Now that the election is over, its open season. We should start reconsidering our positions. This article is from '03.
Let's Stop Kidding Ourselves
by Thomas A. Droleskey
We are well into the thirty-first year of living under the abominable decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade. Sadly, the thirty-first annual March for Life will take place next January 22 without any real progress in the direction of the overturning of the Court decision that helped to expedite the American Holocaust.
That having been noted, however, thirty years and forty-three million slaughtered babies should be enough to convince pro-life Americans to stop kidding themselves about the truth of our political and cultural situation. Should be enough. Should. Judging from the self-delusional comments made by the members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate at the rally on the Ellipse prior to the March for Life earlier this year, however, it appears that thirty years and forty-three million slaughtered babies, to say nothing of the scores of millions of babies who have been killed by chemical abortifacients, are not enough to convince pro-lifers about the truth of our situation. It appears as though most pro-life Americans are content to believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy, continuing to deceive themselves into thinking that careerist politicians, most of whom actually support the slicing and dicing of little preborn babies in some instances, are truly our friends who are doing all they can do to stop abortion.
It is important to review the actual facts of our situation. We not only have not made progress in the past thirty years, we have regressed. Many pro-life Catholics and others believe that some politician who is only conditionally, partly opposed to a certain form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy is a legitimate "pro-life" hero. Thus, a review of the facts is in order.
The Actual Facts Pro-Life Americans Must Confront
1) George W. Bush is not pro-life.
He can say he is pro-life all he wants. Saying one is pro-life does not make one pro-life if one supports the execution of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs in certain instances under cover of law. George W. Bush supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and alleged threats to the life of a mother. George W. Bush, therefore, is not unconditionally pro-life. He is simply less pro-abortion than other politicians. George W. Bush believes that some babies may be killed under cover of law.
The Divine positive law and the natural law admit of no exceptions. There is never a circumstance in which an innocent human life may be made the direct object of an intentional act of killing. Never.
To point out the absurdity and logical inconsistency of the President's position, consider this: anything smacking of racism and anti-Semitism are condemned in the strongest terms by President Bush and his subordinates in the White House. None of them would say that a little bit of racism or a little bit of anti-Semitism are good things. As wrong as racism and anti-Semitism are, though, they are lesser evils than the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Why, then, is a little bit of child-killing under cover of law acceptable when no toleration is given to even a little bit of racism or anti-Semitism? The answer of course is simple: pro-lifers themselves enable this absurdity by accepting exceptions to the sanctity of life while black activists and Jewish leaders make quite a stink when someone in public life is even alleged to have racist and/or anti-Semitic leanings. No one who was deemed to be a racist or anti-Semite would even be considered for a position in the Bush administration, and rightly so. However, the Bush administration is populated with a number of people who completely support Roe v. Wade. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a Roman Catholic, is a thorough-going pro-abort. Thus, President Bush believes that a man who does not believe in homeland security for preborn children is capable and qualified to provide it for the nation as a whole. If President Bush understood the gravity of all baby killing, he would understand that no one who supports a single abortion under any circumstances is qualified to hold any position in public office, elected or appointed.
2) George W. Bush engages in a cynical political strategy designed to give crumbs to his political base while doing nothing of any real substance so as not to threaten so-called "swing" voters.
President Bush found time on Monday, January 20, 2003, to visit a church just outside of the Capital Beltway to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is evidently the case that Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, believed that it was important for President Bush to arrange his schedule in such a way as to make time for such an appearance.
Two days later, however, President Bush just "happened" to be away from Washington, D.C., on the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. He was in St. Louis, Missouri, addressing a crowd about the economy and his tax proposals. Curiously, the President went right back to Washington, where he hosted a dinner in the White House that very evening. This is no accident. Karl Rove, who is a master political strategist, evidently did not want to make it appear as though the President was available to make his way personally to the Ellipse and address a crowd of people who might threaten the President's political appearance to "moderate" voters. True, no president, including Ronald Wilson Reagan, has ever personally addressed the March for Life rally on the Ellipse. Rove took no chances, however. Bush was spirited away to St. Louis, from which he made a telephone call to the crowd.
Although the crowd cheered President Bush wildly, apparently it occurred to very few people to ask what in the world was the President doing in St. Louis on such an important historic milestone as the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The answer, once more, is very simple: Bush and Rove believe that abortion is a politically costly issue, one that is best addressed from a distance and in the vaguest and most general of terms. Knowing that most pro-lifers are so fearful of another totally pro-abortion Democrat in the White House, Rove has calculated that President Bush can do almost next to nothing other than speak in vague terms and retain the enthusiastic support of a very important part of his political base.
President Bush did indeed speak in vague and general terms for the most part, although he said that he "hoped" that Congress would pass a ban on partial-birth abortions that could be presented for his signature so as to become law. He did not say that he favored any effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, a little fact that was lost on the crowd, wrapped up in the enthusiasm of hearing from their political savior.
