Mourdock’s opponent, Democrat Joe Donnelly, also believes “life begins at conception” and opposes abortion except for cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother. Last year, he co-sponsored HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, that would have banned abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges. Maybe he didn’t make a stupid comment about divinely inspired pregnancies as a result of rape, but he does cite his faith as a reason he opposes women’s right to choose. NARAL gives him a score of only 20 percent. He voted twice to block Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funding. (http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/10/mourdocks-opponent-just-the-lesser-of-two-evils.html).
Call them Conservadems, call them Blue Dogs, it all reads the same: These democrats are socially conservative, and just like their Republican counterparts, are putting PRIVATE morality above PUBLIC morality. Women, and likewise men, do not need government to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies--regardless of whether we are talking about abortion or birth control. But ladies WE ARE AT FAULT FOR BEING LOW INFORMATION VOTERS if we allow someone like Connelly to win (which is the case in Indianna, unfortunately). I can understand voting for the "lesser of two evils," but consider this--when he writes, sponsors, and votes for legislation that restricts our right to legal medical care, how can we be shocked if we allowed this person to be elected to office?