This article first appeared in Human Life Review, Summer/Fall 2006. It has been substantially revised to take account of the November 2006 election and other recent developments. Posted 31 March 2007. Copyright © 2006 & 2007 by Mary Meehan.

Democrats for Life Revisited

Mary Meehan

"The political climate is changing and we as pro-life Democrats are fully prepared and excited for what the New Year will bring!" So said the Democrats for Life of America after the elections last November. They were celebrating the election of Pennsylvanian Robert P. Casey, Jr., to the U.S. Senate and the re-election of 26 pro-life Democratic incumbents in the U.S. House. They also claimed the addition of six new pro-life Democrats to the House.⁽¹⁾ The recent election thus reversed the long decline in numbers of pro-life Democrats in Congress.

On the other hand, enough abortion-supporting Democrats won Senate and House races to give control of both Houses back to the Democrats. Had Casey and the other abortion foes won the only new seats for Democrats, that would have sent a strong message to Democratic leaders to make their verbal retreat from abortion a substantive retreat as well. But the war in Iraq, corruption scandals, and other issues gave the Democrats a comfortable majority in the House and a narrow one in the Senate. While Democratic leaders must step carefully to hold their majorities together, they will be under constant pressure from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and similar groups. And Democrats who support abortion will chair committees in both houses that are key to abortion battles.

Cosmetics or Substance?

To understand what Democrats for Life are dealing with today, it's helpful to remember the 2004 election, in which Democrats lost at both presidential and congressional levels. This finally made party leaders take another look at their loud and aggressive support of abortion. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, told NBC's "Meet the Press" soon after the election: "I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats.... We can have a respectful dialogue, and we have to stop demagoguing this issue." Dean had made a strong early showing as a presidential candidate in 2004, but had flamed out in the Democratic primaries. Yet he became chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) soon after the November election and started an ambitious program to rebuild the party in states where it was weak. He continued to welcome pro-lifers to the party and held a meeting with about 20 pro-life Democrats in Congress. Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, attended that meeting. She said Dean really listened to the congressional pro-lifers and that the DNC definitely has been "more supportive" since he took over. Janet Robert, president of Democrats for Life, told her colleagues last year that there had been significant change since 2002, when the DNC "wouldn't even talk to us."⁽²⁾

Other Democratic leaders changed their tune soon after the 2004 election. According to Newsweek, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the losing presidential candidate, told supporters that "they needed new ways to make people understand they didn't like abortion. Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party, he said."⁽³⁾ Edward Kennedy, Kerry's Senate colleague from Massachusetts, declared: "Surely we can all agree that abortion should be rare, and that we should do all we can to help women avoid the need to face that decision."⁽⁴⁾ And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), soon to be frontrunner for the Democrats' 2008 presidential nomination, conceded that "abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women." She suggested that government can "educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our Constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

Casual observers may have thought the Democratic choir had finally learned a verse from an old Hank Williams song: "Praise the Lord, I saw the light!" Well, not quite. Sen. Clinton's comments, for example, were in a January 2005 speech in which she praised Roe v. Wade as having advanced "freedom and equality for women" and told her audience that she looked forward "to working with all of you as we fight to defend it in the coming years." Her talk mainly promoted more contraception, although she also mentioned "more funding for prenatal care."⁽⁵⁾

National Democratic leaders who were courting pro-lifers were not backing away from support of legal abortion. Yet by calling abortion a tragedy and saying we should reduce its frequency, they were helping to change the public conversation on the issue. They had mounted a horse that could take them--and the country--in directions they hadn't anticipated. Carol Crossed, vice president of Democrats for Life, thought the change in language might lead to a change in public attitudes. She suggested that "people are going to start thinking about: 'Why is abortion a tragedy? What do you mean--a tragedy?' Then they're going to find out about women and the pain that women are going through--physical, emotional pain--about fetal development and what is an unborn child and all of these things."

It's even conceivable that many Democratic abortion supporters in Congress could vote for a Democrats for Life initiative to reduce abortions. That possibility, though, is reduced by the existence of an alternative proposal that would place heavy emphasis on birth control for the usual targets: teenagers, poor people, and minorities. More on this later.

Making a Little Go a Long Way

Democrats for Life is still a small and struggling group. It has done much on conviction and a shoestring budget; but it clearly needs far more members and money. In a two-part series in Human Life Review several years ago, I wrote about the group's origins in 1999 and its early struggles.⁽⁶⁾ This article reports on national operations, the initiative to reduce abortions, and activity at the grass roots.