Furthermore, President Bush's proclamation declaring January 19 to have been "Sanctity of Life Day" in the United States contained once again the statement that he was working for the day in which every child will be welcomed in life and protected by law. President Bush does not believe this. How can a man who says he believes that there are exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life say also that every child will be protected by law. This continuing contradiction in Bush's rhetoric escapes the notice of most pro-lifers. Why are we so gullible, ladies and gentlemen?
For example, the ban on partial-birth abortions that has been passed by Congress and will be signed into law by the President soon contains a needless "life of the mother" exception in it. Unlike what some simpletons who serve in the House contended on the Ellipse on January 22, 2003, this law will not end partial-birth abortions, which is no different in moral terms from any other form of child-killing. Children will still be killed by this particular method of butchery if doctors allege that a mother's life is endangered. And do we really think that people who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest when they assert that they have fulfilled the "exceptions" provision contained in the law? Thus, the contention that "we are going to stop partial birth abortion" once and for all is an abject lie. Children will still be killed by this method of execution even if the partial, conditional ban on it passes constitutional muster in the United States Supreme Court after it is signed into law and makes it way through the Federal court system, a process that might take two years. Again, we are deceiving ourselves, giving President Bush a free pass as he makes contradictory statements designed to mollify truly good people who neither listen carefully to his words nor follow his administration's actions.
3) President George W. Bush's administration has done much to undermine the cause of the sanctity of innocent human life.
A full recitation of how the current administration has undermined the cause of the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb would take up quite a bit of space.
Suffice it for present purposes, however, to cite the President's support of Federal funding for stem-cell research, his administration's increase of the funding of the chemical killing of innocent children in the womb by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs, his campaigning for Republican pro-abortion candidates (how can we build a "culture of life" when a supposedly pro-life President campaigns for pro-death candidates?), and his Solicitor General's contention in an amicus curiae brief in the case of Scheidler v. N.O.W. that pro-life sidewalk counselors are interfering with the ability of abortuaries to conduct their business, to cite only a few instances. The American Life League's Patrick Delaney notes also, "Of course, he also stacked his own Presidential Council on Bioethics with a number of persons who don't understand ninth grade biology or the intrinsic value of human life. If you remember they came out 'deeply divided on the moral status of the human embryo.' This opinion is reminiscent of Roe where the court decided, as you know, that since there is division among 'experts' on when human life begins, we must permit liberty of the individual conscience. Bush stacked his council to reaffirm Roe v. Wade."
4) Most members of the House and Senate who say they are pro-life are not pro-life.
Although March for Life Education and Defense Fund President Nellie Gray is completely pro-life, she nevertheless permits speakers to address the rally at the Ellipse prior to the annual March for Life who make exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life. This misleads the earnest people who travel great distances to get to the nation's capital that there are legislators in Congress who are genuinely pro-life. Most of the so-called "pro-life" members of Congress vote annually to approve funding for the chemical abortion of human beings by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs. Some of these "pro-life" legislators, most of whom make the same exceptions to the sanctity of innocent life as President Bush himself, shamelessly serve as cheerleaders for the President, hailing him as "our pro-life president." Again, this misleads people who are opposed to abortion and want to believe that they have friends in Washington. It is wrong to include them as speakers.
5) We do not have a "pro-life" United States Senate.
As I have noted on a number of occasions, the mere fact that Republicans possess a 51-48-1 majority in the United States Senate does not mean that we have a "pro-life Senate," as some members of the House protested at the rally on the Ellipse on January 22, 2003. Apart from the fact that most so-called "pro-life" senators actually support child-killing in some instances, there are seven Republican senators who are completely and totally pro-abortion. They are: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine; Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island; Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania; John Warner from Virginia; Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas; Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado. It is intellectually dishonest and completely irresponsible to claim that we have a "pro-life" Senate. We do not.
6) The ban on partial-birth abortions will not represent a major victory for the movement.
As noted earlier, the ban on partial-birth abortions is partial, conditional. Children will still be killed by this particular method of child-killing, which is no more morally heinous than any other form of abortion, even if the ban is signed into law and passes constitutional muster. Not one single life will be saved. Not one. Why? In addition to the fact that there is an exception contained in the law, we have forgotten that there are other ways in the later stages of pregnancy by which a child may be executed. If baby-killers find that they cannot kill babies by means of the partial-birth procedure, they will simply resort to the hysterotomy or the dilation and evacuation methods of slaughtering a preborn child. Repeat: not one innocent preborn child will be saved by the conditional ban on partial-birth abortions. The issue of partial-birth abortions has become a cheap vehicle for phony pro-life politicians to contend that they have done all they can do in the midst of the actual cultural realities in which we find ourselves.
