Tipsheet

Radicals: New Polls Expose Democrats' Fringe Stances on Abortion, Race-Based Affirmative Action

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  February 26, 2019 2:05 PM

Two new nationwide surveys should serve as warning signs for the leftward-lurching Democratic Party, whose extremism is often underplayed or whitewashed by the mainstream media -- particularly on social issues.  As Lauretta covered yesterday, fresh data from Marist shows a major swing toward pro-life sentiment in the wake of Democrats' breathtaking and high-profile embrace of virtually unfettered late-term abortion.  As lawmakers in New York and Vermont follow in Oregon's radical footsteps, a related firestorm also erupted in Virginia, stirring a crescendo of controversy that has evidently captured the attention of many voters.  For the first time in a decade, the percentage of Americans describing themselves as "pro-life" on abortion has pulled even with the "pro-choice" cohort.  What is more clear than ever is that the emerging Democratic position -- abortion on demand throughout all stages of pregnancy -- is opposed by an overwhelming majority of voters:


Being on the wrong side of a so-called '80/20' issue is a risky and painful political posture, and Democrats are surely counting on the press providing public relations cover in order to suppress and spin away this extremism.  Just to put an even finer point on this polling result, eight out of ten Americans agree that abortions should generally not be permitted after the first trimester.  Indeed, nearly half of voters (48 percent) support significantly more restrictive measures:


Pro-life attitudes are manifestly mainstream, and many efforts to curb abortion represent strong consensus views.  And yet, last year, just six out of 242 Congressional Democrats voted in favor of a broadly popular bill that would have barred most abortions after five months of pregnancy.  Compare that legislative outcome with the Marist finding that a plurality of Americans who self-identify as "pro-choice" say the practice should only be legal during the first three months of pregnancy.  There is a dramatic disconnect between American public opinion on abortion and the Democratic Party's fanaticism, which obstinately obstructs any attempt to pull our inhumane abortion laws closer to international norms.  And yes, I use the term 'fanaticism' quite deliberately.  This is demented:


Writing at National Review, Alexandra DeSanctis mows down Democrats' weak, contradictory and inaccurate excuses they employed in criticizing and voting against Sen. Ben Sasse's straightforward anti-infanticide bill -- which did not seek to limit abortion in any way, and introduced a new layer of specific medical protection for born-alive infants: 


Sasse made an impassioned case for the legislation prior to the vote: 

Recommended

Joy Reid Spews Hate Toward Trump Supporters Once Again Sarah Arnold
Trump Drops a Flurry of Nominees to Head FDA, OMB, CDC, and HUD Matt Vespa
Just last month, New York repealed its state law protecting newborns who are born alive during failed abortions. After that, the disgraced Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, shamelessly defended infanticide, saying that a baby who survived an abortion would be “delivered” and “kept comfortable” before “a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Let’s speak plainly: This is barbaric. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would do nothing more than require that health care providers offer to a baby who survives an abortion the same level of medical care they would give to any other baby at the same gestational age. This isn’t about restricting access to abortion. We’re talking about making sure that newborn babies are treated with dignity and receive care whether they’re born in the maternity wing or an abortion clinic. This is the bare minimum in humane treatment. [This] vote should not be difficult.

All but three Senate Democrats (Manchin, Jones, Casey) voted against this bill, again underscoring the power of the hardcore, out-of-the-mainstream abortion lobby.  Maxie Hirono of Hawaii attacked Sasse's bill with this assertion: "Conservative politicians should not be telling doctors how they should care for their patients."  Actually, politicians do -- and should -- tell doctors that they may not kill their patients.  This is a party that is galloping away from "safe legal and rare," and toward ghoulish pro-abortion cheerleading.  And the logical ethical consequences of this ghoulish pro-abortion cheerleading increasingly requires blurring moral and scientific lines on flat-out infanticide.  Will the politicians who reject the views of a lopsided majority of voters, in favor of extremist pro-abortion forces, be held accountable?  Mitch McConnell vowed to maintain pressure: "This fight is not over. Republicans will not let this stunning extremism from our Democratic colleagues be the last word on this subject," he said this morning.  Meanwhile, given the outsized role identity and race play within Democratic politics these days, this statistic from Pew Research may also strike some on the center-Left as a red flag:


Many in elite lefty circles are positively obsessed with such considerations, yet approximately three-quarters of Americans believe institutions of higher learning should not weigh race and ethnicity at all in admissions processes.  Identity obsessives loudly insist that racial wokeness and justice must be paramount and ascendant priorities, with several Democratic presidential candidates even endorsing some form of race-based reparations schemes.  But most Americans seem quite comfortable with the idea of reducing the role of these factors in our society.  And guess which groups heavily agree?


Democratic presidential contenders deserve to be pressed on the issues infanticide, late-term abortion, race-based affirmative action, and reparations.  Will journalists have the integrity and courage to ask these questions in high-profile settings?