The organization's operating budget in 2006 was slightly over $100,000. Executive director Kristen Day works part-time while also taking care of her small children. Day used to be chief of staff for a pro-life Democratic congressman, and she has run the Democrats for Life operation since 2002. There are several other part-time staff, including two who help with office work, one who does public relations, and one who prepares a newsletter. A fifth part-timer runs the group's web site, www.democratsforlife.org. "We're planning to hire a fund-raiser," Day said in a recent interview, adding that they hope to have an operating budget of $150,000 this year. She remarked that they plan "to do some direct mail" and are "really trying to expand our membership and our grass-roots efforts." They hope to hire someone to work full-time on state chapter development.⁽⁷⁾

The officers and board of directors have a rich diversity of experience. Janet Robert, the Minnesotan who currently serves as president, and four other board members have all survived the rough-and-tumble of running for Congress as Democrats. None won; but Joseph Turnham came very close in his 2002 bid for an Alabama seat, and he currently chairs the Alabama Democratic Party. Patrick Casey also came close in two tries for a Pennsylvania seat. He's a lawyer, a son of the late Governor (and pro-life champion) Robert P. Casey, and a brother of Sen. Bob Casey. Other board members have been active in business, science, education, and nursing. Carol Crossed, the vice president, has long experience in organizing and lobbying.⁽⁸⁾

It's a strong board and, as might be expected--especially where Democrats are concerned--sometimes has strong disagreements. One occurred early in 2006 when Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) lined up 55 Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House to sign a "Statement of Principles." Most signers, like DeLauro, were longtime abortion supporters; but some were strong pro-lifers. "We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family," the signers said, "and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion--we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

There was much to like about that part, but the signers went on to say that "we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas." On the other hand, they emphasized their agreement with Catholic social teaching on issues such as poverty, education, and health care. The Democrats for Life board approved a response to the DeLauro statement that welcomed its advocacy of programs to reduce abortion--but didn't address the inconsistency of signers who had voted steadily to support abortion.⁽⁹⁾ Carol Crossed thought there was no need for the board to say anything. Democrats for Life, after all, is not a Catholic group; its members include people of various faiths. But if determined to speak out, she thought, the board should have come up with something better than the "stupid" and "nothing" comment it issued.

In May, though, the board commended the South Dakota legislature for passing a law to ban abortion, stressing that a Democrat had introduced the bill in the state senate and that many Democrats had voted for it. (At the time, the law was expected to provide a major court challenge to Roe v. Wade; but opponents soon petitioned the law to referendum. South Dakota voters defeated it by a substantial margin last November, apparently mainly because it did not have an explicit exception for pregnancy caused by rape or incest.) And in June, Democrats for Life commended Louisiana legislators for passing a similar, although less radical, law. "We are so proud that Democrats led this effort," Kristen Day declared.⁽¹⁰⁾

But some members share Jay Ware's misgivings about an outright legal ban. Ware, a former Democrats for Life board member, worries about women who "get pregnant--and they're alone, and they're scared, and they're poor, and they're abandoned, and no one cares." Helping them, he believes is "what the Democratic Party really needs to be about." He was blunt in declaring, "I don't like what they did in South Dakota.... You've made it illegal, but what have you done about the women who are despairing in South Dakota?" He would consider making abortion illegal if alternatives were much improved and "if I felt that you could enforce that law." But he suspects that abortionists would still "be allowed to operate in the inner city where they were getting rid of the poor." Ware said he has "always had a problem with the idea" of criminalizing abortion. He added that he loves Democrats for Life "because they haven't voted me off the island, and I can say that out loud."⁽¹¹⁾

The board, though, has a combined approach: primary emphasis on alternatives, but also support for legal action against abortion. Kristen Day, referring to House pro-life leader Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), noted that "we work with Congressman Smith on a lot of issues," including opposition to the RU-486 abortion drug. Day also helped gain Democratic senators' support for a Smith bill to promote research on stem cells from umbilical cords, which he presented as an ethical alternative to destruction of human embryos. Day said that "we really called around a lot" and explained that people were blaming Senate Democrats for "holding up this lifesaving measure." Congress passed the bill in late 2005. After the 2006 election, Day appeared with Rep. Smith and others in a press conference urging Amnesty International to resist pressures to support abortion--an important issue that most media have neglected.⁽¹²⁾

Democrats for Life has good contacts with the African American pro-life group called LEARN (Life Education & Resource Network). And Dr. Alveda King, a niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke at a Democrats for Life breakfast before the 2006 March for Life in Washington. Alveda King recalled talking with a Democratic woman who was running for office but reluctant to speak about her pro-life convictions. King told her, "We're going to do everything we can...so that you can put your politics and your convictions together."⁽¹³⁾

Lack of funds has stymied outreach efforts to other communities, as well as membership recruitment in general. Leaders' reluctance to give a national membership figure suggests that it's fairly low. Some state chapters, though, have respectable figures, given their relative youth. Last year Carol Crossed conceded that membership growth is "very slow," adding that "there certainly isn't any money invested in that kind of thing."

Democrats for Life has established its own political action committee, but raised little more than $15,000 for it in 2006--and most of that money was donated by its president and vice president. Leaders were happy, though, that they had any money to distribute to candidates. They sent one of their first donations to Bob Casey's campaign for the U.S. Senate. Casey now has joined Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska as a reliable pro-life Democratic vote in the Senate.⁽¹⁴⁾ Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' majority leader in the Senate, is still often--and mistakenly--called a pro-lifer. He used to be, but he has slid so far to the other side that in 2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave him a 100-percent score for his voting record. In 2006, he cast pro-life votes related to parental notification, but NARAL still gave him a 65-percent score.⁽¹⁵⁾ Several other Senate Democrats occasionally vote pro-life on partial-birth abortion, parental notification, and/or judicial nominees.

