Sanders, Buttigieg only the latest Democrats running for President to made radically pro-abortion statements

By Dave Andrusko

Bernie Sanders
Photo: Marc Nozell

Yesterday we posted a story about the latest bizarre observations from a pro-abortion Democrat candidate for President, in that case Sen. Bernie Sanders. More about Sanders in a moment.

Since then Mary Margaret Olohan posted a story about Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg who “suggested Friday that unborn babies can be aborted up until they draw their first breath, saying parts of the Bible mention ‘how life begins with breath.’”

However Sanders and Buttigieg are anything but outliers.

It’s as if whatever outlandish comment one pro-abortion Democrat makes, others in the presidential field feel the urge to one-up them. This strategy utterly failed for New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who dropped out last week. Gillibrand was never the preferred choice of even 1% of Democrats but that never stopped her from upping the ante.

As Patrick Goodenough explained

During that visit to Georgia, Gillibrand pledged as president to codify Roe vs. Wade into law; to end the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is endangered); and, in what she described as her “most sweeping step” as president, to “guarantee access to reproductive healthcare – including abortion – no matter what state you live in.

Back to Sanders. As we wrote, participating in a CNN Townhall, Sanders linked climate change, “curbing” population growth, and taxpayer funding of abortions overseas in one answer.

His media defenders, which are numerous, have attempted to contain the damage. Confirmed Trump-hater Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin claimed that on the one hand President Trump commits “gaffes” all the time but on the other hand immediately conceded Sanders’s faux pas is a problem for Democrats seeking to unseat Mr. Trump. “For Democrats concerned about electability, a statement which frames an issue critical to the base in the least favorable light and hands ammunition to the right certainly qualifies as a problem.”

As did Aaron Blake, another Washington Post columnist, Rubin insisted that Sanders’ comments were practically benign, only awkwardly phrased. Not so. As CNN conservative S.E. Cupp tweeted

Let’s just state for the record: talking about needing “population control” through ABORTION for the sake of CLIMATE is talking about EUGENICS. The fact that @BernieSanders is willing to entertain this vile idea is not only disgusting, it should be disqualifying.

Even Rubin conceded, “However, Sanders’s formulation smacks of population control by limiting nonwhite births” which (she wrote) “anti-abortion groups” have “pounced on.” Sanders’ timing was especially unfortunate, according to Rubin, because “progressives have the high ground in abortion politics,” thus “Sanders’s remark is, to put it lightly, unhelpful.”

For good measure, Rubin threw in how “This is similar to how the phony infanticide issue put Democrats on defense.” Two quick points, in reverse order.

Pro-abortionists, such as Rubin, insist there is no “infanticide issue” because babies do not survive abortions and even if they did, they would not be neglected. They are and have been even though in 2002 Congress enacted the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

The legislation said that babies who are born alive, whether before or after “viability,” are recognized as full legal persons for all federal law purposes.

That is why it is imperative that Congress vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which would add enforcement provisions.

Second, as Blake wrote, “Sanders’s 2016 campaign said he opposes that 1974 law, known as the Helms amendment. So it’s fair to say that he supports federal funding for foreign abortion services. (Hillary Clinton did, too.)” But that didn’t stop Blake from trying to extricate Sanders from the dilemma he had made for himself by confounding federal funding of overseas abortion, curbing population growth, and climate change.

By the way, according to The Hill, “CNN’s 7-hour town hall on climate change with 2020 White House contenders finished last among the three cable news networks in terms of average total viewers, according to early numbers from Nielsen Media Research.”