Opinion

Pro-life group announces its backing of an avowed pro-choice politician

Senator Scott Brown – if only he’d give a “thumbs up” to the issues that truly matter. Photo credit: Beckwith-Zink (Diane) on Flickr

You may have to read the Daily Kos article at least twice to really understand what it’s saying. And that’s by no fault of the author, Joan McCarter. Instead, the subject matter is just plain out confusing and contradictory. Scott Brown, the Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts is, simply put, a pro-life mess. Or, you might prefer to call him a pro-choice mess. Seems that’s what he would prefer. Yeah, no matter how you phrase it, Scott Brown and abortion in the same sentence will never be a simple matter.

According to the Daily Kos, Scott Brown “says to anyone who will listen that he is pro-choice”. Indeed, while many Republicans rejoiced at Brown’s election, many conservatives were disappointed that he was and is a self-proclaimed pro-choicer. The Daily Kos reports:

Brown was asked by a report on Wednesday if he would pledge to ‘never vote in the Senate to curb women’s reproductive rights,’ and he responded, ‘I have a long record of this already.[...] I’ll promise that. I’ve already been on record on that.’

Brown’s own website goes into great detail, explaining just how pro-choice he is. Here’s a small taste:

Scott Brown Is Pro-Choice

Brown Sent A Letter To Reince Priebus, Chairman Of The Republican National Committee, Calling On The Party To Be More Inclusive On The Issue Of Abortion, Saying We Must Be A “Big-Tent” Party.

Brown Supports Roe Vs. Wade.

Scott Brown Supports Funding Planned Parenthood

After reading those words – and many others – it may come as a great shock that the Massachusetts Citizens for Life have decided to support Brown. But that’s exactly what they’ve done. The Boston Globe details the story:

‘We consider him a senator who votes prolife,’ said Anne Fox, president of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. ‘We have to take his word for it when he says he is prochoice. But what we’re looking for is someone who votes prolife, and he does.’

Brown said he would not reject the backing of Massachusetts Citizens for Life but reiterated that he considers himself a supporter of abortion rights.

Despite the fact that the National Right to Life Committee has given Brown an 80% rating on their most recent scorecard and despite the fact that Massachusetts Senate races are not known for solidly pro-life candidates, it still seems inconsistent for a pro-life organization to be backing a politician who claims to support Roe v. Wade and votes to fund Planned Parenthood.

Let’s put the 80% rating by the NRLC in context… The five votes that were rated by NRLC last session were not purely pro-life pieces of legislation. Three of the five related to ObamaCare – which Republicans overwhelmingly oppose, regardless of their views on abortion. Another of the five related to political free speech – again, not a purely pro-life issue. And finally, the one piece of legislation that Brown disagreed with pro-lifers on was perhaps the most important of all: a vote to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. Brown voted to keep our taxpayer dollars rolling merrily into Planned Parenthood’s pile of blood money.

After that information, Massachusetts Citizens for Life’s backing seems all the more surprising. (Note that the Globe reports that MCFL does not consider their support to be a “formal endorsement.”) But Scott Brown wants to keep putting our hard-earned money into the back pockets of Cecile Richards and her horde of abortion doctors. He publicly states that he supports Roe v. Wade. He is proudly pro-choice, by his own descriptions.

I am not addressing the issue of whether or not Massachusetts citizens should vote for Scott Brown or not. But what I am saying is that, if we want to be taken seriously, pro-lifers should never try to convince the public that a self-proclaimed abortion supporter is actually pro-life in his heart. We should not act like it’s okay for any person – politician or not – to support Roe v. Wade, widely claim to be pro-choice, pledge to never vote to curb a woman’s supposed right to choose, and vote to give our money to Planned Parenthood.

Scott Brown is not pro-life, and he should not be represented as such, especially by a pro-life organization. Period.

Live Action on Facebook
  • P.D.

    i agree with you that the hypocrisy of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life is appalling. but i can’t say i’m surprised by it.

  • http://twitter.com/dreadhelm Josh Craddock

    More evidence that NRLC is a compromised organization that serves no purpose but to register more Republican voters… http://prolifeprofiles.com/national-right-to-life

    Remember when they called John McCain “the biggest threat to the pro-life movement” and then gave him a 100% pro-life record and endorsed him for President 8 years later?