Democrats for Life have a presence at the March for Life each year. They used to attract special attention when their mascot, a little donkey named Jellybean, accompanied them. According to Kristen Day, though, March for Life president Nellie Gray said Jellybean was not allowed anymore, noting that her march permit did not cover an animal. They complied; Jellybean has not marched since 2005. But before this year's March for Life, Day said, Gray "called me and said that we were not allowed to bring our Democrats for Life banner." Why not? "Because we are Democrats," Day said, adding that Gray views them as "guilty by association." Day recalled telling Gray, 'Well, I can run it by my board; but I find it highly unlikely that they would agree not to carry the banner.' In an interview, Day also commented, "People always ask me why pro-life Democrats don't speak at the March," adding that she asked Gray about that--and "she said she does not invite them."⁽¹⁶⁾

I tried, but was unable, to obtain comment from the March for Life about Day's account. In any case, Democrats for Life did march with their banner this year. Day said that "we got nothing but support" at the March, distributed all their literature, and were not bothered by police. "We held our banner high," she added.⁽¹⁷⁾

The March for Life is, of course, a key event for the pro-life movement. Many older activists got their start by taking part in the March decades ago, and many younger ones are initiated that way each year. Nellie Gray is widely admired for gathering the marchers every January at the anniversary of Roe v. Wade--despite cold, rain, ice, and the occasional blizzard--to protest Roe and to lobby their members of Congress. Yet for all its strengths, the March is far too narrow politically. Republican President George W. Bush addressed this year's March rally by telephone from Camp David. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), both candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, also spoke to the marchers. So did fifteen other Republican members of Congress.⁽¹⁸⁾ They should have been balanced by pro-life Democrats such as Sen. Casey, Sen. Nelson, Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, and Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. A movement that is serious about winning protection for unborn children, like an eagle on a long journey, cannot fly on its right wing alone.

A Minority Report

David Carlin is a former national board member of Democrats for Life and is still the group's contact in Rhode Island. He is a college teacher and writer. He served a dozen years as a Democrat in Rhode Island's state senate, attaining the rank of majority leader there. But he has been a major critic of the national party for years. Last year Sophia Institute Press published his book, Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion. Carlin has become so disillusioned with the national party that he told me pro-life Democrats "are fighting a war that has already been lost." Referring to the Second World War, he added: "We are like those Japanese soldiers who didn't give up until 20 or 30 years after the war was over." His book is not quite as pessimistic, and he says in it that he still has "a presumption in favor of Democratic candidates" in Rhode Island. But he sometimes votes for Republicans when their abortion stance is pro-life--or at least not as bad as their opponents' positions. He can imagine becoming a Republican if the GOP ever becomes "the party of the little people." He adds: "I doubt such a development, if it ever takes place, will take place during my lifetime; but if it does, I'll become a Republican. In the meantime I'll remain a cranky and complaining Democrat."

More power to his crankiness and complaints! Yet I hope Democrats for Life can prove him wrong about the World War II comparison. If they cannot, then whenever the Republicans lose power at the presidential level, the Democrats will come in with a wrecking crew, cancel pro-life policies, and appoint Supreme Court justices who will give Roe v. Wade a new lease on life. But if Democrats for Life can help elect more pro-life Democrats to Congress, and can move more state Democratic parties to neutrality on abortion, those contributions should affect presidential politics. If they can raise serious money for organizing, they should be able to do far more than that.

In any case, Carlin's book is one of several that should make it hard for Democratic leaders to gloss over their support of abortion with nice words and symbolic gestures. Kristen Day also recently published a book, called Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority (New Leaf Press).

Scheduled for publication this fall is a book by journalist Mark Stricherz, Why the Democrats Are Blue (Encounter Books), focusing on why so many Catholics have left the party.

Laura Echevarria, former media relations director of the National Right to Life Committee, is writing a book on The Making of the Abortion President and the Moral Decline of the Democratic Party. This will deal with Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and current Democratic candidates. DNC chairman Howard Dean may be facing a series of migraine headaches. But he may find more encouraging a book by Michael Sean Winters, scheduled for publication by Basic Books this year: Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats.⁽¹⁹⁾

The 95-10 Initiative to Reduce Abortions

For more than a year, Democrats for Life leaders refined a legislative package to reduce abortions. They call it their "95-10 Initiative" because their goal is to reduce abortions by 95 percent within ten years. I believe we also need reversal of Roe v. Wade, plus protective legislation for the unborn in every state, to achieve that goal. But it's certainly a worthy goal, and the 95-10 plan could help us toward it.

Talks with groups ranging from the National Council for Adoption to people in the insurance industry delayed completion of the package, since the leaders wanted to be sure that 1) Congress will pass it, and 2) it will work.

Disagreements over contraception also contributed to the long delay. As originally announced in 2005, but before it was written into actual legislation, the package would have required insurance companies to cover contraception. Father Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life and a friend of Democrats for Life, had major problems with that provision--and not only because of traditional Catholic teaching against contraception. He stressed that "so much 'contraception' is, in fact, early abortion under a different name." Some board members shared this concern. Former board member Jay Ware was concerned about the tendency to view contraception "as some sort of magic bullet." He added, "It won't be. If contraceptives haven't solved this problem yet, a newer one isn't going to." And there may have been worries--certainly there should have been--about the effects of some methods on women's health. The health warnings about birth-control pills are daunting, especially for smokers and women over 35. The "Plan B" or morning-after pill--which often causes nausea, stomach pain, or headache-- is not supposed to be used routinely as a contraceptive.⁽²⁰⁾ But it almost certainly will be, now that it's available without prescription because of pressure from Planned Parenthood and others.

