In a review of a book on the life of pro-life leader Ellen McCormack, Michael J. New explains why she decided to vie for her party’s presidential nomination:
During the 1970s, many rank-and-file Democrats were pro-life. But going into the 1976 election cycle, no major Democratic presidential candidate expressed consistent opposition to abortion. Many leading Democrats, including Jimmy Carter, Sargent Shriver, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen, and Hubert Humphrey, typically offered vague or conflicting statements on the issue. Sometimes they would say on the record that they personally opposed abortion and disliked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roev. Wade. But no Democratic presidential candidate would commit to supporting a Human Life Amendment or any other legislative strategy to protect the unborn.
Still, a pro-life candidate running in the Democratic presidential primaries could raise the salience of abortion and force the other candidates to clarify their position on the issue. A pro-life presidential candidate could also highlight the unwillingness of many congressional Democrats to support a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution. Finally, since television stations were legally required to sell airtime to candidates seeking federal office, a pro-life presidential candidate could run ads that would be seen by millions of viewers. Pro-life television ads had been used very effectively during a 1972 referendum campaign that would have legalized abortion in Michigan. Early polls showed citizens favoring the pro-abortion measure by a 57–37 margin. However, after the television ads were run statewide, the referendum was opposed by 61 percent of voters. [ . . . ]
The mainstream media’s reaction to McCormack’s candidacy was telling. Volunteers raised over $5,000 from small donors for McCormack’s campaign in each of 20 different states—the equivalent of raising over $20,000 per state in today’s dollars. As such, Ellen McCormack became the first female presidential candidate to qualify for federal matching funds. Still, her campaign initially received little attention from mainstream media outlets—many of which incorrectly reported that no pro-life candidates were seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
The reaction of the Democratic Party’s leadership was even worse. The fact that McCormack’s campaign was using federal matching funds to run pro-life television commercials outraged many party leaders and the Federal Election Commission. They went so far as to change the election rules during the primary campaign with the specific intent of denying Ellen McCormack additional federal matching funds. Still, her pro-life commercials were seen by tens of millions of viewers that spring.
How would such a candidate fare today?
August 17th, 2012 | 4:33 pm
The Republican Party, the self-proclaimed party of limited government, needs a candidate who will not interfere with a woman’s medical choices, in the interests of fetuses and eggs.
I miss Rudy. Please run in 2016, Rudy.
August 17th, 2012 | 7:40 pm
Rudy G is *not* an avatar for limited government. He’s loves government more than Obama. Thank God Rudy’s presidential ambitions ended.
August 18th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
The conventional wisdom holds that the Republican party has been taken over by right-wing extremists, and is no longer a welcoming, “big tent” party. But the fact is that if any Democrat were to stray from the party’s abortion rights, affirmative action, and gay marriage orthodoxy, they would end up like former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey who was denied an opportunity to speak to the Democratic Convention in 1992. Dissent is simply not tolerated on issues related to identity politics as well as homosexual rights and abortion.
August 18th, 2012 | 12:26 pm
Publius, are you predicting that anyone opposed to gay marriage or abortion rights will not be allowed to speak at the DNC? That’s an empirically verifiable hypothesis, and we will soon see.
August 18th, 2012 | 1:06 pm
Max,
That will not happen. It’s guaranteed.
August 18th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
You must be very young, Max, to think that anyone against abortion or “gay” marriage will speak at the Democratic Converntion. That was all decided in 1992 when a sitting Pro-Life Governor of a swing state was denied access – Casey. In 1976, Carter tried to stop Ellen but the party wasn’t completely gone yet.
August 19th, 2012 | 4:13 pm
I admired Ellen McCormack and voted for her when she ran for president on the Right to Life Party line in New York State in 1980. I still do not understand how the Democratic Party became the party for abortion with, it seems, very little struggle against it.
August 19th, 2012 | 5:34 pm
One example is all you have. Which is why I would gladly bet you that there will be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage people speaking at the convention.
For one, the peanut farmer himself is anti-abortion. He recently came out in favor of outlawing abortion. And still he has a convention speech. Thank you for reminding me of the man, John, or it would have taken longer to prove Publius wrong.
August 19th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
Decades of proud Southerners who were devout Christians and loyal Democrats have, in the last 20 years, been conveniently forgotten. It would be nice to so many southerners who claim to hate big government quit voting for the TRUE big government party and that is the Republican Party.
Given how today’s Democratic party has been hijacked by the extreme left, what’s a pro-life Democrat to do? It’s sad and it’s why I will sit at home in November.
August 19th, 2012 | 9:56 pm
Max,
Carter has not come out against abortion. He has said that Jesus would be opposed to abortion (that’s apparently a revelation to a Democrat) and that the party should de-emphasize, or tone down, the issue. He added that ‘we need to reduce’ the number of abortions, which is the cop-out position of those unwilling to oppose abortion but massage their conscience at the same time. Carter is not calling for a reversal of Roe v. Wade, or anything close to that… He has not formally asked for the party to reverse its pro-abortion position, nor is he testifying before the party’s platform committee to reverse the party’s abortion on demand stance. He’s simply saying it is costing the party votes. There has not been an anti-abortion speech delivered at the Democratic convention since Roe was handed down in 1973, and this year will be no different.
