Democrat litmus test on abortion now extends to Democratic Attorneys General

By Dave Andrusko

Just two days ahead of tonight’s debate among ten pro-abortionists vying to be the Democrat Party’s presidential candidate, news broke that the Democratic Attorneys General Association had declared that the DAGA will only endorse candidates who publicly support “reproductive rights” and increasing “access to abortion.”

Here’s how Lisa Lerer of the New York Times explained the decision:

WASHINGTON — An association of Democratic state attorneys general will become the first national party committee to impose an explicit abortion litmus test on its candidates, announcing on Monday that it will refuse to endorse anyone who does not support reproductive rights and expanding access to abortion services.

To win financial and strategic backing from the group, candidates will be required to make a public statement declaring their support of abortion rights. The group, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, recruits candidates and helps their campaigns with financial support, data analysis, messaging and policy positions. …

“Attorneys general are on the front lines of the fight for reproductive freedom,” Letitia James, the New York attorney general, said in a video promoting the group’s decision, which featured news media coverage of the new state laws. “They have the power to protect your rights.”

Lizzie Ulmer, the group’s communications director, told Ed Kilgore of New York magazine “that the policy change had been in the works for some time.”

The issue is not about the immediate impact: only one Democrat state attorney general identifies as pro-life, and he is retiring. “But officials believe it could have a ripple effect through the Democratic ecosystem, reflecting the changing mores of a national party that has moved sharply to the left in the Trump era and embraced a set of purity tests on divisive social issues,” Lerer reports.

The litmus test will not hurt AGs in areas that are running in reliably pro-abortion. But, Lerer writes, “the new litmus test worries some Democrats who fear it could hurt their party in rural areas and the more moderate, suburban districts that won Democrats control of the House last fall and may represent their path back to the White House.”

The acting president of Planned Parenthood said she was “thrilled,” not a terribly big surprise. “It has never been more important than right now to stand up for sexual and reproductive health and rights,” Alexis McGill Johnson said.

The executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association, “said his Democratic counterparts were simply looking for money from organizations that support abortion rights,” Lerer reported.

In a statement, Adam Piper said, “The only litmus test for an attorney general should be a belief in the rule of law and the courage to defend and uphold the Constitution.” Mr. Piper added, “While RAGA is focused on winning elections and the hearts and minds of voters, DAGA is focused on disregarding the rule of law and folding to the demands of extreme special interest groups.”

Lerer’s story, and others, quite properly talked about the thinning out of pro-life Democrats, almost to the point of extinction in Congress. Near the end, she places the DAGA purity test in perspective:

Democrats have been steadily moving to the left on abortion since the 2016 election, largely dispensing with the message that drove their politics for decades — that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”

When Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was asked in the first primary debate if there was any restriction on abortion she supported, she didn’t name one. No other candidate on the stage did, either.

“We’ve been on defense for 47 years, ever since Roe was decided. And year by year, in state after state, the ground has crumbled under our feet,” Ms. Warren told Marie Claire magazine this fall. “I think it’s time to go on offense.”

That “offense” includes a defense of abortion up until birth, a squishiness (to put it mildly) on treating abortion survivors, and an insistence that the public pay for abortions.

None of these stances is remotely popular with the public.