“”Formally, there are only three requirements for a candidate to earn EL’s support: The candidate must be a woman; she must be a Democrat; and she must support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand. EMILY’s List has withdrawn its support from women who vote against even the most extreme abortion positions. For instance, Mary Landrieu, the…Democratic Senator from Louisiana, lost EL’s backing when she voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion.””
To be clear, that’s all abortions, all the time. And none of that namby-pamby “reach across the aisle” crap either. They demand ideological purity. So who toes the line from New Hampshire?
Jeanne Shaheen could live at the median income level of the average American for almost 15 years just on the money EL has invested in her two Senate bids. ($793,000.00) And they are her number one all-time cash supporter beating out even Act Blue so I think we know who owns Jeanne Shaheen.
Carol Shea-Porter is another favorite rolling in over $41,000.00 EMILY Abortion dollars, with Ann McLane Kuster wielding those righteous forceps of reproductive justice over in CD-2.
But federal-level candidates are not the only influence Big Abortion peddles with out-of-state cash.
Of New Hampshire’s 24 State Senate seats, thirteen of them are held by women, which is a remarkable accomplishment in and of itself. But of those thirteen women, 11 of them happen to be democrats, and according to EMILY’s List all eleven are women EL has proudly helped elect. So, 46% of the entire New Hampshire State Senate is fiscally beholden to a single out-of-state PAC with a specific ideological agenda—to ensure taxpayer-funded access to all abortions.
That’s an interesting little factoid now isn’t it?
I’m intrigued to know if that much of the state has no opinion on when they think life begins?
Would they take the gamble that we are not killing a person at 20 weeks or 30 weeks; and how about born alive abortions where a breathing baby is left to die on a cold metal table because it was unsuccessfully killed?
Would they be comfortable with a funding mandate that requires conscientious objectors—on grounds moral or otherwise—to have their tax dollars used to fund every kind of abortion imaginable? How about parental notification rights? Can’t have unlimited access to unlimited abortions if even one girl of childbearing age is unable to get one. How many Granite Staters think parents have no rights on this matter when it comes to their underage daughters?
EMILY’s list expects ideological purity on abortion. Eleven democrat New Hampshire State Senators have received assistance from them to get elected.
If none of that troubles you are you comfortable with outside national and international organizations like EMILY’s List sending money into the state to affect local elections?
One way or another, I suspect that a majority of the Granite States voters might take issue with one or more of these scenarios.
If you don’t that probably means you are a strident left-winger peddling the NH democrat party screed on out-of-state money affecting local elections. That would be the harpy-like objection to a dime coming in from out of state to support any cause but your own while your party has trolled for millions in donations from anywhere but here. You are of course entitled to take that position. But I think it’s getting to be a tough sell. The truth is there for anyone who looks. And we are looking.