August 19th, 2012 | 11:02 pm
Nice try Max. The record of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, which you were apparently too young for, was repeated, insistent pro-abortion feminism. Not one initiative to limit abortions or even provide alternatives. In 1976, despite Jimmy’s teeth grinding, Ellen McCormack was allowed to be nominated at the Democratic Convention but she was not allowed to speak. By the time of Clinton a pro-life sitting Governor of a swing state (perhaps you missed this) was disallowed from speaking and there will be no one this year. I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter utilizing ruminations about Jesus to aid his campaign to be President (it seemed to work). Now in his sunset years he may think Heaven is gained the same way. While it is gratifying to see him recognize the problem of abortion, his attempt to claim he tried to reduce its harm is more falsifying of his image. Apologize for your furthering abortion, Mr. Carter, forgiveness is always available.
August 20th, 2012 | 9:13 am
Publius, you just moved the goalposts, and you moved them out of the park. Earlier, you said (and were supported in this by John Hinshaw) that any Democrat who would oppose abortion, ssm or aa would be denied an opportunity to speak at the DNC. You probably realized I could easily prove it, because now it’s about an anti-abortion speech. Are you conceding that I was right, and that Democrats who are anti-abortion are not denied the right to speak at the DNC?
Also, if you want to make hay out of the fact that a speech attacking the party’s principles will not be allowed: when was the last time the GOP allowed a speech in favor of abortion at the convention?
As for Carter, his own words make his position crystal clear: “I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to…limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”
August 20th, 2012 | 11:53 am
Max,
The point is that the Republicans are frequently accused of no longer being a “big tent” when in fact this is actually more applicable to the Democrats, who brook no dissent from the pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion gospel.
A few examples: the keynote address at this year’s GOP convention is being delivered by pro-choice Chris Christie. Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and spoke at the GOP convention in 2008. Colin Powell was pro-choice and spoke in 2000. There is not a single pro-life speaker scheduled for the Democratic Convention this year, a trend that has continued since 1973.
Additionally, you misread Carter’s remarks. He also remarked that abortion should not be outlawed. Making abortion “rarer” is, as I said, a cop-out designed to massage the conscience of those who are “pro-choice” but recognize abortion as murder. Allowing it for the “life of the mother” is also a cop-out large enought to drive a truck through, since the “life” of the mother includes her “quality of Life.” So just to repeat, there has not been an anti-abortion speech delivered at the Democratic convention since Roe was handed down in 1973, and this year will be no different.
August 20th, 2012 | 12:27 pm
Wow. Just wow. That you would move the goalposts again… right after I called you out on it is absolutely amazing. Funny thing is, you moved the goalposts twice in your last comment: “pro-choice” speaker is your standard for the Republicans, while “anti-abortion speech” is your standard for Democrats.
My question specifically was: when was the last time the GOP allowed a speech in favor of abortion at the RNC?
Also, you claim that people who favor exceptions to save the life of the mother are not anti-abortion. By that standard, there probably is not a single anti-abortion speaker at the RNC either. Hahaha.
August 20th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
Max, Just how old are you? Nobody has moved any goalposts. They did invalidate your “example” and provided several other ways of looking at the same issue. Being against the losing of votes due to the abortion issue is not the same as being against abortion. So come up with another example so we came examine that one as well. You seem to think it easy though you seem to prefer arguing about conditions that no one has changed. You are aware that the Democratic National Platform has a right to abortion, possibly expressed as “pro-choice”, in the list and has had for many years?
August 20th, 2012 | 2:13 pm
Max,
Blind adherence to an ideology is not the best way to approach an issue. Again, the point is that the notion that the Democratic Party is somehow a “big tent” while Republicans are somehow a narrow, close minded tent, is simply not the case in terms of gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues. No Democrat has or will address the Democratic Convention calling for repeal of Roe v. Wade’s principle of abortion on demand. No one. No moving of goalposts, it is just a simple fact — dissent on these issues is simply not tolerated in the Democratic party when it comes to identity politics as well as homosexual rights and abortion on demand. The Republican Party is consistently pro-life, the Democrats consistently pro-abortion (not “choice” — we are not talking about choosing a wireless service or a pizza). It’s really not that hard to grasp.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:41 pm
Publius: No Democrat has or will address the Democratic Convention calling for repeal of Roe v. Wade’s principle of abortion on demand. No one. No moving of goalposts
You did move the goalposts, as earlier you said: “But the fact is that if any Democrat were to stray from the party’s abortion rights, affirmative action, and gay marriage orthodoxy, they would end up like former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey who was denied an opportunity to speak to the Democratic Convention in 1992.”
