Donohue’s ‘I’m Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist and Support David Duke” Rant

Amie Newman

In his latest temper tantrum, William Donohue pens a parody of pro-life leaders endorsements of Senator Obama entitled, "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist and Support David Duke." But the essay comes across as more alienating than anything else.

Ah, William Donohue. You’ve got to be impressed with a man who believes he owns the rights to and interpretation of the entire Catholic religion.

In his latest temper tantrum, a parody Donohue penned entitled, "I’m Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist and Support David Duke", he takes on Nicholas Cafardi’s recent essay outlining why he, as a Catholic, pro-life scholar is supporting Senator Obama. Cafardi joins pro-life scholar Doug Kmiec (denied communion because of his political decision) and a host of conservative writers and religious leaders who are asking for a new approach to abortion politics and urging Americans to do the same, going so far as to call single-issue voting "unbiblical."

Cafardi’s article, entitled, "I’m Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Abortion, and Support Obama", outlines why, from his perspective a vote for Senator McCain will not only do nothing to end abortion or embryonic stem-cell research (since McCain supports this as well) but in fact implicitly supports a host of anti-life positions including for an unjust war and the use of torture. According to Cafardi, "In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that ‘reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist.’ McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it."

Donohue’s piece satirically compares support for politicians who support access to a full range of reproductive and sexual health care and education to politicians who support racist policies; and compares abortion to racism as a political issue. Leaving aside the irony of the fact that there still are many far right, ultra-conservative, pseudo-religious Americans who will never vote for Barack Obama because he is black, Donohue’s essay is riddled with contradictions. 

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Clearly, attempting to use fundamentalist religious interpretation for political leverage will never work. Donohue does not own the copyright to Catholicism and to promote the idea that Catholics who vote for Senator Obama are not practicing "real" Catholicism, promotes nothing but alientation.

Donohue’s claim that Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates are mirror images of Catholics who vote for racist candidates would be absurd if it weren’t so wrong.  He seems to forget that there are a good many Catholics in this country – leaders and others – for whom abortion is not "intrinsically evil" but rather accepted as a private, medical decision made by the woman in whose body the life is growing. As well, there are Catholic leaders and followers who actually see single-issue voting as immoral, as this commenter on Donohue’s post so eloquently puts it:

If you are a single issue voter, then the discussion is pretty much done. If you want to consider how important ending the Iraq war is, improving our relationships with the rest of the world, returning to the leadership of the free world, and having a better economy so we can continue to support the Church and its Christian efforts, you have a little more thinking to do.

and "unbiblical" as Richard Cizik, evangelical leader says:

Party line voting is…unbiblical. It says you don’t think. If you’re simply voting on same sex marriage and abortion, you’re not thinking. What I’m saying is that a lot of evangelicals don’t think, sad to say.

Or, as Wilis Elliot, Baptist minister and teacher puts it:

…..Finally, I am deeply concerned about single-issue, anti-abortion voters. I consider them immoral. Given the multitude of complex problems the United States is facing, this presidential election may prove to be the most consequential since the Great Depression. Why would anyone let the abortion issue determine one’s vote? Bad religion, that’s why. The worship of "human life." Fetolatry, the idolatry of sacralizing the conceptus/embryo/fetus. Religion can be such good news. I hate to conclude with this instance of religion as bad news. But I must.

Donohue’s underlying premise, as satire or truth, only provides more ammunition for a culture war that we’re seeing relegated to the back burner this election cycle. The truth is that focusing on a single medical procedure that most Americans believe should be legal and accessible, if not minimally restricted, is not riling voters up the way Donohue and his ilk are desperate for. In the face of one of the worst economic landscapes this country has seen, embroiled in an unjust war sucking billions of dollars from taxpayers monthly, and struggling daily to provide health care to the masses, this country is desperate for relief not distracting political games. 

I wish William Donohue would write the "I’m Catholic and Staunchly Supportive of Your Right To Be Too!" essay this country really needs.

Analysis Politics

Anti-Choice Democrats Employ ‘Dangerous,’ Contradictory Strategies

Ally Boguhn & Christine Grimaldi

Democrats for Life of America leaders, politicians, and rank-and-file supporters often contradict each other, and sometimes themselves, exposing a lack of coherent strategy at a time when the Democratic Party's platform is newly committed to increasing abortion access for all.

The national organization for anti-choice Democrats last month brought a litany of arguments against abortion to the party’s convention. As a few dozen supporters gathered for an event honoring anti-choice Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D), the group ran into a consistent problem.

Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) leaders, politicians, and rank-and-file supporters often contradicted each other, and sometimes themselves, exposing a lack of coherent strategy at a time when the Democratic Party’s platform is newly committed to increasing access to abortion care for all.

DFLA leaders and politicians attempted to distance themselves from the traditionally Republican anti-choice movement, but repeatedly invoked conservative falsehoods and medically unsupported science to make their arguments against abortion. One state-level lawmaker said she routinely sought guidance from the National Right to Life, while another claimed the Republican-allied group left anti-choice Democrats in his state to fend for themselves.

Over the course of multiple interviews, Rewire discovered that while the organization demanded that Democrats “open the big tent” for anti-choice party members in order to win political office, especially in the South, it lacked a coordinated strategy for making that happen and accomplishing its policy goals.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Take, for example, 20-week abortion bans, which the organization’s website lists as a key legislative issue. When asked about why the group backed cutting off abortion care at that point in a pregnancy, DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day admitted that she didn’t “know what the rationale was.”

Janet Robert, the president of the group’s executive board, was considerably more forthcoming.

“Well, the group of pro-life people who came up with the 20-week ban felt that at 20 weeks, it’s pretty well established that a child can feel pain,” Robert claimed during an interview with Rewire. Pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, which protected the right to legal abortion care before the point of fetal viability, Rogers suggested that “more and more we’re seeing that children, prenatal children, are viable around 20 to 22 weeks” of pregnancy.

Medical consensus, however, has found it “unlikely” that a fetus can feel pain until the third trimester, which begins around the 28th week of pregnancy. The doctors who testify otherwise in an effort to push through abortion restrictions are often discredited anti-choice activists. A 20-week fetus is “in no way shape or form” viable, according to Dr. Hal Lawrence, executive vice president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

When asked about scientific findings that fetuses do not feel pain at 20 weeks of pregnancy, Robert steadfastly claimed that “medical scientists do not agree on that issue.”

“There is clearly disagreement, and unfortunately, science has been manipulated by a lot of people to say one thing or another,” she continued.

While Robert parroted the very same medically unsupported fetal pain and viability lines often pushed by Republicans and anti-choice activists, she seemingly acknowledged that such restrictions were a way to work around the Supreme Court’s decision to make abortion legal.

“Now other legislatures are looking at 24 weeks—anything to get past the Supreme Court cut-off—because everybody know’s it’s a child … it’s all an arbitrary line,” she said, adding that “people use different rationales just to get around the stupid Supreme Court decision.”

Charles C. Camosy, a member of DFLA’s board, wrote in a May op-ed for the LA Times that a federal 20-week ban was “common-sense legislation.” Camosy encouraged Democratic lawmakers to help pass the abortion ban as “a carrot to get moderate Republicans on board” with paid family leave policies.

Robert also relied upon conservative talking points about fake clinics, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, which routinely lie to patients to persuade them not to have an abortion. Robert said DFLA doesn’t often interact with women facing unplanned pregnancies, but the group nonetheless views such organizations as “absolutely fabulous [be]cause they help the women.”

Those who say such fake clinics provide patients with misinformation and falsehoods about abortion care are relying on “propaganda by Planned Parenthood,” Robert claimed, adding that the reproductive health-care provider simply doesn’t want patients seeking care at fake clinics and wants to take away those clinics’ funding.

Politicians echoed similar themes at DFLA’s convention event. Edwards’ award acceptance speech revealed his approach to governing, which, to date, includes support for restrictive abortion laws that disproportionately hurt people with low incomes, even as he has expanded Medicaid in Louisiana.

Also present at the event was Louisiana state Rep. Katrina Jackson (D), responsible for a restrictive admitting privileges law that former Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) signed into law in 2014. Jackson readily admitted to Rewire that she takes her legislative cues from the National Right to Life. She also name-checked Dorinda Bordlee, senior counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund, an allied organization of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

“They don’t just draft bills for me,” Jackson told Rewire in an interview. “What we do is sit down and talk before every session and see what the pressing issues are in the area of supporting life.”

Despite what Jackson described as a commitment to the constitutionality of her laws, the Supreme Court in March blocked admitting privileges from taking effect in Louisiana. Louisiana’s law is also nearly identical to the Texas version that the Court struck down in June’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision.

Jackson did not acknowledge the setback, speaking instead about how such measures protect the health of pregnant people and fetuses. She did not mention any legal strategy—only that she’s “very prayerful” that admitting privileges will remain law in her state.

Jackson said her “rewarding” work with National Right to Life encompasses issues beyond abortion care—in her words, “how you’re going to care for the baby from the time you choose life.”

She claimed she’s not the only Democrat to seek out the group’s guidance.

