The normally praiseworthy Democrats for Life issued a statement in support of the statement of (anything but) principles signed by the 55 Catholic Democrats. Rosa DeLauro who headed up the original statement once
served as Executive Director of EMILY’s List and is still supported by EMILY’s list.
There is a certain irony in Catholic supporting EMILY’s list. Jesus in describing the Kingdom of God said "It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened." The acronym of EMILY means “Early Money Is Like Yeast” This is the same leaven Jesus also referred to"Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."
Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz prints a letter by Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz who is quite upset with Democrats for Life support of the statement.
March 7, 2006
Ms. Kristen Day
President
Democrats for Life
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
South Building – Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004
Sent by fax to 202/638-6957
Dear Ms. Day:
As a pro-life Democrat and elected official in one of the most liberal cities in the United States, I was shocked and dismayed to read your recent press release supporting a letter written by Rep. Rosa DeLauro and cosigned by mostly pro-abortion Democrats members of Congress. I found it to be deceptive and something I could never embrace.
Most of the letter’s signers support unrestricted abortion and have a total disregard for the grave moral disorder in our society. And to me it is obvious that no child could enjoy the programs and policies mentioned in this letter if he or she fell victim to abortion.
As a Board Member for Democrats for Life of New York, I cannot comprehend how you can officially share the goals of Representative DeLauro’s letter. Our goal, as pro-lifers, is to promote a culture of life. Their letter has been written to attack the President and promote a pro-abortion, liberal agenda, and its candidates, which includes the most of the signees. It has not been written to promote respect for the dignity of each human person at all stages of development. It has been signed by too many elected officials who choose to disregard some human life.
As a pro-life Democrat, I endure great pain, tribulation and agony by pro-abortion officials and political activists who refuse to promote the sacredness of all human life. Because of my Christian faith and its core beliefs – which include the need to respect all human life – I am the recipient of sharp and constant criticism. However, I am proud of my efforts and ask God to continue to give me the fortitude to continue.
I respectfully ask that you reconsider your support for this Congressional letter and its hidden agenda.
Fighting for a good educational system, good health services, job creation, affordable housing, and other important social services equally available to all human beings, are some of the reasons that I am a public servant, however, as I said before, an aborted baby will never be able to enjoy these services. Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of every good Christian, good Catholic and any pro-lifer to defend the sanctity of life and not allow the sagacity of these signees to distance us from our goals.
Sincerely,
Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
32nd Senatorial District
1750 Westchester Avenue
The Bronx, New York 10472
Phone: 718/892-7513
Three cheers for Mr. Diaz who hasn’t fallen to the relativism so often exposed. If only some Republicans were half as pro-life as Mr. Diaz surely is.
10 comments
Okay, 55 “Catholic” Democrat Judas’s (Judasi?) signed this letter. Anyone know who the remaining Catholic Democrats are who didn’t sell out? They could use some moral support.
Sorry for my tone, my wife got one too many “Well yes I am your representative, but I can’t in good conscious support your pro-life veiw.”
Thanks for linking to this Jeff.
I went to the Dems for Life site and emailed a response. I pointed out that in San Francisco in January I was standing less than 10 feet away from Democrats for Life official Carol Crossed and heard her proclaim “we don’t shun the vulnerable in our mission, the vulnerable unborn.”
Check out Fr Frank Pavone’s response the so-called “Catholic Statement of Principles”:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/
statement/index.htm
The signatories – nearly 60% of whom voted AGAINST the bill to ban partial abortion – had the gall to selectively cite Pope John Paul’s Christifidelis Laici. Well, Fr Pavone wasn’t going to let that one stand!!!
I would support a democrat who defends unborn humans. Democrats, I’m told, used to be for the “little people.” I’m hoping this is the beginning of a trend to go back to that philosophy.
I think it overstates the case to say DFLA “issued a statement in support of the statement” from the Democratic congressmen.
What the DFLA statement says about the other statement is this:
“We share the goals of the Catholic Statement of Principles to support programs that will reduce the likelihood that a woman will see abortion as her only option.”
Ought the DFLA oppose programs that they believe will reduce the likelihood that a woman will see abortion as her only option?
True, the congressional “Statement of Principles” was self-serving and unacceptable as a matter of Catholic doctrine, but the DFLA is not in the business of teaching Catholic doctrine. It is a rather explicitly political organization, and in politics you don’t condemn those who share many of your goals for not sharing all of your goals.
Perhaps the lesson here is that DFLA is not, never was, and won’t ever be an organization trying to convince Democrats to become Republicans.
It’s people like Mr. Diaz that make me consider joining the Democrat party- they can use more pro-life people to bring the Democrat party where it should be.
I disagree with Tom. The “Catholic Statement of Principles” aims to say that you can in conscience abandon the unborn and still be a “Catholic” member of Congress because, after all, you fight for justice for the poor etc.
This fundamentally undermines the pro-life cause. Democrats for Life have made a fundamental error of judgment in commenting as they have. They are playing into the hands of the supporters of abortion.
You see, they either agree with the “Statement” in its inference that it’s OK to subordinate the unborn “in conscience”, OR they agree with Pope John Paul in Christifidelis Laici (n.38):
“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination� “
Why didn’t the Dems for Life issue a statement which pointed this out????
(and being an Australian I don’t have any Republican or Democrat ax to grind)
Why didn’t the Dems for Life issue a statement which pointed this out????
And that would contribute what to the public debate???? (Other than the marginalization of the DFLA as a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Life League (a.k.a., “ALL or nothing”).)
I don’t see the point of criticizing the DFLA for not being what it doesn’t pretend to be, or for not doing what it doesn’t pretend it does.
What it has done is taken advantage of the attention (such as it is) on the congressional statement of principles to repropose a “95-10 initiative” to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in 10 years.
Is the proposal worth the web pages it’s written on? I don’t know, but it seems to me that that is the question their statement ought to raise in the minds of people who care more about ending abortion than about denouncing others as insufficiently pure.
I’m in Congr. Stupak’s district and have voted for him many times – but no more. He’s not really pro-life. During 2000 and 2004 he vigorously supported Gore and then Kerry. When our parishes in ’04 were dropping strong hints that Catholics must vote for pro-life candidates, Stupak wrote a nonsensical letter to the newspaper raving about how death penalty are war are bad too and name-dropping the seamless garment, without explanation. In other words, he handed an excuse to liberal Catholics, of which there are many in Mich, tipping the state to the pro-death Kerry.
When asked why he votes pro-life, Stupak’ answer is always that “I represent my district”, I’ve never heard him use the word murder or evil, in other words, the truth.
Signing onto to this propaganda only reaffirms my withdrawal of support from Bart.
mark
Face the truth, Tom. These so-called “Democrats for Life” have proved to be just more “Anti-life Democrats trying to fool the voters”.
As the Treasurer for the NC chapter of DFLA, I can attest that many Democrats are truly pro-life. Many pro-lifers would be Democrats if the party did more to support pro-life candidates. If you pro-life Republicans think that marginalizing the pro-life Democrats is a winning strategy, then I suggest you look at the vote totals for all pro-life legislation ever. You will find that Democrats are key to passage either to get a majority or to block fillibusters. The pro-life Catholic Democrats are trying to find common ground with the pro-choice Catholic Democrats. It is by building mutual trust that we can get more support for pro-life Democrats and start to increase the pro-life votes in legislatures in the party with the most to gain. By the way, many Pro-Life Democrats will not vote for any pro-abortion politician. Same way real pro-life Republicans won’t vote for Schwarzeneggar, Guliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, Snowe, Chafee, Collins, Specter, Lingle, etc.