Life of the Party

Why We Must Oppose Rape and Incest Exceptions

Meet Ed Mohs, a husband, father, grandfather, engineer, local pro-life activist and  Republican PCO.  Ed was concieved through rape, and is a reminder of the personhood of every child in the womb, no matter the circumstances of their conception. 

If the child in the womb is a person, so must it be that a child in the womb who is a product of rape.  When politicians say they're "pro-life", but with the exceptions of rape and incest and health/life of the mother, they leave these people out and fail to make the case that any pre-born children are worthy of protection.  In fact, this is what happened in Roe vs. Wade, when Texas and other state prohibitions on abortions were examined in light of the question of whether or not the fetus was entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections as a person.  Here it is from that famous court opinion, delivered by Justice Blackmun:

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?

If there will ever be any challenge to Roe vs. Wade, it must be done by establishing the personhood of all preborn children...no exceptions.  Some say that this isn't pragmatic enough, that we must "chip away" at Roe.  Nonsense.  This will put us right back to where we started.  

But putting aside the legal questions, let us remember that by accepting the idea that it is "pro-life" even when one has these "exceptions", we leave out people like Ed.  See also, Rebecca Kiessling.   

Life of the Party Endorses Delavar for Congress

Life of the Party is proud to endorse Michael Delavar, candidate for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District. 

Michael is a principled candidate who is committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and ending legalized abortion through the most sensible means of defining personhood as beginning at conception or "fertilization" in the law.  This simple step would automatically place preborn children under the protection of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

Not only does Michael hold true to the first of our founding principles, the Right to Life, but across the board, he examines every issue with the guiding light of the Constitution.  At times, this puts him at odds with pro-life organizations and with his party.  But it ought not be that way.  His position on Life is solid, not discriminating towards babies conceived through rape or incest, and he only differs with pro-life organizations on some of their pragmatic legislative proposals, because a) they violate a particular constitutional principle or b) they further enshrine Roe vs. Wade into the law.  With his party, he is at odds over the war, but his position is more in line with traditional Republican thought in the model of Robert Taft.  Republicans who fancy themselves Goldwater or Reagan Republicans, would do well to go back and read the book A Choice Not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly, which helped to propel the candicacy and presidential primary victory of Goldwater, and ultimately paved the way for the Reagan Revolution.  Shlafly's book exposes the backroom manipulation by big government figures in past Republican primaries, to ensure that no conservative got nominated within the party.  The primary issues were opposing big government, including the New Deal domestic policies and foreign interventionism, both of which benefited the fat cat power brokers who were manipulating public opinion through their media and corporate connections.  Robert Taft was considered a model conservative in this landmark book. 

This brings us to Michael's primary challenge, which will be covered here soon.  For now, please visit Michael's website and donate or get involved to help this principled, pro-life, constitutional, freedom loving candidate for Congress!

Local Pro-Life Powerhouse Celebrates Third Year of Publishing

Congratulations to Mary and Jonathan at Abortion in Washington!  They have some amazing accomplishments in their three short years as highlighted in their celebration post, including some incredible admissions by Planned Parenthood and NARAL officials, as well as a look at their shady finances.  Aside from their groundbreaking investigative reporting on the abortion industry, the profound commentary offered by Mary E., is worth reading, even a second time around.  Two of my favorite posts are: Liberty Line and Death and Taxes.  Both are refllections on her visits to Planned Parenthood, where we spent many hours together in last year's local 40 Days for Life Campaign (of which, by the way, will be launching its third nationally coordinated campaign within a 12 month period).   

If you don't already have Abortion in Washington blog bookmarked, you should.  There's sure to be more astounding news as they uncover the truth about the abortion industry in Washington, and provide profound insights into the dignity of life and of women, the privelaged bearers of life.  It's a pleasure to have such an ally working in the trenches to restore the Right to Life in Washington State and across America! 

More Pro-Life Activism and Conservative Values

Suzanne Gallus, who has been featured here before, has announced her greatest accomplishment this year.  Aside from getting ready to give birth to her 5th baby girl (all within 7 years), she has managed to do the impossible:  Comply with Washington State car seat law without having to buy a 12 passenger van.  Read about how it's done by a pro. 

