Campaign Crawlers
Life Lynched
Rep. Stephen Lynch’s decision not to run for Ted Kennedy’s seat shows pro-life Democrats know their place in the party.
Believe it or not, the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat was once held by a pro-life Democrat. Even more remarkably, that pro-life Democrat was Kennedy himself. Asked in 1971 what he thought of the nascent campaign to legalize abortion, Kennedy memorably responded that “abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our society places on human life.”
“Wanted or unwanted,” Kennedy continued, “I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.” These words ended up being valuable only to political historians chronicling the decline of the pro-life Democrat. Within two years, Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was a national political issue, and Kennedy hewed to liberalism’s pro-choice party line.
Kennedy’s Senate seat won’t be filled by a pro-life Democrat after the special election to fill the vacancy caused by his death. Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) of South Boston announced yesterday that he was taking a pass on the race. The leading Democrats still considering a Senate run are all pro-choice, as are most Massachusetts voters according to polls taken in the nation’s second most Catholic state.
Most of the stories commenting on Lynch’s surprising decision not to run — he was expected to make his candidacy official today — have focused on his failure to win sufficient union backing. A former ironworker and traditional blue-collar Democrat, Lynch had expected the unions to provide the institutional support and elbow grease he needed to win. But Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic frontrunner, won the endorsement of the Teamsters Local 25.
A senior Lynch adviser told the Boston Globe that “support from organized labor was not materializing.” A second adviser was quoted by the Globe as saying, “He realized the parts weren’t there to win.” Lynch implied as much himself when he said in a statement that the “challenge of putting together the resources and organization necessary to wage a competitive statewide campaign in less than 90 days is insurmountable.”
Less remarked upon was why overwhelming union support was so essential — the fact that Lynch wasn’t going to get much help from other liberal interest groups in the commonwealth and around the country. He was slow to back gun control, though he received a grade of “F” from the National Rifle Association, and took a little too long for liberals’ comfort to see the wisdom of his party’s stand on gay rights. He voted to authorize the war in Iraq and was the only member of the Massachusetts House delegation to vote in favor of a 2006 Republican resolution opposing “an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment” of U.S. troops.
Yet the biggest issue separating Lynch from the left wing of his party is abortion. He has described himself as pro-life since he served in the Massachusetts legislature. When he entered the race to fill the late Congressman Joe Moakley’s House seat in 2001, Lynch was pilloried for his abortion views by all his Democratic primary opponents — including two who had flipped from pro-life to pro-choice themselves.
“Unlike some people, I’m not sure precisely when life begins, or whether a fetus is a legal person,” Lynch conceded to liberal newspaper columnist Thomas Oliphant. “But I believe strongly that this is at least the potential of human life and that it is the most special and precious gift, and must be protected.” For this measured description of his abortion views, Oliphant dubbed Lynch a “committed opponent of abortion rights as they currently exist in this country.”
Republicans also tried to use abortion against Lynch. In a Hail Mary attempt to win in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, the GOP nominated Joanne Sprague, a socially liberal Republican state senator who described herself as a “pro-choice woman who believes that opposition to civil unions for gays is un-American.” Columnist Eileen McNamara predicted, “Sprague could attract more liberal voters and pull off a win reminiscent of Republican William Weld’s victory over Democrat John Silber in the governor’s race a decade ago.”
The Eileen McNamaras were wrong. Lynch was able to win the Democratic primary and then crush Sprague in the general election for two reasons: His geographic base in the district wasn’t turned off by cultural conservatism and his recently deceased predecessor, Joe Moakley, remained a committed opponent of abortion long after Ted Kennedy had flipped.
Once in Congress, Lynch voted to ban partial-birth abortion. He supported continued funding of health providers that refuse to provide abortion referrals or information. Lynch voted to recognize unborn children as victims in crimes against pregnant women and to restrict interstate transport of minors to help them get abortions in contravention of other states’ parental-involvement laws.
Even on abortion, though, Lynch has tried to move left to please his party bosses. Like many pro-life Democrats in the Harry Reid mold, Lynch has become more of a Democrat than a pro-lifer. He opposed the National Right to Life Committee on every vote in 2007-08 after supporting them 64 percent of the time as recently as 2002-03. He voted with NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent of the time in 2007 after earning a zero rating from them just the year before. Lynch consistently votes against pro-lifers on expanded federal funding of embryo-destructive stem-cell research.
Steve Lynch is nevertheless out of the Massachusetts Senate race while Congressman Michael Capuano, one of the Democrats who pounded pro-life former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn on abortion to win Joe Kennedy’s House seat in 1998, is still pondering a run. “As a pro-life legislator I have always tried to show complete respect for those who hold different views,” Lynch said meekly back in 2001. “I just hope that others will show the same respect for me.”
Fat chance.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/16/life-lynched
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- Razing Reagan
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 9.16.09 @ 9:13AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Life Lynched [spectator.org] on Tops links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 1:57PM
Mr. Antle, I wish you would give your opinion on the candidacies of Peter Schiff and Rand Paul, esp vis a vis whether you consider a return to their brand of conservatism possible for the GOP, and whether you would welcome such a transformation .
Jon B| 3.13.10 @ 6:09AM
I'm also a pro-life Democrat, so I had to applaud when Obama reversed "Baby Killer" Bush's pro-death policies in the 3rd world countries.
