{"id":164861,"date":"2017-04-13T17:10:09","date_gmt":"2017-04-13T21:10:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=164861"},"modified":"2017-04-13T22:36:49","modified_gmt":"2017-04-14T02:36:49","slug":"author-nyt-party-abortion-piece-decides-pro-abortion-politicians-fine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author-nyt-party-abortion-piece-decides-pro-abortion-politicians-fine\/","title":{"rendered":"Author of NYT ‘party of abortion’ piece decides pro-abortion politicians fine after all"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

A couple weeks ago, we covered<\/a> a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Groome, a professed Catholic Democrat who wants his party to soften its pro-abortion absolutism<\/a> to increase its appeal to mainstream and religious Americans.<\/p>\n

This week, the Times followed up with a Q&A<\/a> in which Groome and Catholic Democrats president Steven Krueger address reader feedback on the piece. However, the sequel is decidedly light on suggestions for substantive reform, and reads more like a guide to simply hiding politicians\u2019 pro-abortion views better.<\/p>\n

First, they claim that one of the reasons Hillary Clinton lost the presidency while Barack Obama won it twice is because she \u201cused more one-sided rhetoric than he did at the expense of the moral dimension of this issue\u201d (along with targeting the Hyde Amendment for elimination), whereas Obama \u201cwas more nuanced,\u201d discussing abortion \u201cas a moral issue\u201d while highlighting \u201chis commitment to social services\u201d such as Obamacare to \u201chelp reduce the incidence of abortion\u201d\u2014which supposedly cut the abortion rate by a quarter from 2008 to 2014.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n