Pro-Life Leaders Implode While Pro-Life Rank and File Soar

Politics Jaded. Prayer Works. Who Knew?

The Trigger

It started Sunday, November 4th. Fred Thompson, the man whom many conservatives hoped would be "the next Ronald Reagan", committed the un-Reaganesque thumbing of nose at the pro-life plank of the Republican Party platform. It happened on "Meet the Press".  Tim Russert, his persistent interviewer, read the entire plank aloud, and asked for Thompson's position on it.  He opposed it.  It was a serious blow to many of his pro-life supporters.

Committed pro-lifers who are fairly new to the 30 year debate over how best to strategically end legalized abortion, might consider his mere opposition to supporting a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution acceptable, especially in light of his support for overturning Roe vs. Wade.  If one considered it long enough, one would realize that his position, supporting the overturning of Roe, and then leaving it to the states, would have allowed slavery to continue in some states. 

But it gets worse.  When pressed, Thompson said, that although he believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion is the taking of a human life, he doesn't believe it ought to be "criminalized" (read: made illegal).

The blow set off....   

The Implosion

All in the same week:

Evangelical leader, Pat Robertson, would endorse pro-abortion, pro-gay, cross dressing, adulterer, Rudy Giuliani, the man who has inspired a sizeable opposition among serious Catholics, a key constituency for Republicans. 

After flirting with the idea of doing the same, and then receiving outrage from his former supporters, Senator Sam Brownback, former candidate for president, instead chose to gamble away his pro-life Catholic political capital on "Gang of 14" leader, embryonic stem-cell research supporter, illegal immigrant slave trader, John McCain.   

Paul Weyrich, Founding President of the preeminent conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation, and considered by many to be the "father of the modern religious conservative movement", would endorse "Multiple Choice Mitt" Romney. 

David Osteen, Director of The National Right to Life Committee, would defend Thompson's "pro-life" voting record on nominally pro-life legislation as proof enough of his pro-life position, in spite of his aforementioned opposition to making abortion illegal.  (UPDATE: A week later, the National Right to Life would endorse Thompson!)

What disappointment and disarray! What confusion and utter chaos! 

From the Ashes

For the last several months, the diverse array of pro-life bloggers have been cheering on their guy (any one of the nine eight, well...nine if you include Alan Keyes) and yet anticipating the whole of our movement to pick one of the Republican candidates to get behind before the primaries and caucuses, so we'll be united and ready to defeat the pro-death wing of the Republican party and their covert plans, so we can move on to defeat Hillary.  And then these "leaders" divide themselves up between our worse possible choices. 

It would be depressing if it wasn't so comical.  Or so biblical. (Psalm 2:2-4)

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord,  and against his anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

Amazingly, this implosion was triggered on day 40 of the 40 Days for Life campaign, the largest simultaneous, pro-life mobilization in history that promises to be "the beginning of the end of abortion in America." 

The campaign was not political, though of course, we hoped it would have political impact.  It was a mobilization of thousands of Christians across 90 cities, to pray and fast, and hold peaceful vigil in front of their local abortion clinic.  Some cities also did community outreach to educate the public about abortion, but the main components were prayer, fasting and vigil outside the abortion clinic.  Prayer to end abortion, in our laws and in our hearts, for the mothers, the fathers, the clinic workers and all involved, including politicians. 

Those of us participating had little to no time for politics during the 40 days.  We were on the front lines.  We saw amazing things that only come about through the power of God.  Answers to prayers for the individuals we saw there.  I really could write a book about our campaign in Everett, Washington alone, and if I can stop for long enough, I just might.  (Check out the blog) 

I wondered many times aloud, what would transpire on day 40.  Would the Jericho Walls of Planned Parenthood come crumbling down?  Would the liberal U.S. Congress suddenly have an "aha" moment and pass laws outlawing abortion?  Would married women of childbearing age and their husbands suddenly be converted to embrace the gift of their fertility and of life, and single men and women commit to saving themselves for marriage?  I hoped.

