Yes, it’s over. Scott Brown is senator-elect from the state of Massachusetts (Trust me, I’m from Minnesota. I know ALL about proper terminology for a senator that has won the election but has yet to be sworn in.) Anti-abortion groups across the nation are cheering the victory of their new standard bearer. But once they get to know him, will there be any buyers remorse?
According to Catholic News Agency, Brown’s victory over his Democratic challenger Martha Coakley was in effect a win FOR women.
Several prominent pro-life leaders are responding to Scott Brown’s
Senate victory in Massachusetts last night, with one saying that
Brown’s success is a “win” for American women.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life political action
group Susan B. Anthony List said on Wednesday that “The election of
Scott Brown is no accident,” and that “The American people have spoken
“Martha Coakley’s defeat is not a setback for women in politics, it is a victory,” the SBA List president said.
She went on to call Scott Brown’s success “a win for the majority of
American women who demand authentic representation that reflects
commonsense pro-life views, like abortion funding restrictions and
“Abortion is never good for women,” Dannenfelser asserted , “and it
should never be a legitimate aspect of any ‘health care’ debate.”
However, as the Washington Post reminds us, Brown really isn’t an anti-abortion candidate, and abortion really had little to do with his election.
Ron Kaufman, the longtime Republican National Committee member from
Massachusetts, said that "it was a perfect storm" that made it
"We had a really good candidate," Kaufman said. "A military veteran,
a family guy, a fiscal conservative, moderate on social issues, a
pro-choice Catholic. But it was bigger than that. The Democrats didn’t
understand that people here are very upset with the way things are
going in Washington, just as they are elsewhere. They see big sums
being spent, big deficits piling up, and they want to send a message."
In fact, he had a tendancy to waver when actually supporting some key anti-choice legislation.
He once proposed an amendment which would have allowed emergency room
doctors to deny emergency contraception to rape victims based on the
doctor’s religious beliefs, which drew the ire of fellow Republicans.
But, Brown voted for the final version of the bill without the
Some columnists are already warning the right that their newest poster boy might not be the all they were hoping for.
Scott Brown will join the Senate’s small abortion rights Republican
caucus — he supports Roe v. Wade, though he also backs some
restrictions on abortion — but his win is still being welcomed by a
long list of anti-abortion groups, whose statements you can read here.
“Martha Coakley’s extreme embrace of abortion may have endeared her to
EMILY’s List and the abortion lobby, but it did little to win votes
today," said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser,
rubbing in the defeat in a race that Coakley tried to make about
There’s a limit to this, of course: Brown shares far more with
Coakley than with Dannenfelser, as far as his positions go, and his
defense wasn’t to reassert anti-abortion values — it was that he
supports abortion rights.
I guess we will see how long the anti-choice activists enjoy their newest addition.
January 21, 2010
a blind eye to abortion
questionable actions resurface Kansas City Star
January 20, 2010
v. Wade anniversary to be marked with flags Coshocton Tribune
leader and March for Life pioneer Nellie Gray marches on Catholic San Francisco
leaders cheer Brown’s win over Coakley
Catholic News Agency
Agrees To Air Pro-Life
Focus on the Family Superbowl Spot
a misdirection Amador
Marches Take on New Significance Christian Post
of the Day: Integrate Reproductive Health Services and Family Planning … Center For American Progress
record doesn’t always match everyman image Washington Post
groups welcome Brown Politico
Anti Abortion Groups To Square Off By Ferry Building Saturday The San Francisco Appeal
election is a wake-up call for Democrats Washington Post