Finally, there was a need to have a bill that all pro-life members of Congress could support. The board decided to drop birth control from the package and to keep the focus on helping pregnant women. There was a major cost, though, for its long deliberations. Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat, was a key participant in early deliberations over 95-10. Ryan generally votes against abortion in Congress but, like many other abortion foes there, seems oblivious to the partly-abortifacient effects of many "contraceptives" and the risks they pose to women's health. He was adamant about emphasizing birth control in the plan, so Democrats for Life decided not to support his bill. But Ryan collected major support from abortion-supporting Democrats (and some anti-abortion ones). He was first out of the gate last September in introducing and announcing his bill.⁽²¹⁾

About one week later, Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Tennessee Democrat, introduced the bill supported by Democrats for Life, the "Pregnant Women Support Act." Its features included:

• Grants to states for toll-free numbers and advertising campaigns to publicize groups that support pregnant women and new parents. (Kristen Day said the model is a program in Michigan where "the abortion rate went down by 11 percent after this was implemented.")
• Grants to community health centers for purchase of ultrasound equipment (because women who see their unborn children on ultrasound are less likely to abort them). Day said some pregnancy care centers would qualify for these grants.
• Requiring abortion providers to offer women information about "characteristics of the unborn child," the risks of abortion, post-abortion medical services, and alternatives to abortion
• Making permanent the current state's option to cover unborn children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and expanding eligibility for SCHIP
• Increasing insurance coverage for pregnant women through an anti-discrimination provision
• Making permanent the adoption tax credit in the U.S. tax code and also increasing its dollar amount.
• Requiring maternity homes that receive federal subsidies to offer their residents counseling about adoption and about parenting skills
• Increasing funding for the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) nutrition program. ("In rural Tennessee," Rep. Davis said about his home state, the WIC program has "been a lifesaver for a lot of the mothers.")
• Making food stamps available to more low-income parents
• Increasing funding for block-grants to states for child care
• Grants to states for collecting and reporting statistics on abortion
• Obtaining a report from the Institute of Medicine on why women have abortions

Other provisions are designed to help groups with very specific needs:

• Assistance to parents whose unborn children are diagnosed with Down Syndrome or other disabilities--including referral to support groups and establishing a national registry (or a network of local registries) of families who are willing to adopt handicapped newborns. (Day remarked that this is "very similar" to a bill already introduced by Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican.)
• Assistance to pregnant women and new mothers who are threatened by domestic or dating violence
• Grants for college demonstration projects that will help pregnant students and also help parenting students complete their education. (Day said this is essentially the same as a bill backed by Feminists for Life of America.)
• Expanding the eligibility of parenting college students for federally-subsidized child care
• Grants for programs enabling teenage parents to work with Head Start or similar programs (apparently so they can earn money to help them stay in high school--and also develop job and parenting skills)
• Grants for free home visits by registered nurses to new mothers who want parenting advice and information. (Day reported that "this is based on a Missouri program, Nurses for Newborns.")⁽²²⁾

The 95-10 initiative is fairly complex, and some might see it as a grab-bag of ideas. But it makes sense as the approach suggested by Feminists for Life president Serrin Foster. Make a "task list," Foster advises, and then "systematically eliminate" conditions that push women toward abortion.⁽²³⁾

Both Rep. Davis and Rep. Ryan plan to introduce revised versions of their bills in the current Congress. Aides to both, though, told me that their bills' major provisions will remain the same. In what follows, I compare their bills from last year. Many of their positive provisions were the same, or similar; but there were important differences in language. Where the Davis bill was called the "Pregnant Women Support Act," the Ryan bill was titled "Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." (Why insist that there is a need for abortion? Why not just say "Reducing Pressures for Abortion" or simply "Reducing Abortions"?) Where the Davis bill referred to the "unborn child," the Ryan bill said "fetus." Where the Davis bill appeared to require all abortion providers to give women information needed for informed consent, the Ryan bill required this only for providers who receive federal funding (presumably for their work in contraception). The Ryan bill put abortion and childbirth on the same level, requiring information on possible "risks and complications of the procedure to be performed [abortion] versus carrying the pregnancy to term." The Ryan bill suggested the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as a judge of accurate information on abortion; that organization is a longtime abortion advocate.

Beyond all this, the Ryan bill called for yet another campaign against teenage pregnancy, with grants available only to agencies providing contraception information to teens. The bill would have provided contraception for more low-income women--the primary targets of government-subsidized contraception for the past 30 years, in conformity with the eugenics philosophy of the folks who started population control. The Ryan bill even gave a contraceptive twist to the program of free visits to new mothers by registered nurses, stipulating that those nurses, too, must provide information on contraception. While the Ryan bill provided most of the positive approaches that the Davis bill did, it had an overwhelming emphasis on birth control.⁽²⁴⁾ In fact, it looked a lot like another subsidy for Planned Parenthood. The over-all Ryan approach was a grudging one that said in effect, "Well, if you insist on getting pregnant, despite all our strenuous efforts to prevent that, we'll help you."