Let's Stop Kidding Ourselves
by Thomas A. Droleskey
We are well into the thirty-first year of living under the abominable decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade. Sadly, the thirty-first annual March for Life will take place next January 22 without any real progress in the direction of the overturning of the Court decision that helped to expedite the American Holocaust.
That having been noted, however, thirty years and forty-three million slaughtered babies should be enough to convince pro-life Americans to stop kidding themselves about the truth of our political and cultural situation. Should be enough. Should. Judging from the self-delusional comments made by the members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate at the rally on the Ellipse prior to the March for Life earlier this year, however, it appears that thirty years and forty-three million slaughtered babies, to say nothing of the scores of millions of babies who have been killed by chemical abortifacients, are not enough to convince pro-lifers about the truth of our situation. It appears as though most pro-life Americans are content to believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy, continuing to deceive themselves into thinking that careerist politicians, most of whom actually support the slicing and dicing of little preborn babies in some instances, are truly our friends who are doing all they can do to stop abortion.
It is important to review the actual facts of our situation. We not only have not made progress in the past thirty years, we have regressed. Many pro-life Catholics and others believe that some politician who is only conditionally, partly opposed to a certain form of child-killing in the later stages of pregnancy is a legitimate "pro-life" hero. Thus, a review of the facts is in order.
The Actual Facts Pro-Life Americans Must Confront
1) George W. Bush is not pro-life.
He can say he is pro-life all he wants. Saying one is pro-life does not make one pro-life if one supports the execution of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs in certain instances under cover of law. George W. Bush supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and alleged threats to the life of a mother. George W. Bush, therefore, is not unconditionally pro-life. He is simply less pro-abortion than other politicians. George W. Bush believes that some babies may be killed under cover of law.
The Divine positive law and the natural law admit of no exceptions. There is never a circumstance in which an innocent human life may be made the direct object of an intentional act of killing. Never.
To point out the absurdity and logical inconsistency of the President's position, consider this: anything smacking of racism and anti-Semitism are condemned in the strongest terms by President Bush and his subordinates in the White House. None of them would say that a little bit of racism or a little bit of anti-Semitism are good things. As wrong as racism and anti-Semitism are, though, they are lesser evils than the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Why, then, is a little bit of child-killing under cover of law acceptable when no toleration is given to even a little bit of racism or anti-Semitism? The answer of course is simple: pro-lifers themselves enable this absurdity by accepting exceptions to the sanctity of life while black activists and Jewish leaders make quite a stink when someone in public life is even alleged to have racist and/or anti-Semitic leanings. No one who was deemed to be a racist or anti-Semite would even be considered for a position in the Bush administration, and rightly so. However, the Bush administration is populated with a number of people who completely support Roe v. Wade. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, a Roman Catholic, is a thorough-going pro-abort. Thus, President Bush believes that a man who does not believe in homeland security for preborn children is capable and qualified to provide it for the nation as a whole. If President Bush understood the gravity of all baby killing, he would understand that no one who supports a single abortion under any circumstances is qualified to hold any position in public office, elected or appointed.
2) George W. Bush engages in a cynical political strategy designed to give crumbs to his political base while doing nothing of any real substance so as not to threaten so-called "swing" voters.
President Bush found time on Monday, January 20, 2003, to visit a church just outside of the Capital Beltway to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is evidently the case that Karl Rove, the president's chief political strategist, believed that it was important for President Bush to arrange his schedule in such a way as to make time for such an appearance.
Two days later, however, President Bush just "happened" to be away from Washington, D.C., on the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. He was in St. Louis, Missouri, addressing a crowd about the economy and his tax proposals. Curiously, the President went right back to Washington, where he hosted a dinner in the White House that very evening. This is no accident. Karl Rove, who is a master political strategist, evidently did not want to make it appear as though the President was available to make his way personally to the Ellipse and address a crowd of people who might threaten the President's political appearance to "moderate" voters. True, no president, including Ronald Wilson Reagan, has ever personally addressed the March for Life rally on the Ellipse. Rove took no chances, however. Bush was spirited away to St. Louis, from which he made a telephone call to the crowd.
Although the crowd cheered President Bush wildly, apparently it occurred to very few people to ask what in the world was the President doing in St. Louis on such an important historic milestone as the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The answer, once more, is very simple: Bush and Rove believe that abortion is a politically costly issue, one that is best addressed from a distance and in the vaguest and most general of terms. Knowing that most pro-lifers are so fearful of another totally pro-abortion Democrat in the White House, Rove has calculated that President Bush can do almost next to nothing other than speak in vague terms and retain the enthusiastic support of a very important part of his political base.
President Bush did indeed speak in vague and general terms for the most part, although he said that he "hoped" that Congress would pass a ban on partial-birth abortions that could be presented for his signature so as to become law. He did not say that he favored any effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, a little fact that was lost on the crowd, wrapped up in the enthusiasm of hearing from their political savior.
Furthermore, President Bush's proclamation declaring January 19 to have been "Sanctity of Life Day" in the United States contained once again the statement that he was working for the day in which every child will be welcomed in life and protected by law. President Bush does not believe this. How can a man who says he believes that there are exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life say also that every child will be protected by law. This continuing contradiction in Bush's rhetoric escapes the notice of most pro-lifers. Why are we so gullible, ladies and gentlemen?
For example, the ban on partial-birth abortions that has been passed by Congress and will be signed into law by the President soon contains a needless "life of the mother" exception in it. Unlike what some simpletons who serve in the House contended on the Ellipse on January 22, 2003, this law will not end partial-birth abortions, which is no different in moral terms from any other form of child-killing. Children will still be killed by this particular method of butchery if doctors allege that a mother's life is endangered. And do we really think that people who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest when they assert that they have fulfilled the "exceptions" provision contained in the law? Thus, the contention that "we are going to stop partial birth abortion" once and for all is an abject lie. Children will still be killed by this method of execution even if the partial, conditional ban on it passes constitutional muster in the United States Supreme Court after it is signed into law and makes it way through the Federal court system, a process that might take two years. Again, we are deceiving ourselves, giving President Bush a free pass as he makes contradictory statements designed to mollify truly good people who neither listen carefully to his words nor follow his administration's actions.
3) President George W. Bush's administration has done much to undermine the cause of the sanctity of innocent human life.
A full recitation of how the current administration has undermined the cause of the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb would take up quite a bit of space.
Suffice it for present purposes, however, to cite the President's support of Federal funding for stem-cell research, his administration's increase of the funding of the chemical killing of innocent children in the womb by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs, his campaigning for Republican pro-abortion candidates (how can we build a "culture of life" when a supposedly pro-life President campaigns for pro-death candidates?), and his Solicitor General's contention in an amicus curiae brief in the case of Scheidler v. N.O.W. that pro-life sidewalk counselors are interfering with the ability of abortuaries to conduct their business, to cite only a few instances. The American Life League's Patrick Delaney notes also, "Of course, he also stacked his own Presidential Council on Bioethics with a number of persons who don't understand ninth grade biology or the intrinsic value of human life. If you remember they came out 'deeply divided on the moral status of the human embryo.' This opinion is reminiscent of Roe where the court decided, as you know, that since there is division among 'experts' on when human life begins, we must permit liberty of the individual conscience. Bush stacked his council to reaffirm Roe v. Wade."
4) Most members of the House and Senate who say they are pro-life are not pro-life.
Although March for Life Education and Defense Fund President Nellie Gray is completely pro-life, she nevertheless permits speakers to address the rally at the Ellipse prior to the annual March for Life who make exceptions to the sanctity of innocent human life. This misleads the earnest people who travel great distances to get to the nation's capital that there are legislators in Congress who are genuinely pro-life. Most of the so-called "pro-life" members of Congress vote annually to approve funding for the chemical abortion of human beings by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs. Some of these "pro-life" legislators, most of whom make the same exceptions to the sanctity of innocent life as President Bush himself, shamelessly serve as cheerleaders for the President, hailing him as "our pro-life president." Again, this misleads people who are opposed to abortion and want to believe that they have friends in Washington. It is wrong to include them as speakers.
5) We do not have a "pro-life" United States Senate.
As I have noted on a number of occasions, the mere fact that Republicans possess a 51-48-1 majority in the United States Senate does not mean that we have a "pro-life Senate," as some members of the House protested at the rally on the Ellipse on January 22, 2003. Apart from the fact that most so-called "pro-life" senators actually support child-killing in some instances, there are seven Republican senators who are completely and totally pro-abortion. They are: Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine; Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island; Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania; John Warner from Virginia; Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas; Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado. It is intellectually dishonest and completely irresponsible to claim that we have a "pro-life" Senate. We do not.
6) The ban on partial-birth abortions will not represent a major victory for the movement.
As noted earlier, the ban on partial-birth abortions is partial, conditional. Children will still be killed by this particular method of child-killing, which is no more morally heinous than any other form of abortion, even if the ban is signed into law and passes constitutional muster. Not one single life will be saved. Not one. Why? In addition to the fact that there is an exception contained in the law, we have forgotten that there are other ways in the later stages of pregnancy by which a child may be executed. If baby-killers find that they cannot kill babies by means of the partial-birth procedure, they will simply resort to the hysterotomy or the dilation and evacuation methods of slaughtering a preborn child. Repeat: not one innocent preborn child will be saved by the conditional ban on partial-birth abortions. The issue of partial-birth abortions has become a cheap vehicle for phony pro-life politicians to contend that they have done all they can do in the midst of the actual cultural realities in which we find ourselves.
