Michael Sean Winters: No to Federally Funded Abortion

(Hat tip: The Catholic Key Blog)

Chris and I have both been somewhat critical lately of the writing of America Magazine contributor Michael Sean Winters, so I think we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge Winters for writing something particularly praiseworthy:

To be clear: I have never voted for a Republican in my life. My mother told me my right hand would wither and fall to the ground if I did. But, if the President or my representatives in Congress support federal funding for abortion in any way, shape or form, I will never vote for them again and I might risk my right hand in the next election by voting for their opponent.

So, call your Senators and Representatives. Call the White House. Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week. All the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care. Politics is the art of compromise, but on this point, there can be none.

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Well done!

Archbishop Burke: Democrats risk becoming a "Party of Death"

In an interview with Avvenire, voice of the Italian Bishops' conference, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke (prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature) weighed in on the present state of the Democratic Party - Catholic News Service reports:

Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

"That does not surprise me much," the archbishop said. "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."

Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

Pro-life Democrats are "rare, unfortunately," he said.

The Archbishop went on to defend his policy of prohibiting Communion to those Catholics who publicly embrace positions contrary to the teaching of the Catholic church, noting that while the USCCB believes each Bishop should decide how best to address the matter in their own diocese, "other bishops are coming to [his own] position."

Obama’s Catholic Advisory Council

(Hat tip: Kathryn Jean Lopez)

From CBNNews:

This afternoon, Barack Obama’s campaign will announce the formation of what they are calling their, “National Catholic Advisory Council.” More details to come on an afternoon conference call but Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer will be on that conference call.

A couple interesting notes: First of all, this Catholic Council seems to be set up not so much for the Democratic primary as it is for the General Election. Why? Obama has two high profile pro-lifers in prominent roles on this Council. Senator Bob Casey and Former Congressman Tim Roemer have taken flack from the Democratic Party in the past because they are not pro-choice. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to send a message. This is an “in your face” signal to voters of faith that Obama is a different kind of Democrat. They want Catholics and Evangelicals to know that while Obama may be pro-choice, the pro-life point of view is not going to be so easily discounted. Critics will call it deceptive. Supporters will call it an “olive branch”.

Also, let this be considered the opening salvo in the potential battle to come over faith voters. Obama will not concede this block. He’s not going to get the single issue life or marriage voters but get ready for the Obama campaign to make a major push for the Evangelical vote. John McCain already had some work ahead of him on getting out the faith vote. If Obama is the nominee, it gets even harder. McCain and the Republican National Committee will need to figure out a way to cast Obama as an out of control liberal so he doesn’t pull a certain percentage of the Evangelical vote away from McCain. This will be a key battleground area and in a close election it could make all the difference in the World.

John McCain has already set up his Catholic Advisory Committee. It's more than one hundred strong. Below is a quote from the Senator who leads it, Sam Brownback:

"John McCain has a common sense vision for America based on faith, freedom, and families," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of the National Catholics for McCain Committee. "Committed to the protection of innocent human life, he is a leader Catholics will be proud to support. John McCain knows from experience what it means when a society tramples on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status."

More here.

(emphasis added)

Here's more on the story from LifeNews.com.

"Pro-Life" Casey Endorses Obama ...

... and agrees to actively campaign with the candidate who says his first act as President will be to sign the "Freedom of Choice" Act.

The reactions at InsideCatholic:

Mighty Casey has sold out by Todd Aglialoro

Pro-Life Catholics for Obama by Deal Hudson

Will Casey help Obama with the Catholic vote? by Brian Saint-Paul

More on Pro-Life Democrats by Eric Pavlat

And then there's this one:
But apparently he's deaf to irony by Todd Aglialoro

Casey was quoted as saying he favored Obama because the Illinois senator "thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."

To which Margaret Cabaniss responds:

That level of obtuseness really makes you wonder if he ever believed his own pro-life platform.

I think many of us already knew the answer to that. I'm not sure I ever took Casey Jr.'s "pro-life" credentials seriously. He's certainly not his father's "pro-life Democrat".