Both Democrats and Republicans may object to some provisions in both bills. Some liberal Democrats may wince at the idea of any required information disclosure by abortion providers. Some Republicans may worry about subsidies to pregnancy care centers. Federal subsidy always involves some federal control, and often creates an unhealthy psychological and political dependence. But the subsidy horse left the barn some time ago. Republicans helped drive it out by supporting federal subsidies for abstinence programs in pregnancy care centers and by supporting state subsidies for the centers as well.⁽²⁵⁾ Fiscal conservatives from both parties may worry about increasing federal subsidies for child care and food stamps. Wouldn't a substantial increase in the minimum wage (at least as high as the increase recently passed by the House of Representatives, and preferably higher) make more sense? When people receive decent wages for their work, they can provide for their children's basic needs. And how about encouraging cooperative child-care efforts on campus, so that parents work a certain amount of time in the child-care centers their children attend?

Democratic leaders in Congress are likely to prefer the Ryan bill, although the new Majority Whip, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, co-sponsored both bills last year. The Democrats' control of committees and floor schedules in both houses might enable them to push through the Ryan bill. On the other hand, Republican pro-lifers in Congress are likely to prefer the Davis bill (the one supported by Democrats for Life). The key Republican pro-life leader, Rep. Christopher Smith of New Jersey, co-sponsored the Davis bill last year, and the Davis office hopes to have him aboard again for the new bill.

Congress should deal separately with birth-control issues. And the many health issues related to birth-control drugs should receive the full debate they have not received in Congress or the media for many years.

At the end of the day, members on both sides of the aisle may support the Davis bill, or something like it--some because they believe it's the right thing to do, some because they're weary of intense partisan divisions over abortion, and some to soften their own public images (the Democratic image of being the party of abortion, the Republican image of relying mainly on bans and seldom offering positive alternatives). Whatever their reasons, they may help save many lives.

Reports from the Grass Roots

Carol Crossed, the Democrats for Life vice president, has traveled the country to start new chapters and help existing ones. Although the group claims 41 chapters, my checks last summer showed that some were still under formation or else inactive. There's a need to blow on the embers, or jump-start the battery, to get some chapters going again. Crossed has suggested two major goals for state chapters. One is to change the language of state party platforms from support of abortion to neutrality. "(We're not asking for miracles here," she remarked.) Some state parties, perhaps as many as ten, do not have platform language that supports abortion.⁽²⁶⁾ Several Democrats for Life chapters have tried to change party platforms elsewhere, apparently without success so far. At least, though, they have announced their presence in the party and--especially in North Carolina--their willingness to fight.

Crossed also urges formation of Democratic pro-life caucuses in state legislatures. The model here is Pennsylvania, which before the 2006 election had 49 state legislators in such a caucus. Oklahoma also had one, with about 28 members. But in many a state legislature, if pro-life Democrats had started their own caucus, they could have met in a broom closet. California and Colorado apparently had no pro-life Democrats in their legislatures, and Florida had only two (but may have three now). Texas activist Lois Kerschen estimated that her state legislature had six to ten pro-life Democrats in 2006. Minnesota had 23 before the election and may have 25 now. Michigan has 20.

Illinois chapter contact David Seiler estimated last year that there were 15-20 in his state's legislature. There used to be more, he said, but the Republicans "have been pretty successful" in convincing downstate voters "that Democrats cannot be truly pro-life since the party platform is pro-choice." In 1996, Seiler recalled, his congressman, state senator, and state representative were pro-life Democrats, but "those positions are all held by Republicans today." Contacted after the election, Seiler said he knew of no change in the legislature; the Republicans, he added, "came close to unseating" a pro-life Democrat, but "they didn't get it done."⁽²⁷⁾

Kristen Day said three states--Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa--now have pro-life Democrats serving as speakers of the house in their state legislatures.⁽²⁸⁾

When I interviewed 20 Democrats for Life state chapter contacts around the country in the summer of 2006, I found that many declined to state their membership figures. But Indiana had 30-40 members, Virginia about 85, Florida "approaching 100," and Minnesota about 120. Some gave the numbers on their mailing lists: Michigan had over 50 people, Colorado about 75, Maryland over 100, and Texas around 500. The Texas chapter, which predates the national group, is large enough to hold its own convention in odd-numbered years. In even years, it meets as a caucus--and has a booth--at the Democratic state party convention.

State and local party leaders' treatment of Democrats for Life chapters ranges from ignoring them, to a polite but arms-length relationship, to a friendly welcome. At least two chapters (Indiana and Michigan) have been able to use state party headquarters for meetings. But some party leaders apparently haven't been listening to Howard Dean on welcoming pro-lifers. When the Ohio chapter's Lou Koenig appeared at a forum of candidates for state-party chair, he cited Dean and asked the candidates how they would reach out to pro-life Democrats. "You could have heard a pin drop," Koenig recalled. Out of eight or nine candidates, only one answered the question. That man placed second in the election, though, and Koenig met with him to encourage his openness to pro-lifers.

Everett Thomas, then the Indiana president, said his chapter had a booth at a Democratic editors' meeting, and the chapter secretary "had a long and angry conversation with another woman there who is militantly pro-choice." Yet the chapter signed up "several people at that event." Lois Kerschen was encouraged because more Texas party leaders were "coming forward and saying that they're pro-life Democrats or giving us their cards, saying 'I'd like to work with you.'" Some chapters showcase--on working boards, advisory boards, or in other ways--pro-life Democratic officeholders whose names carry weight in the party. This, of course, helps get attention from party leaders as well as media reporters.