No.  Instead of the Culture of Death imploding, pro-life leadership did.  This is consistent with what I felt that God was saying through the 40 Days for Life campaign.

Though I knew that it was not beyond the power of God to crush the Culture of Death, with only a word, as I told the crowd at our midway rally, I was convinced that He wouldn't.  That instead, He was calling all of us to take part in ending abortion.  More than putting a bumper sticker on our car, or voting for the right candidate, or even campaigning for the right candidate.  More than giving a few dollars to a pro-life organization.  What He wants from us is not political, but will have impact on politics.   

He wants total commitment from us.  He wants repentance and sacrifice.  Our own sins have had a part in getting us where we are too, and He is calling us to repentance for ourselves and for our nation.  Repentance for our immorality as well as for our apathy and for our lack of courage.  Our actions, as Fr. Pavone says, "have not reflected the magnitude" of the blood that spills out daily on our land from abortion, and cries out to God...that is, until 40 Days for Life, according to Fr. Pavone.  I agree.

Participants here in Everett, showed the magnitude by giving of their time, standing out in the cold, sometimes rainy, sometimes stormy, windy weather, often enduring insults from Planned Parenthood supporters, to show their love and commitment to the mothers and babies and most of all, to God. 

Soaring to Heaven

Everyone who took part in the 40 days across the nation has sacrificed in some way, and each is a touching story.  I encourage you to learn about Regis Burlas (pictured left), the man in his 80's, who was killed in a car accident on his way to a 40 Days for Life vigil in Jacksonville, FL on the final Saturday (listen to the audio version of the story here).  You will be moved when you hear about the deep commitment to life that Regis and his wife shared.            

Though the exhausting 40 Days has concluded, pro-lifers have a renewed commitment and energy to work like we've never worked before and pray like we've never prayed before, with firm resolve to end abortion.  After rejuvenating for a little bit, here in Everett, we will continue to hold vigils on targeted days in front of the local Planned Parenthood.  New people are entering pro-life work for the first time, and veterans are encouraged by their presence to persevere.  Whether it be weekly prayer vigils, sidewalk counseling, pregnancy aid or post-abortion counseling, running for public office or teaming up to flood the caucuses, pro-lifers are committed.  We will not quit until we see the end or until our Lord calls us home. 

If the latter comes first, I suppose we'll still be at it there. 

Victory and Peace

I think it's no coincidence that the aforementioned implosion was triggered on day 40.  I see the hand of God in it.  The Human Life Amendment hasn't had this much public discussion for a long time.  Now it does.  On day 41, a Washington State potential candidate for Congress, from Seattle, no less, wrote in favor of it, and 2 presidential candidates responded to Thompson's opposition of it.   

Putting it charitably, I think the imploding pro-life leaders are tired and weary.  Their endorsements aren't likely to change the opinion of very many voters.  If they were combined, it would be another story.  Thank God they're not. 

As I write this, my feed reader has a new headline from the Sound Politics public blog, "Big News for Pro-Life Washington Tonite" [SIC].  The news is that "A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills [which works as a chemical abortion if the woman is pregnant], a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government. "

And last night, I saw something else that was inspiring, and what I believe to be part of God's plan in all of this.  A new film maker has a trailer out for their first film, due out in Spring of '08.  It's called "Come What May" and it's about Roe vs. Wade, and the trailer indicates a theme of "no compromises".  "Do the Right Thing, Come What May," it's graphic says.  What a fitting name.  That should be our new theme. 

I don't know what will happen when Republican primary and caucus voters make their choice.  Politics is jaded.  Though it shouldn't be.  My hope is that they will pick one of the few candidates who consistently stand for Life and for our nation's founding principles.  I hope these candidates have a heart to heart before that, and decide which one of them should go forward, so that we don't split the pro-life vote or split the coalition, and as a result, hand the nomination to Rudy.  I'm hoping some of the other campaigns implode before then. 

Our nation is at a turning point in the coming months.  But whatever happens on a political scale, I know that it's all in God's hands.  His Truth is Marching On!

Our job is to "do the right thing, come what may."  Don't compromise.  Pray.  Trust in God's mercy and perfect justice. 