See also:
Pro-Abortion Group Praises Casey For Votes

National Catholic Register: Pro-Lifers Assess Senator Casey’s Voting Record

Priest Blasts "Usual Suspects" For Votes Against Pro-Life Policy

Bob Casey Is Not His Father’s Pro-life Democrat

Senate Democrats (Including Allegedly "Pro Life" Bob Casey) Vote to Rescind Mexico City Policy

National Catholic Register on the Late Bob Casey, Sr.: "Mighty Casey and American Humility"

Difficulties Facing "Pro-Life" Democrats

Columnist Robert Novak writes on the difficulties facing "pro-life" Democrats in Congress as the new Democrat majority plans to push such agenda items as embryonic stem-cell research:

Near the top of the new Democratic congressional majority's agenda is passage of federal embryonic stem cell research legislation vetoed last year by President Bush, a measure that will answer a major question. There is no doubt the new bill will pass both houses of Congress. What remains in doubt are the votes to be cast by newly elected Democrats who campaigned as pro-life advocates, particularly Sen. Bob Casey Jr.

***
This is the arithmetic in the Senate, where a vetoed bill will go first. It would take 33 senators to sustain a Bush veto, if ailing Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.) is unable to vote. Of the 36 Republicans who voted against the Castle bill, five were defeated for re-election: Santorum, George Allen in Virginia, Conrad Burns in Montana, Mike DeWine in Ohio and James Talent in Missouri. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Senate Democrat who voted no last year, and that means one more Democrat would be needed this year. Casey's vote could be central.

The House sustained last year's veto by a 50-vote margin. Thirteen of those members were defeated in November. So, even if there are Republican defections, the burden will not fall on seven avowedly pro-life Democrats newly elected to the House: Heath Shuler (N.C.), Charlie Wilson (Ohio), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Chris Carney (Pa.).

With Speaker Nancy Pelosi putting this legislation on her 100-hour list, these pro-life House Democrats, nevertheless, will be under intense pressure, as will Nelson, Sen. Jon Tester, a pro-lifer who defeated Burns in Montana last year, and Bobby Casey.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that "Roman Catholics are the largest single U.S. religious denomination among members of the new U.S. Congress".

Led, of course, by newly elected Speaker of the House and "conservative Catholic", Nancy Pelosi.

Here are some Democrats doing some good

Democrats lead passage of pro-life bill in Louisiana

The effort to prohibit abortion in Louisiana was a Democrat-led effort. Democrats For Life of America commended Senators Broome, Mount, Nevers and other pro-life Democratic senators and representatives who led the effort.

Sixteen Democrat senators were joined by 14 Republicans to pass the bill by a vote of 30-7. The House passed the bill by a vote of 85-17, with a majority of 45 Democrat legislators ensuring its passage.

I would imagine that many of these Dems are Catholic.

A true Democrat for Life

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.

Pro-Life Democrat Group Honors Catholic Tim Roemer for Opposing Abortion

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Democrats for Life, a national group seeking to reverse the party's intensely pro-abortion position, held their 4th annual Hall of Fame awards dinner Thursday night. At the event, they honored former Indiana congressman Tim Roemer for his outspoken pro-life views. Roemer waged a well-regarded but unsuccessful bid for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee earlier this year. During his campaign, he was panned by abortion advocates who excluded him from interviews they granted to other candidates Yet, Roemer received enough acclaim for his efforts to move the party in a more moderate direction on abortion that the eventual chairman, pro-abortion ex-Vermont Governor Howard Dean, tapped him to be a party spokesman. "We have made more progress in the Democratic Party on the abortion issue in the last six months than we have in the have in the past 30 years," Roemer said in accepting the honor. "We will continue to make more." The former 9-11 panel commissioner told the audience that society "can no longer tolerate a situation where we have as many abortions in this country a year as people dying due to terrorism and war in the world." Roemer spoke in favor of the new 95-10 Initiative the pro-life organization is sponsoring. It's a bundle of legislative proposals Democrats for Life hopes Congress will approve that focus on reducing the number of abortions by 95 percent in 10 years. Read the complete story.

Father Pavone on '95-10'

The commitment to defend the weakest and most vulnerable human beings does not arise from a political party or platform, nor from any kind of personal or communal agenda.

Nor does it arise from bishops, priests, or pastors. Rather, it arises from our humanity itself, fashioned as it is by the hand of God. God, who is life, writes upon our hearts its value, and He bestows on us both the gift of life and the privilege and duty to defend it.

Nobody needs any kind of permission to defend life, nor can anyone excuse himself from that duty. Nobody has a monopoly on the defense of life, nor is the pro-life task a means to an end. Defending life is an end in itself, and has in itself all the justification it ever needs.

The two major political parties in America, right now, take opposite views of the right to life. The Democratic Party platform (2004) reads, "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay." The Republican Party platform (2004) reads, "We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it."

There are, nonetheless, pro-life and pro-abortion members of both parties, including legislators on the state and federal level.

