With every Democratic presidential candidate celebrating abortion as a fundamental good for society, Pro-Lifers may have difficulty distinguishing one candidate from another. Each and every Democrat challenging President Trump has determined unwavering loyalty to the abortion industry is a preeminent priority. The national Democratic Party Platform reflects this radical shift—abortion should be not just safe, but free from regulation; not merely legal, but also facilitated; not rare, but ubiquitous.
Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro, and Marianne Williamson, the three candidates from Texas, are no exception. Each holds ardently pro-abortion convictions, expressed by O’Rourke through his votes and by Castro and Williamson through their rhetoric. All have promised to codify their extreme positions.
Throughout his time in Congress, O’Rourke consistently opposed protecting preborn children from the injustice of elective abortion. In 2013 and 2015, he cosponsored legislation that would have legalized elective abortion throughout pregnancy, and late-term abortions committed right before birth. The bills would have stripped states of any authority to enact Pro-Life laws, thus nullifying the progress Texas has made protecting children from abortion after five months, or banning grotesque dismemberment abortions.
In 2017, O’Rourke voted against a federal bill inspired by Texas’ Pro-Life leadership, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which prohibits abortion after five months (twenty weeks) of pregnancy based on the substantial scientific evidence that preborn children of this age can feel pain. O’Rourke determined exposing preborn children to painful deaths is legally acceptable, partially justifying his vote on the fact that “only” approximately 8,000 of these abortions occur each year. [The number is likely considerably higher.]
O’Rourke doesn’t stop at defending abortion. He wants Pro-Life Americans to promote abortion right along with him. In 2014, he voted against a bill that would have codified the Hyde Amendment, a federal budget rider that prohibits tax dollars from being used for abortions. Just two months ago, he criticized Joe Biden for supporting the Hyde Amendment. (Not to be out of step with his fellow candidates, Biden quickly reversed his stance and now opposes the Hyde Amendment.)
O’Rourke’s view is simple and extreme: legal abortion until birth nationwide, funded by taxpayers. This position has merited him 100% scores from pro-abortion NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Julian Castro has not served in Congress and so does not have a voting record to illustrate his stance promoting abortion. However, what he lacks in votes and a substantive record, his campaign rhetoric more than fills. In the first Democratic debate, he assured voters that he would secure “reproductive justice” for men and transgender females—biological men with no exercisable capacity to become pregnant—by guaranteeing that his Medicare for All plan would cover abortion.
Because states such as Missouri, Alabama, and Georgia are passing expansive Pro-Life laws, he promised to appoint judges and justices who will respect Roe v. Wade, the single most unjust ruling in our nation’s history. Castro’s position on abortion is complicated but just as extreme: nationwide abortion rights throughout pregnancy for biological men and women, funded by the taxpayers.
Although less known, Marianne Williamson has garnered media and public attention for her bizarre positions and rhetoric, especially in the most recent debate. And as tempting as getting caught in the circus might be, one should not overlook her fervent support of abortion. Her website states “REGARDING ABORTION RIGHTS, [SHE IS] ONE HUNDRED PER CENT PRO-CHOICE” (website’s emphasis). She adamantly supports Planned Parenthood and would resist any effort to enact Pro-Life laws or restrict abortion. Moreover, in May, she voiced her opposition to the many Pro-Life laws states are passing across the country. Although Williamson has never held a political position, she has given ample evidence that her administration would be radically anti-Life.
On certain issues—immigration, foreign policy, education, etc.—Democrats have attempted to distinguish themselves from their colleagues. Some actually seek the more moderate position of the Democratic electorate on these issues. Unfortunately, abortion is not one of these issues. In this regard, O’Rourke, Castro, and Williamson blend with the rest of the Democratic field by holding the most radical position imaginable.
What makes them unique in the field of candidates is their home state. Hailing from Texas, they purport to represent the views of Texans. But their shared extreme view on abortion is severely out of step with the Pro-Life views of Texans. A recent poll indicated a plurality of Texans supports prohibiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. O’Rourke, Castro, and Williamson cannot reconcile their view with the view of the average Texan. Their claim to represent Texas on the national stage is dangerous and misleading.
Texans support preborn children. Texans support Life. Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro, and Marianne Williamson do not.
Editor’s note. You can see the positions on abortion of all the Democrat presidential campaigns here.