Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Countering the "GOP / Bush 'duped' Pro-Lifers" Smear

In recent weeks we've heard the argument -- advanced by more than one member of Vox Nova -- that the pro-life movement has been exploited by the Republican Party. "Dupes" of the GOP who pay little more than lip service to the cause if and when they find it politically expedient to do so. See, for instance, "Willingly Duped, Again and Again (Vox Nova January 24, 2008); likewise, over the past several days various members of Vox Nova have issued the following denunciations:

  • "The GOP cannot afford to actually work to end abortion. If they did, it would be a great victory, but they would have nothing else that serious Christians could point to as a reason to support the party. Republicans need to keep abortion legal, but make it look like they are trying to end it, so that this game can keep on going and going." (Michael Iafrate 01/28/08)

  • "I think token gestures such as voting for "this guy" because "he is against abortion" and politics continue as usual, abortion continues as usual, and the walks for life with only a reflection on abortion being bad without any progress continue as usual, ends up being the one who is causing the greatest harm to the cause. Pro-lifers have become just a token group with only lip service given to them and that lip service amuses them enough that they think everyone has done their duty. Instead, it just means they have given over to flattery." (Henry Karlson 01/27/08)

  • "At bottom, politicians are adept at manipulating the public’s opinion about themselves. Rarely do they go much beyond that. Jesse Helms was on the right side of the unborn issue, but look what he did on the questions of social justice. And what did he accomplish on the unborn issue. Nothing. The odds are simply too great that none of these politicians will accomplish anything, and when they do, it is too often the case that the means they employ will create more problems than they solve. . . . As for the rights of the unborn, I know of no existing policy that is going to make a difference. It simply won’t happen precisely because at bottom this challenge is a spiritual matter requiring a spiritual solution. Once again, the means must be proportionate to the end." (Gerald Campbell 01/28/08)

  • "None of the cadidates are either willing or capable of stopping the slaughter of our unborn. America’s entire system of governance is satanically rigged to produce injustice, for it is founded upon idolatry and violence. . . . ponder the fruits: thousands of nukes ready to annihilate the world, millions of abortions, and a “justice” system that can’t stop torture or the crowding of our prisons with blacks and latinos. The monsters of the Apocalypse are alive and well in this world, and they live in the political structure of the United States." (Nate Wildermuth 01/29/08)

DISCLAIMER:* The political affiliation of the aformentioned authors is unknown. Most of them have elsewhere offered criticism of the Democratic Party's formal support of abortion and anti-life policies, and some -- but not ALL -- of Vox Nova contributors are deeply critical of the Republican Party.

However, insofar as the better part of "pro-life" legislation is introduced and promoted by Republicans, this reader's impression is that the GOP remains the target of this unfair characterization when it is offered.

Consequently, this line of "argument" is often advanced (here and elsewhere) to criticize Republicans and "Catholic conservatives"; or to deride both parties in general (in a "pox on both your houses" manner of speaking); and, in the case of one author in particular (Gerald Campbell, with whom we have previously taken issue), it has been employed as a case for voting for Barack Obama, on grounds that since attempts to resolve the scourge of abortion by legislation and the formation of public policy have proved inconsequential, a reasonable alternative would be to embrace a candidate like Obama who, through his gift at rhetoric, might

". . . summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind."


With respect to this proposal, I dispute whether any Catholic could vote in good conscience for a candidate who is wholly committed to passing The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

I also reject the characterization of the pro-life movement as little more than "dupes" and the Republicans as nothing more than con artists. To assert this, I think, is a great disservice and slander against many of those in the GOP who with sincere convictions have paid their dues "slogging through the legislative trenches", so to speak, on behalf of their constituents, chief of all the unborn. We have profiled many of these individuals within this blog and it troubles me to see them ridiculed in such a manner.

In this post I'd like to challenge this allegation by examining some past pro-life legislation and legislative achievements (initiated by Republicans) to get a sense of what is at stake when we vote -- and why it is important to vote for politicans who are concerned about advancing a culture of life.

Significant Pro-Life Achievements Sponsored by the GOP

When we started this blog in 2004 I blogged a post on the legislation that might be passed under the Bush administration. I found it very educational and a helpful reminder of ways in which legislators we elect can mitigate the effects of Roe v. Wade by the passing of pro-life legislation (much of which is aimed at laying the groundwork for legal recognition of the personhood of the unborn).