Recently, I was with some of the pro-life Democratic members of Congress at a press conference led by Democrats for Life and held at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington. The topic was the "95-10" Initiative, which contains numerous legislative proposals aimed at reducing the numbers of abortion by 95% in the next ten years.

There are many proposals in this package, like women's right-to-know provisions, funding for promotion of alternatives to abortion, strengthening of adoption practices, and more. These are key goals for all of us to pursue. The precise way in which these and other proposals in 95-10 should be written into law will, of course, need to be carefully debated and refined. For example, we always have to avoid the trap of thinking that access to contraception is a solution to the abortion problem. The opposite, in fact, is true.

And in the end, we cannot be content to reduce the numbers of abortions. We have to acknowledge that laws permitting even a single abortion undermine the very fabric of our freedom and our republic. Abortion is an act of violence that no nation has the right to permit. But when anyone in our great nation, Democrat or Republican, wants to advance the Culture of Life to any degree, that deserves an "Amen!" from us all.

Father Pavone on "95-10"

National pro-life leader commends pro-life Democrats

WASHINGTON DC, USA, May 17 (CNA) - Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, commended Democrats for Life of America's "95-10" Initiative, which aims to reduce the number of abortions.

"A pro-life stance is far more consistent with principles Democrats claim to hold than is a pro-abortion stance," said Fr. Pavone at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. The "95-10" Initiative enjoys the support of a number of pro-life Democrats in Congress.

The pro-life priest said his support does not mean that the initiative is not in need of further modification and debate. But he conceded that the initiative was a good starting point. [I am assuming this has to to with the proposals to promote contraception in insurance coverage and the possibility that sex-ed proposal would promote condom use.]

He also challenged Democrats and Republicans "to resist the temptation to dodge the abortion issue.

"Abortion is an act of violence that contradicts not only what a political party should stand for, but what America already stands for - the equal dignity of every human life," he said. "Abortion must not only be limited; it must be ended."

Fr. Pavone added: "It important that the pro-life movement and the Church not be identified exclusively with one or another political party, for the simple reason that the right to life is rooted in human nature and the nature of God, not political platforms."

Pro-Life Democrats Offer Mixed Bag of Proposals Designed to Reduce Abortions

95-10 is getting some attention from other sources. "Contraception Equality" is still a sticking point.

A series of legislative proposals aimed at reducing abortions by 95
percent in the next 10 years was recently announced by pro-life Democrats at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. It is a move that may indicate the party is taking seriously recent polling data indicating the party's unwavering support for abortion to be politically damaging. But the proposal contains a provision that would require insurance companies to provide coverage for contraceptives. Such a provision could make it difficult for the proposal to gain the support of stalwart pro-life Republicans that it would need to gain passage.

Called the 95-10 Initiative, it is made up of 17 individual proposals aimed at reducing the number of abortions. The proposals are expected to be introduced as a single piece of legislation by Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, one of about 29 pro-life Democratic members of Congress. Jennifer Moore, a legislative assistant to Ryan, told Culture & Cosmos that the proposal was largely crafted by Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America. The goal of ending 95 percent of abortions was arrived at because it is thought to be the percentage of abortions obtained for reasons other than rape, incest or the health of the other.

95-10 Challenge

Nathan over at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has challenged the editors here at CPS and some other conservative Catholic bloggers to support the Democrats for Life 95-10 initiative. He believes Republicans will oppose the plan on the premise that a pro-life win for Democrats would be bad for the GOP. Though there is much to support in 95-10 I too oppose 95-10 as is and not for political reasons. My reasons are in my comment (below) to Nathan's post below:

First off, the 95-10 Initiative is a worthy endeavor. DFL should be commended as should those pro-life Democrats who support it. You question the Republican Party's commitment to the pro-life cause by asserting that the party is only pro-life for political purposes and not out of any moral obligation to protect innocent unborn children. Though I do not question the commitment of Representatives Ryan, Costello, Roemer, Kaptur, Stupak, Senator Nelson, and the DFL, it would be easy to do so using the same reasoning you give for questioning the GOP. I will admit though, it will be a surprise if the other Democrats, you know the pro-abortion ones, jump on this bandwagon. Does anyone seriously believe it possible that the Pelosis and Clintons in Congress will support such measures which will surely undercut organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. which have and continue to financially support the campaigns of these pro-abort members of Congress? Just look at the recent vote breakdown on CIANA, a parental notification bill, similar to one of the proposals in 95-10. 59 Democrats voted for the bill. 145 Democrats voted against it. (If I were a cynic I would say that many of those 54 Democrats, knowing this bill would pass, did so for political purposes rather than out of any desire to curb abortion. I am not a cynic though, so I will give these 59 representatives the benefit of the doubt.)