Pro-Life Candidate for Congress Inspired by 40 Days for Life Campaign

Steve Beren, who ran for Congress in 2006, against the militantly pro-abortion incumbent Jim McDermott, participated in the 40 Days for Life campaign last Friday morning. 

It wasn't the only bold move he made on behalf of the unborn, rarely seen by a Washington State Republican.  Inspired by his experience, he posted a beautiful defense of a Human Life Amendment, confidently and eloquently defending the National Republican Party Platform language that's been calling for a Human Life amendment since 1984, and supported by Ronald Reagan. 

Perhaps he can have some influence on some of the other Republicans in our state.  Pro-lifers ought to read his post and express their support in the comment box.  With respectful debate, and with continued prayer and fasting, they might start listening. 

Meanwhile, in other news, another presidential candidate bites the dust on the life issue.  Fred Thompson, you're no Ronald Reagan.  Perhaps if you could spent an hour or two praying in front of Planned Parenthood and an hour reading Steve Beren's website, you might come a little closer.   

Now THIS is Pro-Life...

Activism!  Congratulations Suzanne and Pete! 

Previous Suzanne story: Preserving Our Most Endangered Species

You'd Think It'd Be a No-Brainer...

...that children are a BLESSING!  Yet, a vocal minority finds it outrageous that a family going about their own business, open to the blessings of children--as many as God chooses to give them--in fact, 17 and counting, not taking any handouts from government.  Who is this controversial family? The Duggar Family.  But leave it to a "regular guy" to make some sense, and then capture the attention of The Washington Times for it.  From Thoughts of a Regular Guy:

Some people love the Duggars. Most of these either want or have children, and they're impressed that anyone can seem to do such a difficult job as childrearing so successfully on such a large scale. They're impressed that anyone can place such trust in God, and that anyone could have so much selfless love.

Others viscerally hate the Duggars. The comments on my several posts (approaching 200 comments total) about the Duggars betray an appalling contempt for Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar personally, and also for children, families, homeschooling and Christians in general, but most of all outrage at the idea that there might be someone out there not using artificial contraception.

I've had people make nearly obscene speculations about the effect of repeated childbirth on parts of Michelle's anatomy (people, God made women resilient. Look it up).

I've had people insist that's it horrid that the older children help watch the younger children, and otherwise help out around the house. They must not have children, because children raised in a loving home cannot be stopped from helping out with all manner of tasks, including the care of their younger siblings.

People who think nothing of the millions of children in this country left in daycare for 10 or 12 hours a day worry that the Duggar kids don't get enough time with their parents.

People who are happy to have 20 million Mexicans come here illegally are offended that an American family might have "too many" children.

It offends people who wear very little that the Duggar girls wear dresses.

Time was, being counter-cultural was trendy and approved of. But now that the counter-culture has become the dominant culture, it seems that its proponents will brook no alternatives.

The Duggars are the wave of the future. To the liberals who read this, let me ask you, how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren will Jim Bob and Michelle have by the end of this century? And how many will you have?

I highly doubt that this is the largest family in America. I strongly suspect that there is a subculture out there of families of 10-20 -- or more -- children, possibly thousands, or tens of thousands of such families. They just don't get media coverage.

But the children of large families are a growing demographic in America. I expect they're largely conservative and Christian, and they will be a dominant force in elections in the coming decade.

Here's a challenge to liberals:  If you're so worried about conservatives outnumbering  you, why don't you have more babies?  Go ahead.  Make my day.

Preserving Our Most Endangered Species

Suzanne Gallus recently got a good chuckle at the subtitle of Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con book: "How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party)"  It's uncertain whether or not she'd agree with Dreher's entire thesis, but "right-wing", "gun loving","nature loving", "hip homeschooling mama", she certainly is.  She even owns a pair of Birkenstocks.  She enjoys nature, organic food, good cheese and good wine like her liberal northwest neighbors, and the "sacramental life" that Dreher advocates is all par for the course in her devout Catholic family life, of which you can get a delightful glimpse by visiting her blog, Gladdest Hours. 