  • Unborn Victims of Violence Act (also known as "Laci and Conner's Law"), signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004, was enacted after a five-year effort led by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). This bill was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Melissa Hart (R-Pa.). A Senate companion bill (S. 1019) was sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). The House of Representatives approved the bill on February 26, 2004 (254-163) and the Senate approved it on March 25, 2004 (61-38).

    The act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if a "child in utero" is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child.

    While the law makes an exception to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment, it was nonetheless supported by the National Right to Life as granting legal personhood to the unborn -- and by the same token was vehemently opposed by Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations. See Legislative history on federal and state versions of the bill.

  • The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act extended legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. Identified as Public Law 107-207, it was signed into law August 5, 2002 by President Bush,[1] and was based on HR 2175 (passed March 12). The Senate counterpart, initiated by Sen. Rick Santorum, passed July 18. When he signed the law, President Bush said, "This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive -- including an infant who survives an abortion procedure -- is considered a person under federal law." He added, "Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well." (Legislative History.

    As reported earlier, a version of this law (the Induced Infant Liability Act,) was vehemently opposed in Illinois by Senator Barack Obama.

  • The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was perhaps the most famous piece of pro-life legislation signed into law by President Bush in 2003. The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973. The bill bans "partial-birth abortion," and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being killed. See the complete official text of the bill; key documents on medical issues relating to partial birth abortion and

    The bill has been met with vigorous opposition by Democrats and subject to numerous attempts to repeal. In the case of Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge by a lower court blocking enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- the 5 justices voting to uphold the ban? Newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

  • In November 2004, Congress passed the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment, prohibits discrimination on the level of federal, state or local government against health care providers who decline to provider, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

  • In June 6, 2007, the U.S. House turned back a "stealth attempt" by Democratic leadership to pass a "clone-and-kill" bill that would have promoted large-scale cloning of human embroyos for research. Deceptively titled "The Human Cloning Prohibition Act," it would have banned "reproductive cloning" but would not have prohibited the cloning, harvesting and ultimate destruction of embroyos for scientific research.

    As the USCCB explained: "Such a ban [on "reproductive cloning"] does not actually ban cloning. It waits until the cloning procedure is finished, then forbids live birth of the resulting clones. It would be highly ineffective even at achieving its own goal." [Click here for the full NRLC page on legislation pertaining to human cloning].

  • In June 20, 2007, President Bush veto of legislation (S. 5) that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos, in addition to issuing an executive order to promote more federal funding for promising types of stem cell research that do not require harming human embryos. On May 3, 2007, President Bush sent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) and House Speaker Pelosi letters in which he said, "I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage."

  • In September 20, 2007, Senator Brownback introduced the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, which would require that a doctor (1) perform an ultrasound, (2) share the results with the woman and allow her to (3) view the images before performing an abortion. The bill seeks to ensure that abortion providers allow women to understand fully the nature of the young life within them. No woman could be prosecuted, as the requirements are placed solely on the abortion provider.

Failed legislation:

  • The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S 356 & HR 3442) | Full text, introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is "substantial evidence" that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child. The bill failed by a vote of 250-162, short of the two-thirds majority required under rules that limit debate.

    On its face, this might not seem like a very significant act -- it is what you might call incremental. Like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, it's value is in placing before the consciousness of the mother (and perhaps the abortionist) the humanity of the unborn. To quote Senator Sam Brownback:

    Women should not be kept in the dark; women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during an abortion. After being presented with the medical and scientific information on the development of the unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization, the woman is more aware of the pain experienced by the child during an abortion procedure, and able--at the very least--to make an informed decision.
    Suffice to say it was for this very reason that it was opposed by "pro-choice" organizations.

  • The Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403), sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nv.) and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), would have make it a crime for anyone to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion (to circumvent parental notification/consent laws in their home states). It was originally passed by the Senate on July 25 by a vote of 65-34, but future progress was blocked:
    Hours before Congress adjourned for pre-election campaigning, 57 senators voted to remove the final procedural obstacle to S. 403, which would have cleared the bill for transmission to President Bush for his signature. But 57 was three votes short of the 60 required under Senate rules to break through a procedural roadblock erected by the Senate Democratic leadership.