Regardless, I accept your challenge to use this initiative and work with pro-life Democrats. You see, to many of us conservatives this is not about winning a political battle. It is about fighting for children and women and changing the culture in our country. That being said I do have point out two problems with 95-10. Minus these I would have no problem supporting the whole of 95-10. You mentioned them in your post. You listed them as reasons conservatives may give, to oppose 95-10, but you claim that they would not be the real reasons. I am curious about this, since these two problems concern Catholic moral teachings. As Catholics, we believe contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370; Humanae Vitae 14, 16, Casti Connubii 56), so why should we not oppose the insurance coverage of contraception and sex education in schools which would likely promote its use? Sorry, but these two proposals promote a "contraceptive mentality" and as a Catholic I could not support them.

A key aspect which many pro-lifers (including many Catholics) miss is that a "contraceptive mentality" contributes to abortion. Some contraceptives (e.g. IUD, the pill, RU-486) are in fact abortifacients. The "lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged 'need' for abortion." (Smith, The Connection between Contraception and Abortion, 2004) As well, for over thirty years now contraception has been widely used and is deeply engrained in our culture. One would think this would have already led to a reduction in abortion. Yet, the number of abortions has not decreased. It is difficult to see how increased access to contraceptives would reduce abortion. Besides, contraception facilitates sex outside of marriage and encourages teen sex. This has led to an increase in unplanned pregnancies. Abortion, is used as a back-up contraception in many of these cases. The "contraceptive mentality" decreases sexual responsibility and lessens the sex act to something for mere enjoyment rather than the promotion of its two-fold purpose--the unitive and creative functions. These proposals in 95-10 which seek to increase the use of contraceptives, contribute to the "contraceptive mentality" and very likely would increase the number of abortions.

That is not to say that the rest of 95-10 is unacceptable. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would suggest that these two proposals in 95-10 be either removed or modified. Modifications could include: The sex education proposal should increase the focus on abstinence education. There already is more government money promoting contraception than there is promoting abstinence. Studies have shown that abstinence education is working. 95-10 is a great opportunity to increase that focus. The insurance coverage for contraception could be replaced with money and support for family planning counseling and education. I would hope that Rep Ryan packages 95-10 in such a way as to allow members of Congress to vote on individual parts of it rather than having to vote on it as a whole. Either way, members should have the ability to submit amendments which could change the objectional proposals.

I look forward to a continued discussion on this proposal.

Democrats reveal plan to reduce abortions

WASHINGTON DC, USA, April 22 (CNA) - Democrats unveiled a policy proposal yesterday, which is intended to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. The proposal, called the "95-10 Initiative", includes 15 different policy programs that, when fully funded and implemented, are expected to reduce abortions by 95 percent over 10 years.

The policy proposal strongly promotes the adoption option. It provides for permanent adoption tax credits, counseling for women with unplanned pregnancies and pregnancy resource centers, where women can receive information about adoption as well as support to carry the baby to term.

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), [a Catholic], announced at yesterday’s press conference that he plans to introduce legislation, modeled on the 95-10 Initiative, in Congress soon.

"Our party has made more progress on this issue in the last three months than we have in the last 10 years,” said former congressman and 9-11 Commissioner, Tim Roemer, [another Catholic].

"The 95-10 Initiative is our number-one priority,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America, a nonprofit pro-life group that joined politicians at yesterday’s press conference. She said the proposal has been met favorably by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates and elected officials.

Among the elected officials behind the 95-10 Initiative are Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL), [yet another Catholic] and Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN).


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A national group of pro-life Democrats has joined pro-life Democratic members of Congress, adoption agencies and pregnancy centers unveil a package of legislation designed to significantly reduce abortion in the next 10 years. Democrats for Life of America joined Reps. Tim Ryan (Ohio), Bart Stupak (Michigan) and Lincoln Davis (Tennessee) at a press conference Friday to announce the "95-10 Initiative" -- a plan to reduce abortions 95 percent in the next 10 years. Kristen Day, director of DFLA, said the plan was "a legitimate policy initiative that will actually reduce the number of abortions." She said it "has been met favorably by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates and elected officials." The initiative outlines 17 different policy programs designed to empower and promote women as well as protect unborn children. Some of those include a national toll-free number for pregnancy support, studying why women have abortions, funding daycare on college campuses, increasing funding for domestic violence programs, and making adoption tax credits permanent. Day's group has several Congressional lawmakers on board with the idea, including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, the only pro-life Democrat in the Senate. "The plan outlined today is a good first step to successfully reduce the rate of abortion by offering alternatives that promote family, promote adoption, and provide education and support for new mothers," Nelson said. In the House, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan said he would soon be introducing the policy package. Read the complete story.