  • Anne Fox

    Kristi,
    A close reading of the Globe story will reveal that I said Massachusetts Citizens for Life never endorses candidates who are not pro-life and, therefore, we did not endorse Sen. Brown in 2010 and will not do so in 2012. We will recommend that our people vote for him because he does, in fact, vote pro-life, is in favor of repealing O-care, and his opponent is an Obama clone.
    We have worked closely with people at Live Action in the past. If you have any questions about our positions, we would be happy to talk to you.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Hi Anne,

      Thanks for your comment. I looked over the Globe story, and perhaps they didn’t quote you exactly right because I don’t see anything in the article about MCFL never endorsing candidates who are not pro-life and not endorsing Sen. Brown in 2010 or 2012. In fact, the article states that MCFL did back Brown in 2010. But I’ve definitely been quoted incorrectly before, so I know how that goes! I did, however, find this paragraph:

      “Fox said the group does not consider its support for Brown a formal endorsement because of Brown’s stated support for legalized abortion.But she said the group would urge its members to vote for the senator and enlist volunteers for his campaign.”From what I’ve seen, a lot of news outlets and blogs would consider the kind of support MCFL is giving Sen. Brown an endorsement, albeit not a formal one. (Even an editorial from the Globe itself calls MCFL’s support an “endorsement”. The Daily Kos article I referenced also calls it an “endorsement.”) However, I apologize for not stating that your organization does not consider your support a formal endorsement. After your comments and you sharing your position with me, I’m happy to change my article to use the words “backing” and “support” instead of “endorsement.”
      I’ll also be happy to contact you in the future if I write any articles concerning MCFL. Thanks again for writing.Kristi Brown

  • Steven Ertelt

    You need to consider the location and the race. In Massachusetts, residents have a choice between an ardent pro-abortion activist in Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, a Republican who, while he supports abortion, has cast some pro-life votes. In fact, Brown voted for the Blunt Amendment against the Obama HHS mandate, voted to repeal pro-abortion Obamacare, voting to block funding for pro-abortion Obamacare, and voted against the DISCLOSE Act, that would have limited the free speech rights of pro-life groups. On these issues alone, there is a clear enough contrast to prefer Brown to Warren (were I leading MCFL I would use ‘prefer’ rather than ‘endorse’ language). Moreover, Brown voted against pro-abortion Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court
    Repealing Obamacare, the biggest funding scheme for abortion since Roe, and blocking pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court is MONUMENTAL. Despite his technical pro-abortion stance, it is VITAL that Massachusetts send Scott Brown back to the Senate again because the votes on Obamacare and judges will absolutely depend on which party controls the Senate.

    Ironically, Brown would likely vote for most any of the Supreme Court judges a President Romney would put forward – judges who could ultimately vote to overturn Roe and start the beginning of the end of abortion. Not sure if there is anything MORE principled than that!

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Steven, thanks for your points. As I said, I definitely see that there is a hard situation going on in Massachusetts. They certainly don’t have an overwhelming number of pro-life candidates to choose from! I agree that Scott Brown has cast some good votes. I agree that he is better than the alternative (in my personal opinion, not in an opinion from Live Action.) My point is that I still think it is inconsistent for pro-life organizations to endorse candidates who are as open about their pro-choice beliefs and their support of Roe v. Wade as Brown is.

  • Steven Ertelt

    Leave it to Josh Craddock to attack pro-lifers looking to do the best they can to protect the babies instead of attacking the PP/NARAL/Emily’s List candidate and her abrotion agenda. Whose side are you on?

    • http://twitter.com/dreadhelm Josh Craddock

      Dude, you’re defending a pro-choice politician who is proud of being pro-choice…..

  • Anne Fox

    Kristi, I notice you are a pro-life activist in Colorado. Massachusetts used to be like you – two senators who voted 100% pro-abortion. It is nice to have one senator who voted 100% pro-life his first year and 80% this year. I hope Colorado will have similar good fortune very soon.

  • AnneG

    So, pray for his conversion of heart. I was converted! That’s what we are supposed to do!

  • Pingback: Pro-Life Group Endorses Avowed Pro-Choice Politician

  • Pingback: When They've Flown: Making the Most of Every Season « bsafeguide1365n

  • Pingback: Democrats for Life of America Endorses Candidate Who “Will Oppose Efforts to Weaken Roe“