Peter Small, Iowa state coordinator, has focused on the state legislature and the tough work of long-term organizing. The powers-that-be in the national and Iowa parties, he believes, "are so vehemently opposed" to pro-life Democrats' attaining power that it's almost pointless to deal with them. The effort must be "very much a struggle from below." Referring to the national Democrats for Life, Small said, "It appears to me that the national organization has spread itself too thin." He believes it should focus its resources on building state chapters, rather than on national Democratic politics and federal legislation.

North Carolina chapter president Eva Ritchey led efforts to change her state party's platform in both 2005 and 2006. In last year's battle, she tried to replace the pro-abortion plank with language promoting alternatives to abortion. NARAL Pro-Choice America mobilized and defeated that, and then defeated a compromise effort.⁽²⁹⁾ But Ritchey is not about to quit. She remarked that "we learned a great deal about the process, the dynamics and the strength of the adversary." And by "refusing to stand in the shadows any longer," she said, her group identified more pro-life Democrats.

In the spring of 2006, Minnesota chapter members won approval from some local party caucuses and district conventions of a simple proposal to have the state platform welcome pro-lifers as well as their opponents. The proposal had "a late launch with no real organizing," said chapter director Patrick Mullins, and the state convention defeated it. But he added that "our membership was energized" by the struggle. Massachusetts chapter contact Brian Keaney described an effort in 2005: "We had people attend the platform committee hearings all across the state asking for a conscience clause to be inserted into the platform." The proposed amendment would have recognized party members' "deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment." In language closely tracking Sen. Kennedy's statement after the 2004 election, it would have declared, "All Democrats agree that abortion should be rare and that we should do all we can to help women to avoid the need to make that decision." But Keaney reported: "Unfortunately, what we got instead was a platform that offered 'unwavering support for the provisions in Roe v. Wade.'" There is, though, a conscience clause of sorts for party leaders. Keaney said this is "not exactly where we want to be, but it's a start."

No one should be surprised by initial defeats of efforts to change platform language. Given this, it may be best to take Eva Ritchey's approach--skipping weaker efforts and trying to knock out pro-abortion planks with language on positive alternatives. Might as well go for the gold. Might as well give ex-Democrats a strong reason to come back to the party and fight.

Some chapters are involved in lobbying. Patrick Mullins noted that the Minnesota chapter was working with legislators "to introduce and pass a Minnesota version of the 95-10 initiative." The Virginia chapter was doing the same. Kristen Day recently said it "looks like Ohio and Michigan and other states are going to follow suit." She also reported that a 95-10 bill has been introduced in Hawaii at the urging of a Democrat who is starting a Democrats for Life chapter in that state.⁽³⁰⁾

New York chapter contact Jill Payne said members there "have done some low-key lobbying on pro-life issues, mostly connected with other pro-life groups that organize visits to the state capital." Payne's husband John, who heads the state chapter, also has testified against the death penalty before a legislative committee. Members of the California chapter have done some informal lobbying against a bill for doctor-assisted suicide. But chapter contact Karen Wheeler remarked that "we're a long ways from having an official lobbyist."

Chapters can provide information about candidates, but when it comes to actual campaigning, the members make their own decisions. Some members are fairly active in campaigns. But many are not, partly because in some areas there are no pro-life Democrats running for office. That was not a problem in Pennsylvania in 2006, with Bob Casey's U.S. Senate campaign, several pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House, and many in the state legislature. Some chapter members apparently campaigned for the re-election of Democratic Governor Edward Rendell, an abortion supporter who was re-elected, as well as for Sen. Casey, Rep. John Murtha, and other pro-life Democrats. Chapter president Christopher McNally commented that by canvassing traditional Democrats in the western part of the state, chapter members could help both pro-life candidates and "pro-choice Democrats like Governor Rendell who support programs that reduce the incidence of abortion.... We think that harnessing pro-life Democrats with pro-choice Democrats is the surest strategy to advance the public interest on a broad front of issues." Ironically, though, Sen. Rick Santorum, the pro-life Republican incumbent Casey defeated, was in political trouble partly because he had backed his abortion-supporting Senate colleague, Arlen Specter, against a strong pro-life challenge in the 2004 Republican primary.⁽³¹⁾

Two Democrats for Life members ran for the state legislature in Florida. While they didn't win, the one who ran for state senate received nearly 48 percent of the vote, which usually indicates that one more try may be successful. They set a good example for other states because, as Carol Crossed remarked about candidate recruitment, "we've got to bring 'em from the ground up." The Florida chapter's treasurer, Bob Hagenmaier, ran for Congress in 2004 and encountered much pressure from Democratic activists to hide his pro-life views. Although he did quite well in the Hispanic part of his district, he lost the election to his better-funded opponent. He urges other pro-life Democratic candidates to "go for Republican votes." He also advises them to be forthright in dealing with abortion: "Be brave. Be not afraid.... Where would we be if Abraham Lincoln [had] avoided discussing abolition of slavery during his campaigns?"⁽³²⁾

Besides having pro-life Democratic candidates to support, in 2006 members of the South Dakota chapter could take part in the intensely-fought referendum over the state's new abortion-ban law. State representative Mary Glenski, one of the legislators who voted for the ban, is also vice president of South Dakota Democrats for Life. She was well aware that some key pro-lifers elsewhere in the country worried that the South Dakota law, if it survived the referendum, could reach the Supreme Court before the Court had an anti-Roe majority (if it ever does). "But I keep thinking of how slavery was done away with in this country," Glenski remarked. "People didn't think that was the right time, either." In the end, though, South Dakota voters voted against the abortion ban.

