By Dave Andrusko
As if any proof were needed, after just a few hours, the difference between last week’s Republican National Convention and this week’s Democratic National Convention which began last night was proof positive that indeed the choice this election season offers is stark.
If, as many commentators have observed, this will be a “base” election—rallying ones supporters, as opposed to reaching out to the undecideds and/or Independents—last night’s speeches by everyone including Michelle Obama made it clear they were all in to convince pro-abortionists to come to the polls November 6.
There was little there to persuade anyone not already committed to abortion on demand. There was even unambiguous support for ObamaCare which has never been popular among the electorate.
And looking ahead to the next two months it important to remember that the differences are not only dramatically different positions on issues. The Republican pro-life team of Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan are running on a solidly pro-life platform, while the pro-abortion team of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are running on a platform that would fund abortion up until birth and says nothing about sex-selective abortion or China’s abhorrent “One-Child” Policy.
It was the respective tones, which were as different as night and day.
Last week Republican speakers assumed a more in sorrow than anger attitude toward the failures of President Obama. By contrast Democratic speakers launched intensely personal rhetorical bombs at Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan. They were not just wrong, speakers such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nv.), Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and NARAL President Nancy Keenan loudly insisted, but unworthy, untrustworthy, and dangerously out of touch.
Keenan, who is retiring at the end of the year, told the convention why NARAL is among the President’s biggest supporters:” We are proud to have a president who stands with women; a president who signed into law one of the greatest advancements for women’s health in a generation; a president who believes in a woman’s right to make her own decisions.”
Women could not “trust’ Gov. Romney, she said, because “He would overturn Roe v. Wade and sign into law a wave of outrageous restrictions on a woman’s ability to make decisions about her pregnancy.” Those “outrageous restrictions” no doubt would include informed consent legislation, waiting periods, parental involvement, and ultrasounds, all of which enjoy solid support among the American people.
Support for abortion was woven into virtually every speech. For example, Mrs. Obama’s speech, delivered brilliantly, included the sentence that her husband “believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care.” (See “Michelle Obama given rave reviews, little attention paid to issues that would paint a different picture of President Obama.”) Gov. Patrick spoke for many when he shouted, “We believe that freedom means keeping government out of our most private affairs, including out of a woman’s decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy.”
And after a season of quiet, support for ObamaCare was voiced loud and clear. As National Right to Life has documented in great detail, the President’s “signature” domestic issue is rift with abortion-promoting features and mechanisms that ensure rationing of medical care. Of course, those inconvenient truths were conveniently avoided.
More of the same is on tap tonight when, among others, pro-abortion former President Bill Clinton will speak. Ironically, it was Clinton who formulated the all-purpose escape clause for pro-abortionists: he talked of making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” By 2008 and again in 2012, the Democrats’ platform on abortion had omitted the word “rare.”