President Bush's Pro-Life Record

In addressing the question of whether or not President Bush has been sympathetic to the pro-life movement (and not merely using it for political expediency), I think it best to let his enemies testify. Which is to say, in judging his pro-life accomplishments, who better to turn to then Planned Parenthood? -- See "George W. Bush's War on Women: A Pernicious Web: A Planned Parenthood Report on the Administration and Congress" providing "A Chronology of Attacks on Reproductive Rights" under the Bush administration and a GOP-led Congress. The actual report is 87 pages long, but let's focus on just one aspect of accomplishments of President Bush's term: Redefining the Legal Status of the Fetus (keep in mind the perspective is that of a "pro-choice" organization):

  • House passes "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (April 26, 2001).
  • HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announces new rules making fetuses, but not pregnant women, eligible for prenatal care in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (March 5, 2002).
  • Announcement made by administration that approximately $900,000 available for financial assistance and applications for embryo "adoption" (July 25, 2002).
  • HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects" (October 2002).
  • House passes so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" giving zygote, embryo, or fetus the same legal rights as a person and further undermining a woman's right to an abortion (February 26, 2004).
  • Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton Protects Patients' Privacy by Denying DOJ's Request for Planned Parenthood Medical Records in Course of Federal Abortion Ban Trial (March 5, 2004).
  • "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" passes Senate, grants fertilized egg legal status distinct from woman, posing threat to the foundations of Roe v. Wade (March 25, 2004).
  • President signs so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" into law, may help lay groundwork for future effort to reverse Roe v. Wade (April 1, 2004).
Why Does Pro-Life Policy Matter?

In January the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the special research arm of Planned Parenthood, showing the annual number of abortions reaching their lowest level in nearly 30 years (Abortion Numbers Continue to Decline NRLC January 17, 2008):

The Guttmacher Institute report finds just over 1.2 million abortions in the United States in 2005, down nearly 25% from their high of 1.6 million in 1990, and the lowest reported total since 1.179 million in 1976. Additionally, the report shows the abortion rate (the number of abortions per every thousand women age 15-44) down to 19.4 per thousand – the lowest since 1974. The Guttmacher report speculates that the lower abortion rates may be due to "more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term," implicitly acknowledging that attitudes toward abortion and pregnancy may have substantially changed.
Some of this decline may probably be attributed to dubious causes -- the widespread use of contraceptives, more specically the provision of RU-486 and the "Morning After Pill".

At the same time, we can likely attribute some of this decline to the genuine efforts of those in public service to passing legislation at the federal and state levels protecting the unborn and equipping mothers with information:

Twenty-three states have women's right to know laws that provide women seeking abortion with information about abortion and its risks, biological information about the development of their unborn child and available alternatives to abortion, including, significantly, the types of both governmental and private assistance available if they choose to bear their child. Eleven states also make provisions for women to view ultrasound footage of their unborn child.

Twenty-eight states have laws providing for parental involvement in a minor daughter's abortion decision. Other data show that teen abortion rates have fallen further and faster than abortion rates as a whole.

Also significant has been the enactment of partial-birth abortion bans at the federal and state level. Public debate surrounding these laws has further increased the public's awareness about abortion and the development of unborn children in utero.


This is something to be thankful for, though there is much work yet to be done. And I concur with the critics of Vox Nova: legislation alone will not change hearts and minds. What is truly needed is spiritual transformation on the part of the American populace and a re-orientation towards life. But the passing of such legislation and the efforts of the Bush administration and Republicans have at the very least served the cause of justice, in protecting the right to life of the "least among us." In the words of Br. Matthew Augustine, OP in a comment at Vox Nova: "The law isn’t merely there to coerce behavior but also to protect the common good and reflect the truth of the human person and the moral order. It is worth our blood, sweat and tears to work to ensure that the dignity of unborn life is reflected in law."


WHAT YOU CAN DO

I don't expect to win any hearts or minds of those who have ridiculed the pro-life movement as chumps for falling into the hands of conniving Republicans. But I have the hope that readers will
keep in mind what is at stake when they vote, and why those representatives whom we elect matter. As far as supporting legislative pro-life efforts, here is what you can do:


* The "Disclaimer" was offered and modified subsequent to the posting on account that some parties cited might be perceived as being beholden to the Democrats or formally supporting a Democratic candidate. As stated only one author has publicly expressed his personal support for Obama.

My hope is that the discussion will proceed from questioning this or that individual's partisan affiliation to challenging the specific claim -- as stated in the title of this post -- that the GOP / Bush have "duped", and done nothing for, the pro-life movement.

Posted by Christopher Blosser

Labels:

Subscribe to: Comment Feed (RSS)