There is an old story that goes back to around 1980 when James Rhodes was governor of Ohio. The story cannot be verified by actual testimony but it is said that a young legislator told the governor that he had received a campaign questionnaire from Ohio Right to Life. He advised the elder statesman of his uncertainty about answering the questions. The governor counseled the young man, "Tell them your pro-life and don't worry. You'll never have to do anything about it." The truth of the story doesn't matter so much as the truth of the outcome twenty four years later.
I am pro-life. I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to grave. I am also a Democrat. I believe in the sanctity of life from cradle to grave. I do not view the term "pro-life democrat" as an oxymoron. I view the term as redundant. For years my pro-life friends have asked me how I can be a democrat, and for years I have told them that it seems as though Republicans give lip service to respecting life before birth, while Democrats actually do respect life after birth. Since I have never seen the Republican party attempt to make significant strides to ending the practice of abortion while I have seen many attempts by Democrats to significantly improve the lives of the poor, especially poor children, I remain a Democrat.
To be sure, it is difficult for someone who believes that life begins at conception to support someone who says that they will do nothing directly to stop abortion. There are more than 3,500 abortions every day in the United States, and for someone who believes that each abortion is the death of a living human being there is no issue more important. Neither war, poverty, health care, capital punishment or gun control can add up to the more than 1.3 million deaths from abortion each year. The natural inclination is to support the candidate who says that he or she will do something about this issue.
A few Catholic bishops have recently brought this issue into focus by their statements and the Vatican has even weighed in with an unofficial document that challenges voters to find "proportionate reasons" before casting their vote for a pro-choice candidates. What follows are my "proportionate reasons."
For the past four years the Republican party has had virtual control of our federal government. They control all three branches of government with the presidency, both houses of Congress and seven of nine members of the Supreme Court. Although President Bush has limited the government's participation in stem cell research, few if any lives will be saved on this issue since the embryos that might be saved from research are likely to be destroyed anyway. It is estimated that there are about 650 partial birth abortions in the United States each year. Although it may be worthwhile to save these lives, the partial birth abortion ban was passed in a way that has not withstood the constitutional challenges in three lower federal courts. To think that the Supreme Court will someday reverse these lower courts is mere speculation given the fact that the Supreme Court, with seven Republican appointed Justices, has recently upheld Roe v. Wade in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). In this case the Court struck down a law that restricted certain abortion procedures without an exception to protect the health of the mother. It is that decision which has caused the lower courts to rule the partial birth abortion law unconstitutional.
While supporting these few pro-life issues, the President and the Congress have failed to propose any substantial changes in abortion law. Despite the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Oval Office, and more than twenty state legislatures, no constitutional amendment has even come forward to rectify what the majority of the Supreme Court will not do. Further, Republicans have been decidedly anti-life on a number of other issues.
It is estimated by the World Health Organization that 70,000 people in the United States die prematurely each year from air pollution. Yet our president, until last month, refused to acknowledge the ongoing demise of the ozone layer. For four years the President has systematically repealed, by executive order, regulations intended to prevent pollution. It has not been proven, but speculation by scientists exists that the warming of the earth and the oceans is responsible for much of the cataclysmic weather we have seen over the last several years including this seasons violent hurricanes.
OMB Watch issued a report this past week documenting how the President has either rolled back regulations or is failing to enforce regulations regarding, not only the environment, but also food safety, worker safety, and car safety to the detriment of consumers and workers. This 62 page report is filled with examples of how our lives are becoming endangered by the actions of this administration. The report concludes, "Whether the goal is protecting infants and pregnant women from exposure to mercury and other toxins, ensuring that the nation's blood supply is secure, reducing the risk of fatal accidents in the event of a car crash, or shielding workers from exposure to dangerous carcinogens, the federal government is uniquely positioned to marshal the nation's resources in the service of the public welfare. The Bush administration's record is a breathtaking abdication of that responsibility, and its hostility to regulatory protections is unprecedented in its breadth and depth."
Guns kill nearly 30,000 people each year, yet the President and the Congress stood idly by as the assault rifle ban recently expired. Just last month the House of Representatives voted to lift the 28 year ban on gun sales in the District of Columbia. The House has also voted to give gun manufacturers immunity from law suits filed by the victims of their negligent manufacture and distribution of guns. At the same time Congress has failed to pass Senate Bill 1807, the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2003.
I do not quarrel with the war on terrorism, but the reasons for going to war in Iraq were almost totally contrived. Over 1000 Americans now lay dead, over 10,000 Iraqis have died and there is no end in sight. In the meantime, Iran and North Korea have begun to build nuclear weapons with impunity knowing full well that we are stretched beyond our military capacity to stop them. It is impossible to measure how many lives may be endangered by this unjust war and these rogue nations.
It is also impossible to know how many lives will be lost because 45,000,000 people cannot obtain medical help when they have no health insurance. Even among those who do have insurance, the cost of prescription drugs is causing many to do without, endangering health and life. Yet, this President has approved Congressional action to outlaw the practice of saving money by obtaining drugs from Canada.
There are 4.3 million more people in poverty since Bush has taken office. Under this administration more people are malnourished, more people are homeless and that means more people will die prematurely from illness. Yet, budgets proposed by the president this year eliminate or reduce funding for more than one hundred programs that help the poor. Just this past week the president signed a bill granting middle class tax cuts, but Republicans in Congress loaded that same bill with $13 billion in corporate tax breaks while cutting the child tax credit for 4 million working poor families. Now, the administration wants to make even further tax cuts exacerbating the problem of our national debt which will eventually require the elimination of even more programs that help lift people out of poverty.
The issue of poverty brings us back to the issue of abortion. Two-thirds of women obtaining abortions do so because they believe thy cannot afford a child. During the Clinton years, poverty was reduced by nearly 7 million people and abortions also declined. By 2000, the last year of Clinton's term, abortions had been reduced by 16% or 200,000 per year. That's 200,000 lives saved by lifting people up, by giving pregnant woman the hope that they can support their unborn child, and by respecting life after birth, not just before.
Do the math. Do the research. Do some thinking. These reasons may not seem to be proportionate to you, but to me they are more than proportionate, so I remain a pro-life Democrat.