Is George W. Bush Pro-Life?
by John Gehring
February 8, 2010 - 4:04pm (Print)
For some, that question is answered simply by evoking opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. This landmark ruling has defined a generation of political polarization and fueled bitter culture wars that reward the shrillest voices. A singular focus on abortion as the only pro-life issue has also severely narrowed our national discourse about moral values in the public square.
While the former president spoke eloquently about the sacred dignity of life, as governor of Texas his state led the nation in executions. His presidency is remembered for a legacy that often undermined lofty rhetorical appeals to human dignity. Preemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not a proud record in defense of life. It also fails to honor the broad spectrum of Catholic social teaching, which stresses a consistent ethic of life often referred to as a “seamless garment” because one life issue can’t be easily separated from another. Catholic teaching has a rich and expansive vision that recognizes seeking peace, caring for the poor, the unborn, the immigrant and our environment -- “promoting the common good in all its forms” in the words of Pope Benedict XVI -- are all integral. Catholicism is not a single-issue faith, and no political party has a monopoly on moral values.
When considering efforts to reduce abortions, pro-life and pro-choice labels often obscure more than enlighten. Americans want bipartisan efforts to help end the abortion stalemate. A 2008 poll from Public Religion Research found that 81 percent of Catholics and 83 percent of all voters want elected officials to back policies that help reduce abortions by working together to prevent unintended pregnancies, expand adoption opportunities and increase social supports for vulnerable women. In Congress, this holistic agenda is reflected in the Pregnant Women Support Act, sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey, Jr., as well as the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, a bill co-sponsored by pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan and pro-choice Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Neither political party can truly claim the “pro-life” mantle. In general, Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty initiatives and protecting vital social safety nets, but often don’t grapple seriously enough with the reality of over one million abortions performed a year. Many Republicans trumpet their pro-life bona fides, yet fail to back up their rhetoric by fighting for robust social policies that help pregnant women and vulnerable families. Despite intense lobbying from the Catholic Health Association and other faith-based organizations, Bush twice vetoed legislative efforts to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which helps states provide health insurance to children from low-income and working families. Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association and a respected lobbyist on Capitol Hill, recently described SCHIP as “clearly a pro-life program.” President Obama reauthorized the program last year, and it’s now on track to provide more than 14 million children quality health care.
The current debate over health care reform demonstrates the false choice between “pro-life” or “social justice” advocacy. Ensuring that women and families have access to quality health care can help make abortions less likely and save thousands of lives. The Senate health care bill, for example, includes significant supports for pregnant women endorsed by pro-life and pro-choice lawmakers. The abortion rate for women living in poverty is more than four times higher than for those earning 300 percent above the poverty line. At a time of economic crisis, any serious effort to prevent abortions must find comprehensive solutions to broader socioeconomic challenges.
A new generation must decide. We can stay mired in stale battles of the past and cling to easy labels or chart a course that honors human life at every stage. I would be the first to applaud an award given to anyone who helps us achieve that elusive victory.
well spoken, thank you. though my own answer to the question "is george w. bush prolife?" probably would have been a simple, flatout "no way!"
On Common Ground Columnist & Editor, Nonviolent Choice Directory
and don't forget that Bush and his cronies tried to dismantle as many environmental protections as they could which causes far more death (including fetuses) than any other factor.
I fail to see how using semantics to introduce separate issues into the discussion will do anything other than alienate people from the discussion.
"Ensuring that women and families have access to quality health care can help make abortions less likely and save thousands of lives."
How so?
universal health care is *not* a separate issue from prolife.
thousands of already born people die every year in the US b/c they cannot access health care. i myself would die within hours if my health care was yanked out from under me. if it wasn't for access to health care, both my daughter and i would have died early in the pregnancy.
poverty, lack of access to family planning, prenatal care, and other vital health services *directly cause* many abortions, too.
On Common Ground Columnist & Editor, Nonviolent Choice Directory
Marysia on February 10, 2010 - 4:43pm: "thousands of already born people die every year in the US b/c they cannot access health care."
What is your source for this assertion? I was not aware that anyone was prohibited from accessing health care services.
"poverty... *directly cause[s]* many abortions..."
Poverty is not an excuse for killing anyone, much less an unborn baby. Almost all of the men and the overwhelming majority of the women in these situations are fully aware that our world is one of limited resources and are fully capable of avoiding a pregnancy by refraining from engaging in sexual intercourse. What evidence exists that robbing one group of people and using the confiscated resources to try to bribe women into not having abortions will have the intended effect in the long run?
"...lack of access to family planning... *directly cause[s]* many abortions..."
What is your evidence?
"...lack of access to...prenatal care...and other vital health services *directly cause[s]* many abortions..."
Again, what is your evidence that women are being prohibited from accessing these services? What I suspect you really mean is that government is not robbing responsible people of resources to give to other people who are fully capable of accessing those resources using responsible means.
You are really lucky, GrayDuck, to have the funds that are necessary to be able to 'access health care' without having to depend on Medicare or Medicaid or Veteran's Health Care or low-cost tax-dollar funded community health centers or any of the other ways that the 'government robs responsible people of resources to give to other people.'
Some of us aren't that lucky, even though we work full-time, because our jobs don't pay enough to afford the outrageous fees involved in the for-profit health care system.
children from poor families are at 10 times the risk of sudden infant death as children from higher-income homes, The Observer said Sunday.
The report said poorer children are two-and-a-half times more likely than others to suffer chronic illness as toddlers and twice as likely to have cerebral palsy, the newspaper reported.
http://politicom.moldova.org/news/british-report-poverty-kills-children-145091-eng.html
Gray Duck, I could marshal all the evidence you requested. I am speaking as a former social worker and longtime activist on everything it takes to alleviate the root causes of abortion...
But if you already have the set attitude that paying taxes for the sake of the common good is "robbery," then I wonder what is the point of gathering all that evidence?
On Common Ground Columnist & Editor, Nonviolent Choice Directory
Marysia on February 16, 2010 - 12:54pm: "But if you already have the set attitude that paying taxes for the sake of the common good is "robbery," then I wonder what is the point of gathering all that evidence?"
I am not going to beg you to make your own case. Either you have one or you do not.
"What evidence exists that robbing one group of people and using the confiscated resources to try to bribe women into not having abortions will have the intended effect in the long run?"
I'm not sure you'll find it convincing, but there is negative evidence that the reverse is true. When welfare payments are capped so that additional births do not raise the amount available to feed the children, fewer women complete their pregnancies, and instead get abortions.
Reading a little history might make you more aware of the fact that societies of various structures have been attempting to eliminate 'illicit' sex practically since civilization began, and that none of them have succeeded in doing so. Your insistence that the solution to the 'problem of abortion' is for everyone to just voluntarily stop having sex has no utility because that is just not the way humans want to behave.
For proposed solutions to actually work, they will have to take into account the realities of human behavior. Your proposed solution is the equivalent of arguing that abortion could be eliminated if everyone just 'chose' to become gay and only had sex with someone of their own gender. Both are true on their face, but since we know that neither solution would meet the needs of or be acceptable to the general population, they are only fantasy.
grayduck, there is a case, a strong one. and if anyone else wants to jump in and make it, please do. but i myself am going through a health crisis right now and do want to squander any of my limited energy.
Hope you feel better soon.
Your case has been made in the cumulative reasoning of your other posts. Reiterating your points until grayduck agreed the case was made would be an endless labor, since he rejects any evidence that doesn't conform with his preexisting beliefs.