She may part ways however, with this "tribe" if it's going to be made up of the likes of Republicans like Ralph Munro, former Washington Secretary of State. Monroe recently touted the book for its "environmental advocacy" at the Washington Mainstream Republicans' Cascade Conference during a forum where the panel lamented the direction the "Christian Right" wishes to take the party (especially on abortion).  Suzanne is a good stewart of the earth by her own initiative, (she recycles, conserves energy, bakes her own bread, and her family even keeps a compost bin for food scraps, producing rich soil to give back to the earth) but she doesn't support the policies of the environmentalist movement of which Munro is part.  In her outlook, people come before animals and trees, and are the endangered species list with which she is most concerned. 

We recently got together for lunch, our kids in tow, at McDonald's Playland (not very crunchy) after going to hear a symphony (very crunchy).  It is clear from our visit, what a superb job at raising their 4 young daughters, she and her husband are doing.  They are so well mannered, thoughtful and don't even lose their attention span through a 45 minute symphony.  Well, maybe the last 10 minutes or so, but nothing got out of control.  This outing was so full of fun, it did not leave room for our interview, so it was conducted through e-mail and phone conversations.  Between then and now, I think this discussion prompted her to write her own thoughts about her contribution to pro-life politics, "changing the world, one diaper at a time".  But here is our "interview":

Life of the Party (LOTP): How long have you been a Republican and how did it come about?

Suzanne: Since 1997. Some of the things I had always heard my dad talk about started to make sense; he's very conservative. I was 27 years old, working and single, starting to re-evaluate my career, religion, family, politics.  They are all connected, and one epiphany about an issue just led to something else "clicking" and suddenly, all these things started to make sense.  I found my answers in conservative politics, Catholicism, and traditional family values.  I got involved in the Young Republicans in Seattle, met many great people (Lifeoftheparty  Blogger included),  I got married 2 years later in 1999, and now have 4 children. 

LOTP: Would you say the Right to Life issue is your number one issue?  If not, where would you rank it among your top issues?  Do you consider it "negotiable?" 

Suzanne: Definitetely the number 1 issue and not negotiable. 

LOTP: What are your top issues in order of priority? 

Suzanne:

1. Right to Life - (Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual Marriage, Human Cloning, Embryonic Stem Cell Research)  We consider the 5 LIFE issues to be non-negotiable moral principles about which we cannot compromise.
2. Second Amendment Rights
3. Illegal Immigration
4. Taxes 

LOTP: How do you select what candidates to vote for in a primary?

Suzanne: I ask friends who are knowledgeable, look on websites for endorsements from pro-life organizations such as Human Life of WA, and second amendment organizations such as Washington Arms Collectors and Second Amendment Foundation. Usually if candidates are truly pro-life and uphold second amendment rights, they tend to vote in line with our thinking on other issues. 

LOTP: In non-partisan races?

Suzanne: These are trickier.  Sometimes you can read between the lines.  Otherwise, phone calls are made, websites searched, and conservative talk radio endorsements taken into consideration.  Asking the few friends we feel are knowledgeable. Reading their positions, searching for "red flags".

LOTP: Are you currently a PCO?  Have you been one in the past?

Suzanne: No.  I considered it when I got involved in the Young Republicans in 1997, and again in 2000, but then we moved in 2001. We met with our district chairman in 2003 and I still have the binder!  Maybe some day.....  I have dreams of doorbelling with my 4 blond little girls.  Who could get mad at a housewife with 4 little girls walking around the neighborhood?   

LOTP:  Have you ever attended a Republican caucus?  County Convention?  State Convention?  National Convention?

Suzanne: Attended one Republican caucus when we lived in Seattle in 2000. no.no.no

LOTP: In what ways do you contribute to the pro-life cause?

Suzanne: A couple of years ago, I kept waking up at night from dreams where I had a prolife bumper sticker.  I considered that my "calling" to put a bumper sticker on our van! So, I ordered about 10 different ones!  They are very clever.  I change it about once a year.  The current one says "Save the Baby Humans!"  I call, write, and email lawmakers about pro-life issues.  Not as much as I should, but I try to whenever I can. I help how I can at pro-life functions, prayers, fundraisers, etc. at church

Donate money to pro-life organizations.  I teach Natural Family Planning, which I believe to be part of the pro-life cause.  We have opened our home, through Birthright for someone who is carrying a child to term, instead of abortion.  So far nobody has taken us up on it though.

