The 2012 U.S. presidential election isn’t that far from modern American politics. The Democrats had chosen the first term President Barack Obama for re-election, while the Republicans selected Mitt Romney as their candidate.
Every four years, political parties hold a convention to decide their party platform. One of the most memorable moments during the platform process was when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presided over the Democrat’s convention on the amendment to restore the mention of “God” in the platform.
The amendment required a two-thirds majority vote in the affirmative. Each round, Mayor Villaraigosa had a hard time determining whether the “yes” outweighed the “no” from the large crowd. It took 3 votes for them to ultimately decide, but each round was really hard. By the audio from the crowd, you could really hear 50-50 not a solid two-thirds in favor. However, after the third vote, Mayor Villaraigosa used his presiding power and made the judgment to allow the mention of God to be included in their platform.
After speaking, the “no” voters booed boisterously in the convention center. They had the right to do so because it was clearly undecided. Many conservatives went online and stated the dilemma regarding the amendment was “Democrats Show Lack of Respect for God” or something along those lines.
Fast forward to the 2016 election between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and now President Donald Trump. Both parties still had a convention, and delegates voted on platforms. Surprisingly, The 2016 Democrat National Party Platform mentions the word “God” three times, while 2012 used it only once. In the latest platform, it’s not so much that it’s used, but the context in which it’s used that’s really concerning.
In the heading “Bring Americans Together and Remove Barriers to Opportunities” Democrats use “God-given potential” to advocate social justice for oppressed and marginalized groups.
“Democrats believe that everyone deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. We know that there are barriers standing in the way of that goal, from the enduring scourge of systemic racism to our deeply broken immigration system to discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity—and we are committed to facing those problems and fixing them.”
This snippet really encompasses modern-day Progressivism. I’m totally committed to social justice. Even earned a degree in social work because of my desire to do so. I work as a teacher and I’m committed to education as a source of power for people of color. I’m in favor of Catholic Social Teaching. But this quote is a bit misleading because Democrats don’t necessarily practice what they preach.
On the topic of discrimination and racism, I couldn’t agree more. There have been instances in America’s history when discrimination was rampant toward individuals young and old. However, to declare that everyone has the opportunity to live up to their “God-given potential” is a false charge on their part.
While embracing the umbrella tent model of social justice open to all marginalized groups, the Democratic party refuses to incorporate the unborn as a person who can live up to their true “God-given potential.” In fact, the unborn person doesn’t even get an opportunity to advocate on their behalf because of “women’s reproductive choice ” which is a code word for women to have complete autonomy over their body in matters of reproduction.
When referring to “systematic racism” what about the targeted attempts by Planned Parenthood to infiltrate communities of color to sell abortion? There’s at least an approaching 100-year-old embedded history of controlling populations popularized by white supremacist scientist that advocated the inferiority of the negro with their papers and theories.
Furthermore, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) (from Life Site News), has reported a disproportionate number of abortions from people of color. Although only six percent of the population, Black women getting an abortion is higher than White-Women, with African-American women making up about 35% abortions, while White Women make up 77% of the population but makeup 37% of abortions. Some Democrats like to advocate for abortions that are “safe, legal and rare”, but for Black women the issue of a “rare” abortion is foreign.
If the Democratic party truly believes in the “God-given potential” of everyone, why are there so many barriers for elderly patients to live without compromising their human dignity by embracing euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide, unborn children being aborted after 20 weeks, and something that’s becoming more aware of the public is abortion due to down syndrome?
Yep, gene selected abortions. Sounds like something from a horrible dystopian film where the government picks “fit” and “unfit” people to be productive members of society.
Back in December 2017, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed a law that banned abortions with babies on the basis of down syndrome diagnosis.
You know, a common sense law that sought to ensure all life, regardless of handicap, is seen with the same worth and dignity as a fully functioning baby.
At the time of its passage, many pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood decried the bill as anti-women’s choice.
This week a federal Ohio judge struck down the law because it prohibited a woman’s choice. Regardless of the juridical jargon, the law basically reinforces the flawed belief that unborn lives, specifically those with down syndrome, can be discarded like trash because they’re unworthy to live. As if abortion for down syndrome babies isn’t high, currently suggested that the termination rate is 67%.
I’m really shocked looking back at the Democratic Party Platform and what it claims to uphold. “God-given potential” recognizes all humans are created in the Image and Likeness of God. As a result, lives are awarded the unique characteristics that make up their humanity and reveals how sacred life is. From its most basic format conception to the deathbed, all lives matter!
Progressivism used to champion itself as the belief of breaking down the glass ceiling for people of color and women. This invisible ceiling to progressives blocked upward mobility in society. It would seem like they’re not fully in favor of breaking down all glass ceilings for all people. It seems as though progressives place a glass ceiling on what it means to be human and often times you’ll hear varying opinions about what constitutes a person. To many, being human is a subjective truth.
If progressives really believed that “everyone deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential” remove the barriers from people of color that stop their children from fulfilling their chance at life. If we allow Dreamers, which they deserve, a chance at the American Dream, why not the unborn?
Follow me on Twitter @Menny_Thoughts