Oklahoma state representative Rebecca Hamilton, who is helping to form a Democrats for Life chapter in her state, had just finished a difficult primary when interviewed last summer. "Several of us have been very viciously attacked by people within the Democratic Party who want us to go away," she reported, adding that pro-abortion Democrats had recruited her primary opponent. But Rep. Hamilton won the primary with about 75 percent of the vote and also won the general election.

California chapter members had few if any pro-life Democratic candidates to campaign for in 2006. But media exposure is important, too, so they accepted an invitation to take part in a "30 Days" documentary for the FX channel on cable television. The "30 Days" program is a reality show, involving in this case an abortion supporter from Georgia who spent 30 days in the California pro-life community. That included, said Wheeler, "a very interesting and productive discussion" with Democrats for Life, including talk about the 95-10 plan. The program hadn't aired by the time I interviewed Wheeler. "You can't tell what's going to end up on the cutting-room floor," she remarked, but "we went ahead and took the chance."

Summing Up

One can imagine practical things that Democrats for Life might do to extend their reach. Most chapter web sites, for example, need to be updated, expanded, or generally spiffed-up. More chapters should follow the North Carolina example by challenging state party platforms that support abortion, and they should use such battles to recruit new members. (What true Democrat, after all, can pass up a good fight?) Perhaps some chapters should recruit more retirees as officers and board members, thus gaining activists who have good experience and much free time. Student interns might be another source of help. And a "Friends of Democrats for Life" group, even if it's only a section of the national web site at first, could appeal to non-Democrats for critically-needed dollars. There may be many pro-lifers who can't quite bring themselves to join--or rejoin--the Democratic Party, yet understand the importance of what Democrats for Life are trying to do.

While the group's engine needs much more fuel, its train seems to be running on the right track. Karen Wheeler remarked that "we have some of the most amazing people come forward to be active in Democrats for Life--people with intelligence and passion and practicality. I can't help but think that good things will come."

Notes

Where quotations or statistics are not cited to notes, they are from an interview with Carol Crossed on 7 June 2006 or from e-mail and/or telephone interviews with the following state chapter contacts in July and August 2006: Karen Wheeler, California; Tim Macho, Sr., Colorado; Adam Parish, Florida; David Seiler, Illinois; Everett Thomas, Indiana; Peter Small, Iowa; Robert Hay, Jr., Maryland; Brian Keaney and Brian Yates, Massachusetts; Rick Middleton, Michigan; Patrick Mullins, Minnesota; Jill and John Payne, New York; Eva Ritchey, North Carolina, Lou Koenig, Ohio; Rebecca Hamilton, Oklahoma; Christopher McNally, Pennsylvania; David Carlin, Rhode Island; Mary Glenski, South Dakota; Lois Kerschen, Texas; Cayce Utley, Virginia; Casey Bui, Washington. Several were recontacted in January 2007 for updates. Some chapter web sites also provided useful information.

1. "Pro-Life Democrats Critical in Retaking the House and Senate," www.democratsforlife.org, accessed 18 Nov. 2006. The figure of 27 pro-life Democratic House incumbents in 2006 is the author's own, based on a 60-percent or better voting record in "NRLC [National Right to Life Committee] Scorecard, 109^th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives," www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard, accessed 9 Feb. 2007. Democrats for Life of America had claimed 31 pro-life incumbents in "At the Races," www.democratsforlife.org, accessed 18 July 2006; but voting records do not sustain that number.

2. Howard Dean on "Meet the Press," quoted in Susan Milligan, "Democrats Eye Softer Image on Abortion," Boston Globe, 19 Dec. 2004, www.boston.com; Steven Ertelt, "Pro-Life Democrats Meet with Howard Dean on Abortion Tolerance," 26 July 2005, www.lifenews.com; Kristen Day, interview by author, 25 July 2006; and Janet Robert, Remarks at Democrats for Life of America breakfast, Washington, D.C., 23 Jan. 2006, tape recording.

3. Debra Rosenberg, "Anxiety Over Abortion," Newsweek, 20 Dec. 2004, 38.

4. Quoted in Rick Klein, "Kennedy Vows to Fight on Values," Boston Globe, 13 Jan. 2005, www.boston.com.

5. "Remarks by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the NYS Family Planning Providers," 24 Jan. 2005, cached version on Google, originally from www.clinton.senate.gov.

6. Mary Meehan, "Democrats for Life," Part I, Human Life Review 29, no. 3 (Summer 2003), 63-81; and Part II, Human Life Review 29, no. 4 (Fall 2003), 5-26.

7. Kristen Day, interviews by author, 20 Jan. & 6 Feb. 2007.

8. "About Us/Board of Directors," www.democratsforlife.org, accessed 11 Feb. 2007; and Meehan (n. 6), Part II, 9-10.