You did not even attempt to prove that. Instead, you moved the goalposts from allowing an opponent of abortion speak to delivering a entire speech against abortion.
Then I asked you, by that standard, how many people have advocated for abortion rights before the RNC. You moved the goalposts and named pro-choicers who addressed the RNC, which I expressly did not ask for. Just in time for the end of your comment, you moved the goalposts back to an “anti-abortion speech” to reiterate your original grievance.
You hold the parties to different standards, and then you say that others have blind allegiance? It amazes me that you even imagined that you could get away with this.
August 20th, 2012 | 3:45 pm
Mike Melendez: Nobody has moved any goalposts.
Yes they have. At first, the claim was that no person opposed to abortion would be allowed to address the DNC, this subsequently became “delivering an anti-abortion speech”. Then, when I expressly asked how many Republicans have delivered a pro-choice speech, the question was ignored, and the individuals named were not people who delivered a pro-choice speech, but simply people supportive of abortion rights.
Mike Melendez: Being against the losing of votes due to the abortion issue is not the same as being against abortion.
However, arguing that abortion should not be permitted except for life, incest and rape is being against abortion. And that is what Carter said. Publius tried to claim that Carter is not really against abortion, because he makes an exception for the life (!) of the mother, which not even the most hard-line anti-abortion folks oppose.
August 20th, 2012 | 5:52 pm
Max,
Jimmy Carter does not favor overturning Roe v. Wade. He argues that the party needs to de-emphasize the issue, and he says that Jesus Christ was opposed to abortion and he (Carter) would like to see fewer abortions.
I don’t think you quite understand the history of the “life of the mother” exception that Carter cited — it is an escape clause that has been used for decades to justify abortion in order to preserve the mother’s “quality of life.” This “life” exception is a major contributor to the millions of abortions that have occurred since 1973.
Additionally, Carter is not asking the Democratic Party to reverse its 2008 platform which states:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” If Carter was committed to ending abortion, as you seem to suggest, he would have to ask for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and he has indicated he is unwilling to go that far.
No one has addressed the Democratic Convention since 1973 asking for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. No one has, and no one will. The party is very clear on this issue, and the point is that the Democrats do not have a “big tent” when it comes to abortion, gay rights, and affirmative action. Again, it is best to try to examine these issues free of partisanship, and a starting point is to acknowledge that the Republican Party is consistently pro-life and the Democrat Party consistently pro-abortion. There is no denying that, and people are free to ‘choose’ accordingly.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:24 am
Publius: So just to repeat, there has not been an anti-abortion speech delivered at the Democratic convention since Roe was handed down in 1973, and this year will be no different.
Has there been a pro-abortion speech delivered at the Republican convention since Roe was handed down in 1973, and will this year be different?
August 21st, 2012 | 12:04 pm
Max,
Again, you need to follow the thread of an exchange. It began with the idea that one often hears that the Republican Party is not a welcoming, big tent party, and yet the Democratic party, the alleged “big tent” party, does not welcome dissent on abortion, gay rights or affirmative action. The facts speak for themselves: the Republican Party is consistently pro-life and the Democrat Party consistently pro-abortion. That’s how this all began, and it’s a very simple point.
August 21st, 2012 | 12:54 pm
No, Publius, it began when you claimed that the DNC would never allow a person opposed to abortion to speak. Then you moved the goalposts and complained about the fact that the DNC would not allow a speech against abortion. Of course, you were unable to show that the RNC has allowed a speech in favor of abortion – even as you were claiming that “big tent” is better applied to the GOP.
August 21st, 2012 | 1:40 pm
Max,
OK, to borrow a phrase, you’ve moved the goalposts, but just who are the pro-life Democrats who have address the Democratic conventions? Who and how many pro-life Democratic candidates have run for president since Roe v. Wade?
Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that Jimmy Carter, who was a pro-abortion president, told Laura Ingraham that he now has second thoughts. That’s a pretty thin reed to hang on to, especially since Carter is opposed to repealing Roe v. Wade. But I’m anxious to read your list of pro-life Democrats who have addressed the Democratic Convention since 1973, and how many of those have called for a repeal of Roe v.Wade?
August 21st, 2012 | 2:09 pm
Publius, you’ve moved the goalposts several times. Even when I asked you to name Republicans who gave a pro-choice speech at the RNC, you unilaterally amended my question to say: “name pro-choice Republicans who addressed the RNC” – and even then, included the anti-abortion Chris Christie in your list.
As for Carter, show me how he is opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Since his beliefs about abortion (that it should only be allowed for rape, incest and the life of the mother) are inconsistent with Roe, I don’t see how he could not oppose Roe.
Just from 2008:
Bob Casey, Jr.
Joe Manchin
Joe Sestak
Bill Ritter
These are just four names I recognized as people who are against abortion. There probably are more.
It makes no sense to be for criminalizing abortion, like these four are, without being against Roe. So there’s really no need to show that they are explicitly opposed to Roe.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact