Sojourners article in the issue Progreesive and ‘Pro-Life’ ?, No Place to Stand, points out several things that have long kept me from supporting Republicans becuase they’re “pro-life”:
It is on precisely those other issues that the Republican Party—typically seen as more “pro-life”—loses its credibility among progressive pro-lifers. A common summary of the GOP’s philosophy by its opponents is that Republicans only care about the baby in utero. After birth, mom and baby are on their own.
“Republicans who claim to be pro-life also often have anti-life policies that are completely in collusion with the social and economic structures that compel abortion,” says Kevin Clarke, editor of Salt of the Earth, a Catholic social justice e-zine.
Not only do Republicans have a spotty, at best, record on the broader social issues that contribute to abortion, they also have accomplished little on the promises they do make, leading some to wonder if they’re not all talk, little action.
Amen. You see, it’s not “talking anti-abortion” that actually gets the job done of decreasing and moving toward virtually eliminating it. It’s attacking the conditions that increase abortions. Actually, Abortion rates rose during Regan and Bush I-Bush II presidencies from that under their preceding Democratic opponents (ie. Carter and Clinton), and it’s little surprise, becuase actually attacking social ills does more for eliminating abortions (ie the conditions that make them more likely attacked , thus RESULTING in actual fewer numbers).
The quote from the article:
“I don’t think it’s an accident that the abortion rate went up under Reagan and Bush but went down under Clinton,” she says. “We have to integrate parenthood and school or parenthood and work to relieve some of the social and economic pressures that make abortion feel like the only choice.”
Pingback: Kandent
I just finished reading an interesting article by Michael Peroutka. “Bush/Kerry Both Anti-Life: Bush And Kerry/Edwards Are Tweedle Dumb And Tweedle Dumber On Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research” looks at the issue of embrionic stem cell research and argues that Bush and Kerry hold very similar positions—they only differ by degree.
Chris,
I’m still voting for Kerryto get Bush out. I’m not going to be convinced that the Bush administration is NOT the most corrupt regime we’ve ever had in the White House. What they do and are doing is leading to nothing less than complete failure in just about every area imaginable, and this state of affsirs is going to lead to massive failure in those areas the religous Right is convinced must be “targeted”, ike abortion. But take away infrastructure and social programs, and the abortion rate will do what it has done EVERY TIME that a “Pro-life” administration has taken office: GO UP. The impracticality and the pious platitudes of the Religious Right pretty much nauseates me.
Dale
“…the abortion rate will do what it has done EVERY TIME that a ‘Pro-life’ administration has taken office: GO UP.”
I believe this is a gross mischaracterization of the actual data. The explosive growth of abortions came to a screaching halt when Reagan took office, and abortions have been in decline since the 1980’s.
You should read Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000 by The Alan Guttmacher Institute. The AGI is definitely pro-choice. Their abreviated mission is to “protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world.”
It should also be noted that there is no published information from either the CDC or AGI about abortion rates under the current Bush administration.
Chris,
“Gross mischaracterization”? The data you speak of does show a LEVELING of abortions, even a slight increase, during the Reagan years, and then the decline starts and continues downward throughout the Clinton Years. Hardly a ringing endorsement or postitive indicators of the effectiveness of so-called “Pro-life” policies vs the effectiveness of “social programs”. In fact, it outright refutes the claims and assumptions of the Religius Right that because a candidate runs on that issue, then they must neccessarily be better at producing and actually funding programs that actually help. My assertions about abortions going up under Reagan were a bit too harsh, since the abortions seem to have “leveled”, but you fail to affirm how rates declined all throughout the evil Clinton pro-choice years. I mean, NOTHING went down during the whole of Reagan’s stint, and then it started declining the latter half of GHW Bush’s term….and then kept on down during the whole of Clinton’s years. I would not be surprised at all to see numbers later that show an increase or a halt to the decline as GW Bush’s administration’s ACTUAL results (irregardless of what he runs on, which he has proven is basically useless to judge his actual results, since he reversed or “misunderestimated” by using trick phrases like “clean air” for policies that basically allow for total abandonment of clean air, and “tax breaks” that amount to 86% of the people getting 14% of the total tax break, and the top getting the rest)
Actually, the only thing I feel really has relevance is the amount of resources going to Social programs, which is exactly what this Bush administration is quickly scrapping in favor of their biggest supporters, the corporations.
Dale