July 20, 2024

Keeping Media and Government Accountable.

Missouri Dems Disinvite Pro-Lifers From The Party

Share Now:
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Less than two months ago, the Democratic Party of Missouri caused a stir among its sister parties nationwide when it threw a bone to the vestigial pro-lifers still active in the party.

That bone took the form of an amendment to the state’s party platform. It read, “We respect the conscience of each Missourian and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and welcome into our ranks all Missourians who may hold differing positions on this issue.”

“We are tired of being second class citizens in our part,” said Joan Barry, a former state lawmaker from St. Louis County who introduced the amendment. “We just want to know we are accepted in the party under our broad umbrella.” The amendment passed but not without a lot of pushback.

Alison Dreith, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri, said at the time, “I’m really disheartened. I’m at a loss for words. With friends like these, why do we need enemies?”

Apparently, Missouri Democrats have decided that pro-lifers are the kind of friends that are not worth having. On Saturday, the state party’s central committee voted overwhelmingly to take the bone back.

The amendment passed in its stead leaves little wiggle room for Democratic pro-lifers. It affirms a whole jumble of “rights” thrown together in a euphemistic mishmash, among them: “a woman’s right to choose and the right of every person to their own bodily autonomy and to be free from government intrusion in medical decisions, including a decision to carry a pregnancy to term, and oppose any efforts to limit access to reproductive health care.”

The 48-word laundry list avoids the one word at the heart of the debate, namely “abortion.” Even worse, it makes no reference at all to the life that has to be sacrificed if a woman is to preserve her “bodily autonomy.”

As to the baby–a girl as likely as not–she has no bodily autonomy. If need be, her life is to be sacrificed on the altar of “choice,” and she has no choice about it. Pro-lifers cannot pretend otherwise.


Share Now:
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Articles

Post Tags

Get The Sentinel Newsletter

Support The Sentinel

Donate NOW!