Jimmy Carter: Democrats Should Change Their Position on Abortion

Carter

Jimmy Carter teaching Sunday School

Jimmy Carter appeared on radio show of conservative pundit Laura Ingraham recently.  Here is what he said about the Democratic Party’s position on abortion:

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions.”

“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”

Life News has context.

I think there are a lot of pro-life Democrats out there who would agree with Carter, but they do not make their voices heard for several reasons:

  1. They do not want to be ostracized by the Democratic Party.
  2. They are afraid that if they defend the unborn they will be accused of not caring about women’s rights.  (This, I believe, is a false dichotomy).
  3. They do not want to be associated with the divisive and unhelpful “baby-killing” culture war rhetoric of the Right.
  4. They do not endorse the Christian Right/GOP playbook that teaches the only way to reduce abortions is to overturn Roe. v. Wade.

8 thoughts on “Jimmy Carter: Democrats Should Change Their Position on Abortion

  1. I don’t think the Democrats can or necessarily should change their policy on legalized abortion.

    I agree that they could make a goal of reducing them by half, or more. The Republicans, for all their claims of pro life, have done little to promote perfectly legal means of drastically reducing the incidence of abortion.

    I say more on this here:
    http://yadontknow.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-pro-life-vote.html?m=1
    and here:
    http://yadontknow.blogspot.com/2016/11/dnc-platform-change.html?m=1
    and here:
    http://yadontknow.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-judge.html?m=1

    Like

  2. John,

    More power to Jimmy Carter on this matter, but if you see him, tell him not to hold his breath waiting for the DEMs to listen to him. The party apparatchiks have pretty well managed to purge all of the pro life voices. Furthermore, it would be hard for a new entrant into the primaries to gain enough votes to stand in the general election.

    Like

    • As James said, Carter’s entreaty on this issue will be ignored. He’s whispering into a hurricane.

      The Democratic party is now so extreme on abortion that 44 D’s in the Senate blocked a bill (Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act) that would have required doctors to provide the same medical care to a baby which survives an abortion attempt that they would give to any other living human.

      Here’s the relevant language, which D’s — including every presidential contender — could not bring themselves to support:

      “[Doctors shall] exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

      The bill expressly exempted mothers from prosecution and contained no limitations on a doctor’s ability to make medical decisions about critically ill babies. The bill would not prevent a single abortion from being performed. But the D party is now so in thrall to pro-abortion (yes, that is exactly the correct term; “safe, legal and rare” is not the goal) radicals, no leading D could muster up the moral courage to support this legislation.

      New York Democrats just passed a law — to ghoulish applause and cheers at the statehouse — that allows abortion for any reason, at any stage of a pregnancy, including post-birth termination. The D party is now openly pro-infanticide. What else do you call the position of someone who believes a mother, in conjunction with her doctor, can choose to kill a newborn baby that has survived an abortion? The Democrats and their media adjunct can lie and spin and obfuscate, but this is the reality.

      John spends a lot of time on this blog documenting the moral failings of Donald Trump — and they are myriad — and arguing that Christians should not support him. I’ve never believed that Christians must vote a certain way, or affiliate themselves with a particular political party. (I’m not even in favor of overturning Roe, due to the political convulsions that would produce.) I will say, however, that I don’t know how any Christian can look at the D party’s embrace of unrestricted abortion on demand, up to and including post-birth and not find this morally repellent — indeed, on balance far more wicked than anything Donald Trump has said or done.

      To borrow John’s phrase: the Democratic party’s slavish support of abortion without limits is very bad for America.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tony – Since I was unaware of the information you provided, I wonder if you would do me a big favor. Please cite the sources of the information you posted. And, please tell me where you get your news – what TV do you watch, what blog sites do you read, and anything else which may help me to understand your position.

        Like

        • If he can say without a trace of irony that any political party in America is ‘pro-infanticide” you know he’s not really listening to anything factual.

          I agree with President Carter BTW.

          Like

          • Virginia Guv Ralph Northam on what would happen to a fully developed infant born during the third trimester under a D bill (nearly identical to NY’s) expanding abortion:

            “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

            Pray tell, a discussion about what? Whether the child will be permitted to live, of course.

            Give Northam credit for unintentional honesty. I’m sorry, but there’s no way to spin this, Justin. Read the full text of Sasse’s bill — it’s readily available. It does not limit abortion. It does not make medical decisions for doctors. It merely says: if the baby is born alive, care must be provided consistent with what the doctor would render in any other circumstance.

            But the D party can’t vote for that, because it might limit the mother’s “right to choose.” Even post-birth. The holy sacrament of abortion must remain inviolate. Maybe you prefer some gentler euphemism — I’ll stick with infanticide.

            Like

        • This is an area where we truly need sober honest independent evaluation of the various legislative measures and countermeasures that have been passed or proposed. There is a lot of misinformation being passed around in regards to what these various measures do or do not do. I do not trust the characterizations from the pro choice left, as those voices tend to minimize and sanitize the practical effects of such measures, and do not always fairly represent the degree of permissive latitude these measures open up. Nor do I trust the characterizations from the pro life right, as again and again I see them mischaracterizing situations to stir up the base into a righteous wrath, and I know full well that they have no reservations whatsoever about placing women in perilous health situations or eliminating options in the worst case scenarios of terminally ill or nonviable infants. There is a lot of heat and noise on these issues but very little sound evaluation.

          Like

  3. When I vote for a democrat (roughly half the time):
    1) It’s often a pro-life democrat (shout out to Senator Bob Casey!)
    2) It’s because more infants die from miscarriages than abortion, and fossil fuels cause miscarriages. (Fossil fuels also kill a significant number of infants, toddlers, and children.)
    3) I’m more responsible for the fetuses I’m killing than the fetuses somebody else is killing.
    4) Ending fossil fuels would be permanent and global, overturning Roe v Wade would be temporary and only apply to 1% of the world.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s