“I have a lot of Democratic colleagues in my state, in other states, who work closely with [National] Right to Life,” Jackson said. “I think the common misconception is, you see a lot of party leaders saying they’re pro-abortion, pro-choice, and you just generally assume that a lot of the state legislators are. And that’s not true. An overwhelming majority of the Democrat state legislators in our state and others are pro-life. But, we say it like this: We care about them from the womb to the tomb.”

The relationship between anti-choice Democrats and anti-choice groups couldn’t be more different in South Dakota, said state house Rep. Ray Ring (D), a Hillary Clinton supporter at DFLA’s convention event.

Ring said South Dakota is home to a “small, not terribly active” chapter of DFLA. The “very Republican, very conservative” South Dakota Right to Life drives most of the state’s anti-choice activity and doesn’t collaborate with anti-choice Democrats in the legislature, regardless of their voting records on abortion.

Democrats hold a dozen of the 70 seats in South Dakota’s house and eight of the 35 in the state senate. Five of the Democratic legislators had a mixed record on choice and ten had a pro-choice record in the most recent legislative session, according to NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota Executive Director Samantha Spawn.

As a result, Ring and other anti-choice Democrats devote more of their legislative efforts toward policies such as Medicaid expansion, which they believe will reduce the number of pregnant people who seek abortion care. Ring acknowledged that restrictions on the procedure, such as a 20-week ban, “at best, make a very marginal difference”—a far cry not only from Republicans’ anti-choice playbook, but also DFLA’s position.

Ring and other anti-choice Democrats nevertheless tend to vote for Republican-sponsored abortion restrictions, falling in line with DFLA’s best practices. The group’s report, which it released at the event, implied that Democratic losses since 2008 are somehow tied to their party’s support for abortion rights, even though the turnover in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress can be attributed to a variety of factors, including gerrymandering to favor GOP victories.

Anecdotal evidence provides measured support for the inference.

Republican-leaning anti-choice groups targeted one of their own—Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)—in her June primary for merely expressing concern that a congressional 20-week abortion ban would have required rape victims to formally report their assaults to the police in order to receive exemptions. Ellmers eventually voted last year for the U.S. House of Representatives’ “disgustingly cruel” ban, similarly onerous rape and incest exceptions included.

If anti-choice groups could prevail against such a consistent opponent of abortion rights, they could easily do the same against even vocal “Democrats for Life.”

Former Rep. Kathy Dalhkemper (D-PA) contends that’s what happened to her and other anti-choice Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, which resulted in Republicans wresting control of the House.

“I believe that pro-life Democrats are the biggest threat to the Republicans, and that’s why we were targeted—and I’ll say harshly targeted—in 2010,” Dahlkemper said in an interview.

She alleged that anti-choice groups, often funded by Republicans, attacked her for supporting the Affordable Care Act. A 2010 Politico story describes how the Susan B. Anthony List funneled millions of dollars into equating the vote with support for abortion access, even though President Obama signed an executive order in the vein of the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition on federal funds for abortion care.

Dalhkemper advocated for perhaps the clearest strategy to counter the narrative that anti-choice Democrats somehow aren’t really opposed to abortion.

“What we need is support from our party at large, and we also need to band together, and we also need to continue to talk about that consistent life message that I think the vast majority of us believe in,” she said.

Self-described pro-choice Georgia House Minority Leader Rep. Stacey Abrams (D) rejected the narratives spun by DFLA to supporters. In an interview with Rewire at the convention, Abrams called the organization’s claim that Democrats should work to elect anti-choice politicians from within their ranks in order to win in places like the South a “dangerous” strategy that assumes “that the South is the same static place it was 50 or 100 years ago.”

“I think what they’re reacting to is … a very strong religious current that runs throughout the South,” that pushes people to discuss their values when it comes to abortion, Abrams said. “But we are capable of complexity. And that’s the problem I have. [Its strategy] assumes and reduces Democrats to a single issue, but more importantly, it reduces the decision to one that is a binary decision—yes or no.”

That strategy also doesn’t take into account the intersectional identities of Southern voters and instead only focuses on appealing to the sensibilities of white men, noted Abrams.

“We are only successful when we acknowledge that I can be a Black woman who may be raised religiously pro-life but believe that other women have the right to make a choice,” she continued. “And the extent to which we think about ourselves only in terms of white men and trying to convince that very and increasingly narrow population to be our saviors in elections, that’s when we face the likelihood of being obsolete.”

Understanding that nuances exist among Southern voters—even those who are opposed to abortion personally—is instead the key to reaching them, Abrams said.