LOTP: In what ways do you contribute to Republican candidates?

Suzanne: We have given SLIGHT amounts of money, but feel our dollars are better used for direct prolife causes.  I have informed neighbors and friends of good candidates to vote for.  I've put up yard signs in our yard and bumper stickers on our van.  I've put up yard signs around town for various candidates.  I've stuffed envelopes at campaign headquarters a few times.  Attended campaign rallies.  Waved signs on election day.

LOTP: For the record, what is your educational background?

Suzanne: I went to University of Wisconsin where I received my BA in Marketing and French.  I spent a year studying abroad in France for a year too. 

_______________________

Life of the Party Notes: Suzanne represents a growing number of college educated women who have given up career to raise a family, because more important than their pocket books or their "self-fulfillment", is their call to build a culture of life.  Catholic women like her are contributing their part to the "baby gap" factor that has recently been discovered in post election data to be one of the determining factors in elections.  The more children couples have, the more likely they are to vote Republican.  Along with that, they tend to put life and family issues at the top of their priority list.  The Republican Party leadership would do well, not to shy away from pro-life issues and certainly not to run from them by putting forth part-pro-life/part-pro-choice candidates on the ballot, but to take the pro-life issues seriously and start implementing the policies advocated in the Life section of the Republican national platform.  That is, if they really want to attract "college educated, suburban women" like Suzanne.  Their votes ought not be taken for granted much longer. 

 

True Blue, Red Blooded Conservatives in a "Blue State"

Ever since Matt Rosenberg's column Blue City Republicans appeared in Seattle Weekly last year (before the existence of this blog), I've been meaning to write a counter piece to the many frustrating elements in it.  The column's subtitle was "Meet Seattle's Biggest Closet Cases: The Republicans Next Door" and this was more than just a clever pun.  At the top of his list of "closet cases" was blogger Brian Ballard of Gay Neo-Con.  The list featured several Seattle Republicans who feared being known as such, but all were featured to dispel not only the Republican stereo-type created by liberals, but what many genuinely associate with the Republican party:  conservatism, namely social conservatism--pro-life and pro-family conservatism. 

At the time, our family was living in Seattle's 46th District.  At our Republican district PCO meetings, we rarely ran across the kinds of Republicans Rosenberg was presenting as some kind of majority in the local party.  But even more to the point, in my broader travels around the city of Seattle and its suburbs, the Republicans I knew were true conservatives in every way.  Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but his is too, and so, I am compelled to present mine.   

Coupled with the Blue City Conservatives column, my motivation comes from the "re-branding" of the state Republican Party by former state party chairman Chris Vance, who insisted on dictating (against party rules) how candidates were chosen, using his "suburban crescent" theory that came out of the "crescent conference" of which I have not seen evidence of its existence.  This "re-branding" has infuriated conservatives on all issues, far and wide.  He named the top issues that we most cared about, and said if Republican candidates want to run on these, "I ain't helpin' them."

The crescent conference, he asserted was a "focus group" of the political mood of the Seattle suburbs (from Snohomish Co. through East Side King Co., to Pierce Co.)  The "focus group" was supposedly conducted to determine why it was that they were beginning to "lean more towards Democrats".  I wonder if anyone bothered to figure out if voter turn out was lower, perhaps due to dissatisfaction with both parties. Instead, we get this kind of mentality: "You've got to make sure what you're saying fits the Crescent," says Vance. "That means you've got to focus on issues that matter to suburban voters: transportation, education, health care, taxes."  The "hot button" issues like abortion and marriage that excite the base enough to want to work hard for candidates needed to be avoided at all costs, for the sake of attracting "suburban voters", particularly women. 

Ironically, my first installment in Life of the Party's new feature Pro-Life Profiles, will be.....a suburban woman.  Enjoy!