February 7, 2020
Pete's Abortion Extremism a Mayor Mistake

Pete's Abortion Extremism a Mayor Mistake

Tony Perkins

You've got to hand it to Pete Buttigieg. While the rest of the competition is out there in far-left field, he's trying to carve out a nice little niche for himself in the space no one's bothered to occupy: the middle. For the last several weeks, there's been a whole lot of elbow room for the South Bend mayor, who's making hay pretending to be a mild-mannered moderate. There's just one problem. Behind the disarming façade, his positions are just as extreme as everyone else's.

Buttigieg's schtick has played especially well in places like Iowa, where everyday Democrats are desperate for a candidate whose every other word isn't "socialism." As a young, charismatic Midwesterner, Pete's managed to connect with a lot of voters who haven't found a reasonable-sounding Democrat in the race. In a party that's done everything it can to distance itself from God, this is a man who's gotten quite good at throwing in the odd reference to faith. It's part of the reason people like this Iowa caucus-goer are so shocked to find out he has a husband. They just assume that when Mayor Pete talks about Christianity, he also practices it.

Now, as Buttigieg starts surging at the polls and he's pressed more intently on the issues, the veneer is starting to crack. On abortion and religious liberty, especially, the mayor is being revealed for what he truly is: an ardent extremist with no regard for what the Bible actually says.

Pete's ruse had a lot of Americans fooled until more public appearances -- like his recent stop at "The View" -- started unraveling his "centrist" cred. The show's token Republican, Meghan McCain, didn't pull any punches on Buttigieg's abortion views, asking him to explain what he meant by his statement "life begins at breath," which she called "pretty radical." "I think people, even Democrats..." Meghan said, "want to know exactly where your line is." Buttigieg didn't directly respond, instead insisting that if there was a line, the government shouldn't draw it. "So if a woman wanted to invoke infanticide after a baby is born, you'd be comfortable with that?"

"Does anybody seriously think that's what these cases are about?" he fired back in the ultimate insult to the hundreds of documented abortion survivors. Then, without ever answering her question, he implied that the only time women seek out late-term abortions is when doctors discover something wrong with the baby. (A lie, incidentally, that's been completely debunked, even by pro-abortion groups like Guttmacher Institute.) Regardless, Pete rambled, "I don't know what to tell them morally about what they should do," and, as far as he's concerned, the government shouldn't either.

First of all, yes. People actually do think that's what these cases are about. If it weren't, why would the U.S. Senate waste its time with a hearing on born-alive protections? Liberals want you to think that infanticide is a fake crisis invented by pro-lifers. Trust me, I wish it were. There are literally hundreds of infants being thrown out like garbage every year -- a fact we know thanks to eyewitnesses like Jill Stanek. When the CDC says there were 143 cases of babies born alive between 2002-14, the agency is only basing that number on the reports from six states! Factor in the other 44, and the hundreds of undocumented "snippings" and stabbings of born babies by monsters like Kermit Gosnell and Douglas Karpen, and we're talking about entire schools of children disappearing.

But either way, the number of children affected has nothing to do with the morality of infanticide. If there were only two kids on a burning bus, people wouldn't shrug and say, "Oh, the bus isn't full. Don't bother." And yet, Mayor Pete can't bring himself to say that killing a living, breathing, born baby is wrong. It's a matter of personal morality, he believes, and the government shouldn't intervene. How about rape -- is that matter of personal morality too? Or child abuse? Should the government ignore a man beating his wife, because that's his choice? If killing a newborn is a personal decision, what about killing a teenager? The problem with the Left's sliding scale of morality is that it doesn't work. Right and wrong goes beyond Scripture to the laws of nature inscribed upon the hearts of people everywhere.

And how does Buttigieg square his political radicalism ("I support the position of my party") with Christianity? Well, he insists, "We all come at faith in a different way... You don't have to vote a certain way because of your faith." In other words, the Bible is a nice collection of stories that are convenient to mention but should have no bearing on daily life. His brother-in-law finds that appalling, tweeting after "The View," "Pete misuses scripture to fit his own political agenda, such as in the case of advocating for abortion. This is disturbing and I think he needs to be held accountable for that. Pete's thoughts on abortion are extreme and evil."

While he's busy dressing up his views to look like Vacation Bible School puppets, FRC's David Closson argues that what's really dangerous about Pete "is that he's not just mistaken about what the Bible says. He's actually twisting God's word to advance a political agenda that is antithetical to biblical Christianity. With Pete's apparent victory in the Iowa Caucuses, and his rise in polls across the country, there is a real chance the former mayor will make a credible run for the Democratic nomination. Thus, as he continues to attract attention, Christians must realize that while Pete can come across as reasonable and even charming when he talks about social and cultural issues, he is guided by a worldview at odds with God's Word."

For more on Mayor Pete's version of Christianity, check out David's piece, "Buttigieg's 'Different Way' Is Not Biblical Christianity." Also, for an eye-opening look at where the mayor stands on the fundamental question of freedom, don't miss Mary Vought's column, "Pete Buttigieg Is No Friend of Religious Liberty."