9. Rosa L. DeLauro, "House Democrats Release Historic Catholic Statement of Principles," press release, 28 Feb. 2006, www.house.gov/delauro; and Democrats for Life of America, "Response to the Catholic Statement of Principles," 2 March 2006, www.democratsforlife.org.

10. Democrats for Life of America, "South Dakota's Anti-Abortion Bill Commended by Dem Group," press release, 8 May 2006, and "Blanco & Legislative Democrats Get DFLA's 'Gold-Star of the Week' for Passing Abortion Reduction Plan," press release, 6 June 2006, www.democratsforlife.org

11. Jay Ware, Remarks at Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) conference, Washington, D.C., 7 June 2006, tape recording; and Jay Ware, interview by author, 7 June 2006.

12. Kristen Day, interviews by author, 7 June 2006 & 20 Jan. 2007; Democrats for Life of America, "Pro-Life Democrats Applaud Congress for Passage of Cord Blood Bill," 19 Dec. 2005, www.democratsforlife.org; and "Smith, Others Call on Amnesty International to Reject Pro-Abortion Platform at Capitol Hill Press Conference," press release, 20 Nov. 2006, www.house.gov/chrissmith.

13. Alveda King, Remarks at Democrats for Life of America breakfast, Washington, D.C., 23 Jan. 2006, tape recording.

14. "Democrats for Life of America Inc PAC," www.fec.gov/disclosure, accessed 10 Feb. 2007; Carrie Budoff, "Casey's Clear View on Abortion Could Muddy Campaign Waters," Philadelphia Inquirer, posted 18 Dec. 2005, www.philly.com; and "Bob Casey on Abortion," www.ontheissues.org, accessed 18 July 2006.

15. "2005 Congressional Record on Choice," www.naral.org (see "Choice Action Center/In Congress"), accessed 21 Nov. 2006; Fred Barnes, "When Harry Met Roe, Weekly Standard, 27 Dec. 2004, 17-18; and "NRLC [National Right to Life Committee] Scorecard, 109^th Congress, U.S. Senate," www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard, accessed 21 Nov. 2006; and "See How Your Members of Congress Voted," www.naral.org, accessed 28 Jan. 2007.

16. Kristen Day, interviews by author, 20 Jan. & 6 Feb., 2007.

17. Ibid.

18. "President Bush Calls March for Life Participants," 22 Jan. 2007, www.whitehouse.gov/news; and "Concerned Women for America at the March for Life," www.cwfa.org, accessed 10 Feb. 2007.

19. David Carlin, e-mail to the author, 12 July 2006; David Carlin, Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? (Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2006), 144 & 146-47; communications with authors, July & Aug. 2006 and Jan. 2007; www.democratsforlife.org.; and www.amazon.com.

20. "Democrats for Life of America, "The 95-10 Initiative," brochure, Washington, D.C., [2005]; "Pro-Life Democrats Propose Abortion-Reducing Plan," National Catholic Register, 5-11 June 2005, www.priestsforlife.org; Jay Ware, conference remarks (n. 11); Physicians' Desk Reference (Montvale, N.J.: Thomson PDR, 60^th ed., 2006), 818-26, 2395-2402, & 1068-69.

21. Janet Robert, Kristen Day, and Rep. Tim Ryan, Remarks at DFLA Conference, Washington, D.C., 7 June 2006, tape recording; and "Democrats Introduce Legislation to Reduce Abortions," 14 Sept. 2006, www.house.gov/timryan (see "Newsroom").

22.

23. Serrin Foster, Remarks at DFLA Conference, Washington, D.C., 7 June 2006, author's notes.

24.

25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, "ACF CBAE [Community-Based Abstinence Education] Awards FY 2005, [2 Dec. 2005], www.acf.hhs.gov; Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, "Positive Alternatives Act Is Law!" press release, 23 May 2005, www.mccl.org; Minnesota Department of Health, "Positive Alternative Grantees, July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2008," www.health.state.mn.us, accessed 20 July 2006; and Steven Ertelt, "Texas Pregnancy Centers Awarded $5 Million in Family Planning Funds," 23 March 2006, www.lifenews.com.

26. Eva L. Ritchey, "Letter to the N.C. Democratic Party," 20 July 2005, http://northcarolina.democratsforlife.org (go to "Articles/Other Writings").

27. A staff member at Right to Life of Michigan provided the current number for Michigan, 6 Feb. 2007. The other numbers are from checks with Democrats for Life chapter contacts last summer and, in a few cases, in January 2007.

28. Kristen Day, interview by author, 20 Jan. 2007.

29. "Pro-Life Democrats Request New Platform Language on Abortion," 17 April 2006, http://northcarolina.democratsforlife.org (go to "Articles/Press Releases"); Rob Christensen, "Discontent with Iraq Fortifies N.C. Democrats," 25 June 2006, www.newsobserver.com; and Eva [Ritchey], "A Letter to Pro-Life Democrats," 4 July 2006.

30. Kristen Day, interviews by author, 20 Jan. & 6 Feb. 2007.

31. Rick Santorum, Interview by Human Events, posted 29 July 2005, www.humanevents.com.

32. Bob Hagenmaier, "Pro-Life Democratic Candidates: Risks and Opportunities," www.floridadfla.org, accessed 11 July 2006.