The Necessity of Pro-life Vetting: a Look at the U.S. Senate Candidate Forum
By Terra Mork
In recent years, the vetting process has become necessary to test the substance of political labels. The word "pro-life" has often been reduced to a check-mark on a political platform, or elevated to a badge of honor that ends all inquiry from voters. We saw this during the last presidential election cycle when John McCain wooed the conservative base by proclaiming that life begins at conception. At the time, I was among the naive, applauding McCain's black-and-white ethics on life. What he failed to mention in that bold answer was that the right of that human to be protected, was in his mind, not absolute. McCain's brand of pro-life was the kind that gave a pass to the destruction of embryos and made concessions to pro-aborts. As Life of the Party founder Michelle McIntyre explains, "The Republican Party has been content with shallow labeling and symbolic measures" and "national pro-life lobbying groups have patted themselves on the back simply because the movement still exists even as, under their hand, it has stagnated." It is no longer enough to ask the tough questions, pro-lifers must know how to ask the right questions.
On February 12th, five of the candidates running against Patty Murray were introduced before a pro-life audience at a forum co-sponsored by Life of the Party and Abortion in Washington. There were eight known candidates actively campaigning at the time of the forum, all of whom were invited to participate. The five in attendance were