By Dave Andrusko
If Democrats needed any additional motivation to go off the deep end, it was on display Tuesday. MSNBC host Chuck Todd interviewed Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, a high-powered pro-abortion PAC which funds only female Democrats and only female Democrats who are pro-abortion without exception.
Even Schriock was evasive when Todd kept pressing her about Democrats being more unapologetically supportive of late, late, late abortions. She was also circumspect when Todd openly raised the possibility that the Democratic Party should not support pro-lifers.
Of the latter, Todd said (thanks to Brad Wilmouth of Newsbusters)
Let me just be blunt about this: Can the Democratic party at this point, considering what’s at stake on the issue of Roe, can it still be comfortable using resources to help pro-life Democrats? Where are you on this?”
This is an amazing statement, since there are a mere handful of pro-life Democrats in the House, none in the Senate, and just one governor—Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards.
Warming to his suggestion of abandoning all pro-life Democrats, Todd asked, “Is it worth the fight inside the party to protect a Dan Lipinski [of Illinois] or not?”
What about a more aggressive stance on abortion? Todd said
If you look at the sort of the last 20 years — the right side of the abortion debate — the pro-life side of the abortion debate has been aggressive in trying to pass laws to support their side of the issue, the pro-choice side almost sometimes runs away from codifying laws in states and instead plays defense. It does seem as if some — you have some of the presidential candidates say, “Why don’t you codify Roe?” And you’ve seen a couple of states — New York and Virginia. Is the strategy changing? Do you think you have to change your strategy and be more on offensive on these laws?
Of course, Democrats are trying to do just that, and will soon accomplish this in Vermont. They are also pushing very hard in Rhode Island and Illinois, to name just two states.
Perhaps Todd’s most interesting provocation (and indicative of how out of touch he is) was when he said to Schriock
Where Democrats get tripped up is they basically — they get caught up on the late-term issue, right, as some have outlined. But it does seem to me that that — the right is unabashed. They sort of plow right through it. Should Democrats push harder and say, “Look, if you think this is an issue that belongs between a woman and her doctor, then it doesn’t matter how you personally feel — it’s an issue between a woman and her doctor in week one of the pregnancy or in week 32 of the pregnancy”?
The “right” to abortion is “unabashed,” whether the first week of pregnancy or the 32nd? None of this stuff about “terminally ill” babies or “threats to a mother’s health,” behind which pro-abortion Democrats customarily hide.
Does Todd have the slightest clue how little support there is to abort babies that late in pregnancy? Or is the media cocoon he lives in so all-pervasively pro-abortion he doesn’t care?
If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.