“Most of the women and most of the voters, we are used to having complex conversations about what happens,” she said. “And I do believe that it is both reductive and it’s self-defeating for us to say that you can only win if you’re a pro-life Democrat.”

To Abrams, being pro-choice means allowing people to “decide their path.”

“The use of reproductive choice is endemic to how we as women can be involved in society: how we can go to work, how we can raise families, make choices about who we are. And so while I am sympathetic to the concern that you have to … cut against the national narrative, being pro-choice means exactly that,” Abrams continued. “If their path is pro-life, fine. If their path is to decide to make other choices, to have an abortion, they can do so.”

“I’m a pro-choice woman who has strongly embraced the conversation and the option for women to choose whatever they want to choose,” Abrams said. “That is the best and, I think, most profound path we can take as legislators and as elected officials.”

News Politics

Anti-Choice Crusade Tests ACOG’s Donations to Blackburn

Christine Grimaldi

Republicans' prevailing views on abortion haven’t stopped the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from contributing to their campaigns for U.S. Congress.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the leader of the congressional crusade to undermine access to abortion care and halt fetal tissue research, received campaign funds from an unlikely donor: the political advocacy arm of the nation’s leading professional association for obstetricians and gynecologists.

Publicly available campaign finance records obtained through the Federal Election Commission reveal that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) donated $2,000 to Blackburn early in the two-year 2016 federal election cycle. ACOG made the contribution through its political action committee (PAC), Ob-GynPAC, on June 30, 2015—several months before the U.S. House of Representatives voted in October to establish the so-called Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives.

ACOG is the 501(c)(6) affiliate of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the membership association for 57,000 such providers across the country.

ACOG supports access to abortion care based on public health and medical evidence. Any contribution to Blackburn may, at first, appear misplaced. Blackburn, a longtime abortion rights foe, has emerged in recent months as the House’s most outspoken critic of an illicit market in “baby body parts” that according to all other accounts—three prior congressional committees, 13 states, and a Texas grand jury—doesn’t exist.

An ACOG spokesperson, however, stressed that Ob-GynPAC is broader than any one issue.

“The PAC often supports candidates and elected officials whom they disagree with on one issue or another because they work with the PAC on another priority,” the spokesperson told Rewire in an email.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

ACOG priorities overlap with some traditionally in the GOP camp: medical liability and Medicare payment reform, health information technology, and Affordable Care Act’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, a yet-to-be-constituted oversight panel to control Medicare costs. Medical groups generally oppose the advisory board, while anti-choice advocates have framed it as a “death panel.”

“Ob-GynPAC’s goal is to achieve real solutions to the issues facing ACOG members, which happens through bipartisan cooperation,” the spokesperson said.

The vast majority of congressional Republicans outright reject public health and medical evidence on abortion and oppose abortion rights, with the measured exception of retiring Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), who voted in 2015 against defunding Planned Parenthood even as he supports restrictions such as the Hyde Amendment. Hanna received $5,000 from ACOG in the 2016 federal election cycle.

Republicans’ prevailing views on abortion haven’t stopped ACOG from contributing to their campaigns for the House and U.S. Senate.

ACOG split $390,500 almost evenly between Republican and Democratic candidates in the 2016 cycle, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Notable exceptions include Rep. Trent Franks (R-AL), the author of misleading legislation to ban sex- and race-selective abortion care, and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), perhaps the most abortion-obsessed lawmaker in Congress. Franks and Smith have not received any money since ACOG became operational in 2010, according to Center for Responsive Politics’ data.

The $2,000 contribution to Blackburn marks a retrenchment, as ACOG first gave a $3,500 campaign contribution in the 2012 election cycle. Blackburn received another $4,000 from ACOG in the 2014 cycle.

Some of Blackburn’s top campaign contributors are from the medical field. The American Medical Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American College of Radiology each gave Blackburn $10,000 in the 2016 federal election cycle, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.

Across the aisle, ACOG donated $7,500 each in the 2016 cycle to Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Diana DeGette (D-CO), two of Blackburn’s adversaries on the select panel. Campaign finance records show that Schakowsky, the panel’s top Democrat, received the last $2,500 of that contribution from ACOG on March 31 of this year—several weeks after Republicans drew comparisons between fetal tissue research and Nazi experimentation at the panel’s first hearing.

ACOG defended both abortion care and fetal tissue research in a March 1 letter to Blackburn and Schakowsky and later that month, reiterated support for “life-saving research” in a statement and joint letter with others from the medical, scientific, and academic communities.

Neither the panel, nor the investigation, have ACOG’s support, the group’s spokesperson told Rewire.

In July, 30 progressive and reproductive health-care groups signed a letter in a bid for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to disband the panel.

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!