The debate over giving communion to pro-choice Democrats (there is no debate when it comes to pro-choice Republicans) has raised questions about whether the Democratic Party has room for pro-life candidates or if it imposes a pro-choice orthodoxy. One example used to support this claim is the experience of former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey during the 1992 convention - was he denied the chance to speak because he was pro-life?

Media Matters quotes from an article Michael Crowly wrote in 1996:

According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. "It's [Casey's claim that he was denied a convention speech because of his pro-life views] just not factual!" stammers James Carville, apoplectic over Casey's claims. "You'd have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn't even endorsed you." "Why are you doing this to me?" moans Paul Begala, who, with Carville, managed two Casey campaigns before joining Clinton's team in 1992. "I love Bob Casey, but my understanding was that the dispute was not about his right-to-life views, it was about the Clinton-Gore ticket."

[...]

Furthermore, a slew of pro-life Democrats, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors, did address the delegates in 1992. Though the speakers didn't dwell on abortion, party officials say they weren't barred from mentioning the issue.

If it is true that Casey refused the endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, then of course he would be denied a chance to speak. If it is true that other pro-life Democrats did speak, then it would be awfully hard to claim that that played any role in denying Casey the chance to speak. Why, then, do some continue to claim that Bob Casey was treated badly because he didn’t adhere to some sort of pro-choice orthodoxy?

Read More:

• Bioethics
• Religious Right