Obama's restoring of funds for pregnancy prevention measures in the world's poorest countries reduced abortions by 10's of millions in the next 8 years. Republicans lie about the Mexico City Policy by falsely claiming it funds abortions, etc. It's been illegal for US $'s to fund abortions overseas since 1973, but we DO fund pregnancy prevention measures, emergency field birth kits, etc.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm
1993: Repeal of the funding ban: President Clinton felt that private, foreign organizations should be able to receive USAID funding for that part of their programs that involved pregnancy prevention, even though they used their funds raised elsewhere to finance abortions or to appeal for abortion reform. On 1993-JAN-22, his second day in office, he rescinded the executive order.
2001: Reinstatement of the funding ban: On 2001-JAN-22, during his first day in office, President George W. Bush reinstated the funding ban for family planning programs run by agencies that also provide abortion services out of their own funds. His rationale was somewhat confusing. He wrote to the U.S. Agency for International Development: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have ever been granted. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions or provide abortion counseling.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-05.htm
January 26, 2001: Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million (from $425 million), the following would happen: Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.
There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages; 2.2 million fewer abortions each year; 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.
Bush cut funding on 1-22-2001, then cut it some more in 2002, so it was roughly 1/2 or just over $200 million. However, some of it was restored because of his 2003 Africa/Aids program, which he didn't fully fund either. Bush cut aids funding completely in early 2001, and dropped another program in Congress (around $800K more) too. then restarted the program 2 years later promising roughly the same $ amount he prevented in the first place.
Liberal Reader| 9.16.09 @ 3:57PM
As a pro-life Democrat, I'm here to affirm things aren't easy for us.
However, we do not abandon our party, with whom we disagree on one issue, to join a party that is wrong about almost everything else.
I'm not at all certain, anyway, about what Republicans are willing to DO about the abortion issue.
In my lifetime, I have seen Republicans wage public battles to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage and flag burning, but I don't remember any concerted effort for an amendment on abortion.
When has a Republican EVER risked anything for this issue?
Alan Brooks| 9.16.09 @ 8:28PM
Abortion is 'genocide', as future generations (incl taxpayers) are wiped out.
Frankly, though, men want to kill more than anything else, so if they weren't killing babies, they would be killing more adults.
Am I optimistic? only concerning pure science.
KyMouse| 9.17.09 @ 9:23AM
"Unlike some people, I'm not sure precisely when life begins, or whether a fetus is a legal person," Lynch conceded to liberal newspaper columnist Thomas Oliphant.
That old canard -- "we just don't know when a new human life begins; its a matter of personal faith." I have in front of me a standard textbook on clinically oriented embryology (The Developing Human), written for medical students. It very clearly states as the definition of "zygote": "This cell results from fertilization of an ovum by a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."
For the sake of argument, however, let's pretend that science hasn't figured out that development and growth in organic creatures proves that they are alive. If no one knew when a distinct human being comes into existence, wouldn't that actually be a good reason to make abortion illegal? If we're not sure that unborn babies are living human beings, don't the mothers aborting them risk sentencing human beings to death?
Before buildings are imploded, everyone makes sure that no people are inside or nearby. Anyone who claims that it's all right to abort a baby because no one knows when life begins is like a structural engineer who thinks it's okay to implode a building before making sure that no one is in it. During the first days after 9/11, workers clearing the wreckage at the World Trade Center used their hands and buckets, not bulldozers, because there was the possibility that there could be living human beings underneath.
Stamd| 11.19.09 @ 2:22AM
Video Cutter|iTouch Converter for Mac
Job Revell| 12.3.09 @ 10:18PM
I strongly agree that we should have our own opinion or stand, but show complete respect for those who hold different views is essential.
jumpmanual and Mp3 rockets
Trackback| 12.22.09 @ 11:56PM
ma credit repair, on ma credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.23.09 @ 2:00AM
ma credit repair, on ma credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bobby Pro| 12.30.09 @ 2:21PM
I can see that you are an expert at your field! I am launching a website soon, and your information will be very useful for me.. Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business.
motto quality with kita semua.
Ronny Diaz| 1.7.10 @ 2:04PM
Wow, this was a really quality post. In theory I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real effort to make a good article... but what can I say... I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done.
mma pound for pound popular and complete fighter rankings ratings list.
hgteh| 1.29.10 @ 9:53PM
FLV Converter Mac can convert FLV file to other popular video formats with perfect sound and image quality.
MOD Converter for Mac can convert between all popular video, HD video and audio formats with super fast conversion speed and high output quality.
duduk di sofa| 3.20.10 @ 12:07AM
walmart new moon release party
walmart new moon release party 2010
todconverter | 3.26.10 @ 5:52AM
Tod Converter for Mac is the simplest and practical program before you edit .tod files in iMovie or FCP
hikohu| 4.7.10 @ 7:29PM
Life Lynched is good article ,thank you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
bobyu| 4.11.10 @ 8:23PM
this is a very good idea green bedding
jeniffer| 4.15.10 @ 7:53AM
True Business SSL
Thawt SSL123
kopit| 4.27.10 @ 5:54AM
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
dunia pewayangan
jim| 5.1.10 @ 11:21AM
Very fascinating.
Online Graphic Design
event marketing manager | 5.10.10 @ 6:00AM
writing an interesting and very useful,
informative
auto tips | 6.17.10 @ 10:50AM
Good information..
thanks for share about that
I'm waiting another article
lirik lagu | 6.20.10 @ 10:39AM
very great and informative post. thanks a lot for sharing it.