In last night's debate (10/13/04) I heard George W. Bush give the
classic pro-choice defense of abortion rights in America. Is anyone
listening? How is it then, that George Bush is continually portrayed as the pro-life candidate, even with regard to overturning Roe v. Wade?
He stated quite clearly that he was interested in education, and encouraging abstinence and adoption, but would not elect judges who pass an abortion "litmus test." He believes the country is not ready for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. What!!???
The man IS pro-choice! What are the right wing thinking? A vote for Bush is not a vote for the unborn or the sanctity of life!
There's an excellent letter that was published at Catholics for Kerry `04 - I encourage you to alert your "pro-life" friends/relatives.
<http://www.catholicsforkerry04.org>
"I am voting for Kerry because, among other reasons, I am pro-life.
No, that is not a typo. Most of my Christian friends are Bush
supporters strictly because of the abortion issue. They say that God
cannot bless our country if we continue to allow abortions, and they do
not even consider the other issues.
Evidently they must think that Bush has plans to re-criminalize
abortion.
Bush has made no such promise. Contrary to popular belief, he has never
advocated overturning Roe v. Wade! In fact, when asked whether abortion
should be banned, Bush replied that the country was not ready for such
a change. (Surprised?) "America is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade
because America's hearts are not right." George W. Bush, The Associated
Press, 3/8/99
Yet, Christian churches are galvanizing their congregations to vote for
Bush based on the abortion issue. Are these people just blindly
following their church leaders, or are they just not thinking about
what Bush is actually saying? Has it not occurred to them to question
whether he will actually do anything about the abortion issue? Are they
just hearing what they want to hear?
People are believing an illusion. Every time Bush mentions 'the unborn'
he is skillfully crafting an image in people's minds - an image of
'pro-life'. Yet, it is only an illusion, since Bush himself has
admitted that he will not outlaw abortion.
Other issues aside, what is the point of voting for Bush based on the
abortion issue if he has no intentions of reversing the law anyway?
What does that accomplish?
Does it make sense to vote for Bush just because he is personally
opposed to abortion? If that were the case, then it would make equal
sense to vote for Kerry, since he is personally opposed to abortion
also. The only difference between Bush and Kerry regarding abortion is
that Kerry is honest about the fact that he has no intention of
reversing Roe v. Wade, whereas Bush gives the illusion that he would
reverse it, even though, when directly asked, he has admitted that he
will not.
Undoubtedly Bush knows exactly what he is doing: pandering to his
Christian base by getting their hopes up that he will ban abortion, yet
having no intention to do so. Where is the integrity in that?
Even if Bush did have intentions to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is
highly unlikely that he could ever succeed in doing so, since four of
the six Supreme Court judges, newly appointed by Republicans, voted to
uphold Roe v. Wade. Even if that were to change, jurisdiction would
return to the states, where polls show that abortion would remain
legal. Therefore, we should not blindly vote for Bush just because he
claims to be 'pro-life', because his words essentially mean nothing in
terms of the legality of abortion.
Meanwhile, even though Bush does lip service to the abortion cause in
order to get votes, his economic policies are actually perpetuating
some of the causes of abortion!
Consider this: black women are three times as likely as whites to
abort, and while less than 1/7 of all Americans fall below the poverty
line, 1/3 of all abortion patients do. Welfare policies, due to cuts,
often refuse additional aid to women who give birth, thus encouraging
women on welfare to have abortions.
I have heard the argument that these women should just choose adoption.
I agree that this would be optimal. However, reality does not always
reflect what is optimal or ideal. There have been great strides in the
areas of pregnancy counseling and education, but we still have a very
long way to go. The 'right to choose' has been glamorized. The stark
reality is that many, if not most, women who seek abortions do not
'choose' abortion; they have the abortion because they feel they have
no choice! The sad truth is that abortion is often an act of
desperation.
A woman should not ever be forced to choose between a job and her baby,
or a husband/boyfriend and her baby, or her parents' approval and her
baby, or an education and her baby, or economic stability...and her
baby.
Criminalizing the actions of these desperate women will not solve the
problems that drive women to seek abortions in the first place. It is a
complex issue, with social, moral, and spiritual implications. But on a
very practical level, it is an economic issue.
It defies comprehension that the very people who want abortion banned
also refuse to support economic policies that can assist low-income
women, thereby removing some of the causes of abortion. It is
hypocritical of pro-lifers to try to make abortion illegal, while
simultaneously supporting a candidate like Bush who is hostile to the
plights of low-income mothers.
Even though Kerry claims to support choice while being against abortion
himself, his plans to increase employment, reduce healthcare costs, and
other economic programs could in fact help reduce the number of
abortions. Isn't that the bottom line?
The few Christians who support Kerry do so despite their differences of
belief on the abortion issue. However, I contend that if one wants to
decrease the incidence of abortion, then Kerry should be their
candidate of choice, not despite, but because of, the abortion issue.
I contend that Kerry is actually far more 'pro-life' than Bush, in the
true sense of the word. Pro-life means far more than merely outlawing
abortion. Pro-life means supporting economic policies that help women
care for their babies after they are born, thereby reducing the
likelihood of women `choosing' abortion. In this respect, Kerry is much
more likely to reduce abortion.
Pro-life also means protecting all of life, including the thousands of
innocent Iraqi children, as well as our own soldiers, being killed or
maimed in a war waged on false pretenses.
Pro-life also means recognizing that if our planet is polluted, so are
our bodies. It is another form of murder to sentence future generations
to rampant cancer and other degenerative diseases caused by living in a
toxic world; a world made more toxic by Bush's reversing of so many of
our environmental policies.
On issue after issue, Kerry is the more 'pro-life' candidate."
-Monica Leal