Is the Democratic Party Abandoning Pro-Life Voters?

A few anti-abortion Democrats in Philadelphia say the party’s stance on abortion is endangering its future.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards speaks during funeral services for a slain police officer in Baton Rouge on Monday.Patrick Dennis/Baton Rouge Advocate/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


This year’s Democratic Party platform is more pro-abortion rights than ever—a big victory for groups like Planned Parenthood who helped mobilize Democratic voters in recent years by combating GOP efforts to restrict access to abortion.

But the platform leaves one group out in the cold: pro-life Democrats.

On day three of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, about 120 people gathered to munch on barbecue sliders and watch Democrats for Life—a small group that seeks to give Democrats who oppose abortion a voice in the party—grant its Governor Casey Whole Life Leadership Award to the pro-life Democratic governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards. The mood was dreary as the members contemplated their place in a party they believe has left them behind on this issue.

“It’s definitely frustrating,” said Christina Healy, a 24-year-old medical student from Cleveland. “It feels like we are being pushed out of the party, but not for a good reason.” Healy, a vegetarian sporting purple hair who is not registered with any party, is struggling to find a candidate whom she can support without violating her opposition to “aggressive violence across the board”—which she said extends from abortion to the death penalty, war, and torture. “I’m a huge Jill Stein fan,” she said, referring to the Green Party’s presidential candidate, “but I can’t violate my conscience because she’s so pro-abortion.” 

A few people at the event were Hillary Clinton delegates who were balancing their pro-life convictions with their support for a nominee who is in line with the party’s move toward increasing access to abortion in recent years. “I think what the Democrats get right about this issue is we need to care about women’s health,” said Justin Giboney, a Clinton delegate from Atlanta. But he is wary of the party’s relationship with Planned Parenthood, whose president, Cecile Richards, spoke during prime-time Tuesday night, and described the platform as “reaching a point of irresponsibility.”

“It’s one thing to say sometimes it’s necessary,” Giboney said. “It’s another thing to say it’s a social good.” He believes that the party’s wholesale endorsement of abortion rights is alienating many church-going Democrats who are uncomfortable with the Democrat’s no-restrictions stance on a procedure they consider immoral.

This is the warning coming from the leaders of Democrats for Life. The group’s executive director, Kristen Day, gave a presentation in which she laid much of the blame for the Democratic Party’s losses after 2008 on its position on abortion. (She pointed to the loss of 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 912 state legislative seats, 30 state chambers, and 11 governorships.) One in three Democrats, she said, opposes abortion. “Democrats have become the party of the Northeast and the West Coast,” Day said. The answer to reviving the party in places like the South, she argued, is pro-life Democrats like Edwards. “I think Louisiana is the future of the party,” Day said. Though her group’s numbers are small—Democrats for Life has just a couple of people on staff and fewer than 10,000 on its listservs—Day argued that there are millions of voters who could be drawn into the Democratic tent if the party were less staunchly pro-choice.

Day’s analysis contradicts mainstream views from pollsters and pundits about what is ailing the Democratic Party. The south is broadly more conservative, and pollsters don’t feel that pro-life Democrats are one-issue voters. (Many people in the room said they’d remained in the Democratic Party because they agreed with Democrats on most other issues.) Additionally, Day’s presentation did not acknowledge broader, systemic challenges to Democrats. Politics in the South is divided along racial lines, and Democrats nationwide have a hard time turning out their base in off-year elections. Speaking of Edwards, whose pro-life stance likely did help him in his conservative state, Day did not acknowledge that a prostitution scandal involving Edwards’ opponent, Sen. David Vitter, and the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Republican governor, Bobby Jindal, played in role in Edwards’ victory.

This year, the Democratic Party’s platform calls for repealing both the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid from funding abortions, and the Helms Amendment, which bars US foreign aid from funding the procedure. For decades, these amendments have represented a truce between pro-life and pro-choice camps on the issue of government funding of abortion, so abortion rights groups see the call for their repeal in the platform as a victory. Clinton, who eight years ago called for abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare,” has dropped the “rare” this election cycle. “She’s just saying ‘legal abortion,'” Day said with exasperation. She believes the goal of making abortion rare through better health care and safety net programs for pregnant women should be one area where pro-choice and pro-life Democrats can work together.

Accepting the group’s award, Edwards also argued that the position on abortion was damaging the party in the South—or at least hurting pro-life politicians like him. He noted that if the Democratic National Committee selects as its next leader someone who is very pro-choice, such as EMILY’s List president Stephanie Schriock, the prospects for pro-life Democratic candidates would diminish.

“On the abortion issue specifically, my opponent openly questioned my commitment to the issue, notwithstanding my voting record, because I supported Barack Obama to be president,” Edwards said. “He said, ‘You cannot do that and be pro-life too.’ Well, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to be able to navigate these waters if the party doesn’t moderate on this position.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate