are labor organizations that support Planned Parenthood and NARAL
JW: While both parties placated their more extreme blocks in their 2004 platforms, much has been made of the fact that the Republican National Convention featured speakers who actually completely disagree with the entire Republican social platform. Why didn’t you see anyone like that at the Democratic Convention?
KD: Well, there were about seven pro-life Democrats who did speak. None of them spoke about the pro-life issue except [Rep. Jim] Langevin, but the pro-life Democrats weren’t prevented from speaking at the Convention. It’s just that they weren’t in the 10 p.m. time slot. But Langevin did say in his speech that he believes in protecting life at all levels.
JW: Was the Democratic refusal to let Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey speak at the ‘92 Convention because he was pro-life as significant a moment as it is purported to be?
KD: I think it was a big deal. He was a really loyal Democrat. And I don’t know if people remember that after he was prevented from speaking at the Democratic Convention, the Republicans invited him to theirs. But he said no because he is a true Democrat. I think that shows just how wrong the Party was in preventing him from speaking.
JW: Don’t we live in a time when absolutely no pro-choicer is going to vote for Bush? Therefore, Democrats don’t really need to take the sort of severe pro-abortion stance they have, do they?
KD: No, not at all. They don’t need to, and this would have been a perfect year for them to move a little bit more toward really being the party of inclusiveness. We still have a long way to go, but we are very encouraged by the direction things are going. As far as our organization and communication with the Democratic National Committee, we are trying to set up a meeting with John Kerry before the election. We are concerned about the Mexico City policy and the UNFPA funding, which would be one of the first things he would address if he is elected. We really want to try to find the money to help those people, without it being spent for abortion.
JW: In the 95th Congress in the 1970s, Democrats held a 292-seat majority and very few were consistently pro-abortion. Why do you think there has been such a dramatic shift, where today the percentage of pro-life Democrats is so small?
KD: It keeps decreasing. We are losing the Democratic majority. It is a parallel decrease. I think a lot of it has to do with the money issue and how much the control of the DNC is now run by Planned Parenthood and NARAL. The former head of NARAL was put in charge to run the whole Save the Court campaign. It has a lot to do with that and also Party pressure for candidates to change the position on this issue. It’s disheartening to see all these good Democrats who have changed their position on the issue.
JW: Wasn’t Al Gore once pro-life?
KD: Yes. Bill Clinton, Jessie Jackson and Carol Mosley Braun even made some pro-life comments. Dennis Kucinich is the most recent one to switch, along with Dick Gephardt. The list goes on and on. It is a real shame that the Party is putting so much pressure on these people to change their position in order to seek higher office. This is something that just should not be done. And they are losing the majority over it.
JW: It’s your belief, and others’ like Nat Hentoff, that you can attribute the downfall of Democratic control to this actual pro-life issue.
KD: When you look at the numbers, we had 292 Democrats in the House. It was a huge majority, with 110 pro-life members, and now we only have 30. There are a number of districts that could be won by a pro-life Democrat. However, they are now held by Republicans because of the pro-life issue. That’s because the Democrats don’t run pro-life candidates.
JW: Teresa Heinz Kerry has said that she actually considers abortion a termination of a life but still supports a woman’s right to choose.
KD: I think she is echoing her husband’s sentiments on that.
JW: That seems so contradictory.
KD: How can you not support protecting life if you believe that?
JW: I would assume that it turns off a lot of pro-lifers.
KD: It’s a cop-out. You try to please both sides, and it doesn’t work. Kerry tried to do it. The governor of Michigan, who is Catholic, said she believes that life begins at conception. But when it comes to her official position, she doesn’t feel that she needs to oppose abortion.
JW: Considering who is running as the Democratic presidential nominee, what choice do pro-life Democrats really have?
KD: There is no choice. In the Primary, there was no choice. I know that a lot of people were ready to go out and take the banner up for Dennis Kucinich before he switched his position. People are doing different things. Some are going to vote for Kerry. Some are going to stay home. Some are going to vote for Bush. People are going to have to go in the voting booth and vote their conscience. It’s a tough year.
JW: Apart from supporting efforts like yours, how else can pro-life Democrats make their voices heard?
KD: A lot of the pro-life Democrats feel alone. So I think we need to band together, unite our voices and become much more active in local party politics. And if someone tries to kick you out of the Democratic Party, bring two or three friends back with you and become more active on the local level. It has to come from the bottom up; that’s how we’re going to make a difference. Right now, the pro-abortion forces are the ones who are active in the Party, and pro-life Democrats need to become more active. We are making progress slowly. Unfortunately, the ticket the Democratic Party put out this year for President is not one we can support. But maybe 2008 will be a different ball game.
DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN OLDSPEAK ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE.