UPDATE: Check out Democrats for Life for more info on "95-10".

Pro-Life Democrat Will Represent Party Despite Abortion Battle

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading pro-life Democrat announced Friday he will serve as a spokesman for the Democratic Party despite losing a battle over for the party chairmanship over the controversial issue of abortion. Former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer, [who is a practicing Catholic,] told an audience at the National Press Club that he has been asked by representatives of the Democratic National Committee to speak for the party on social issues at local Democrat functions. Roemer made a bid for the party chairmanship and said the party needed to reconsider its strong pro-abrotion views to attract more voters in the South and Midwest. However, he lost to former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, an abortion advocate who lost the presidential nomination to John Kerry but found himself the darling of pro-abortion groups and the party;s liberal wing. Although abortion advocates ran a fierce campaign against Roemer -- snubbing him from meetings and booing him at gatherings -- Dean decided he would be a valuable speaker. "They've reached out and asked if I want to go to different states, give Jefferson-Jackson speeches, reach out and talk about some of the issues I talked about in the DNC race," Roemer said. "There were missed opportunities in the last election," Roemer added. Read the complete story.

Possible Dem Senate Candidates are Catholic and Pro-Life

The Fact Is has a piece on some 2006 Senate race posturing. The interesting thing about the two pro-life Democrats mentioned is that they are both Catholic.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, smarting from the loss of six Senate seats in two election cycles, are trying to field the strongest possible candidates against vulnerable Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), both of whom face re-election in 2006.

Only problem is, the strongest Democratic candidates in both states are pro-lifers.

Neither Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. (D) nor Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), both of whom are opposed to abortion rights, has announced he will run, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is actively recruiting both to challenge incumbents in their respective states.

Abortion rights activists were livid Wednesday when they received an invitation to a Feb. 16 fundraiser for Langevin that is being sponsored by the DSCC.

In the House, Langevin votes mostly pro-life, whereas the liberal Republican Chafee supports legal abortion. A new poll shows Langevin beating Chafee by 20 points, so what are Democrats to do?

Likewise, Bob Casey -- a statewide officeholder with a well-recognized political name -- would almost certainly be the strongest Democratic challenger to Santorum if he could escape a primary. Many pro-lifers in Pennsylvania are still upset with Santorum for saving Sen. Arlen Specter (R) from a hot conservative challenge. They will have no qualms voting for the pro-life Casey and ending Santorum's career.

Pro-Life Democrat Seriously Considering Party Chair Bid

Looks like former Congressman Tim Roemer, a Catholic pro-life politician is running for the DNC chair being vacated by Terry McAuliffe. Though party leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have urged him to run, I wonder if they truly will support him or if their vocal support now is just a disingenous way to "show" that Democrats too can be pro-life or at least accepting of pro-lifers in the party. This is a campaign Catholics in the Public Square will be watching.

Additional reading: The Dem's Pro-Life Gambit, The American Spectator.

UPDATE: Though some party leaders "seem" to be supportive of Roemer, abortion advocates are not. Read here for more.

Democrats for Life: "Pro-abortion stance is costing us elections."

". . . The good news is pro-life democrats are winning campaigns.  Pro-life Democrats win because they withstand the pressure of the national party and represent the values of their local communities.  Evidence of this is in West Virginia.  We won the governor’s race in West Virginia despite the fact that President Bush carried the state.  We also won legislative races in states all over the country including Iowa, Missouri, Michigan and made the run-off in two separate congressional contests in Louisiana.  When Democrats take a stand and protect the rights of the unborn, we win elections.  When Democrats campaign on a pro-abortion platform, they lose.

"We are hopeful the national Party will reassess its pro-abortion stance after the disastrous results of Tuesday night.  They are costing us elections and abandoning our founding values of protecting and advocating for those who need a helping hand.  At the top of that list should be helping protect the rights of the unborn."

Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America.

Source: "Pro-Life Democrats Urge DNC to Modify Abortion Position: Kerry Loss Highlights Need for Pro-Life Leadership in Democratic Party. Democrats for Life of America. Nov. 4, 2004.