Monday, October 25, 2004

Minimizing the abortion issue

With just over a week to go before election day, the Kerry Catholics and pro-aborts are out in full force to try and downplay the significant differences on the presidential candidates' positions on abortion. Why the downplaying? For those voters who hold abortion as the dominant issue (est. at 15% of the electorate), the vast majority (est. 60%) vote only for the pro-life candidate. I imagine these numbers would be even greater for Catholics. So, if the president's pro-life positions are downplayed and shown to be no different than his opponent, those voters may either not vote or vote for Senator Kerry. Given the closeness of the current race, if this disingenous effort is successful it could have an effect of the election outcome.

So, where is the evidence of all this? Chris Matthews held the pro-abort torch on his show Hardball one night last week. Professor Kaveny of Notre Dame has also carried the torch, has as Dean Roche of Notre Dame. Ono Ekeh's abortion "demand-side" arguments add to this effort. And a recent study showing a supposed increase in the abortion rate since President Bush took office. (This study has been debunked. See here and here and here.)

These folks claim the president has not done anything to outlaw abortion and has not promised to outlaw it during his next term or appoint judges who will promise to overturn Roe. First, if there is little or no difference between the candidates, then why has NARAL endorsed Senator Kerry? (This is the first time they have endorsed a presidential candidate.) Why are they so fearful of another four years of President Bush in the White House? I would argue it is because the truth is the president is very much pro-life and will continue to appoint federal judges who will interpret the Constitution rather than legislate from the bench. As well, they believe it is very likely he will appoint Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe.

Second, if there are little or no differences how does one explain the following:

- PBA ban - Bush supported, Kerry opposed.
- Parental notification - Bush supports, Kerry opposes.
- Government funding of abortion - Bush opposes, Kerry supports.

And where are the similiarities in these statements?

"The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are -- a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure... [A]bortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice. And by the same token, if our children are to be safe from the danger of fanaticism, tolerance needs to spread out of the mainstream churches, mosques, and synagogues, and into the religious fringes." Senator Kerry, Congressional Record, 1996

“The promises of our Declaration of Independence are not just for the strong, the independent, or the healthy. They are for everyone -- including unborn children. We are a society with enough compassion and wealth and love to care for both mothers and their children, to see the promise and potential in every human life.” President Bush, 2002

Do not fall for this effort from the Kerry Catholics. President Bush is the most pro-life president we have ever had. Let him continue to prove Kerry Catholics and those from NARAL wrong.


Blogger Ono said...

You forgot to include Dr. Stassens debate-ending rebuttal that showed his original article holds up.

1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Debate-ending"? Why do you and other Kerry Catholics always want to end debate on your terms? Is this what we would expect from a President Kerry?

As for the end of the debate, Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review responds at the end of the post you linked to:

Prof. Glen Harold Stassen has argued that pro-lifers should support John Kerry because Bush's economic policies have led to increased abortion rates. The National Right to Life Committee, among others, has responded to the bits of evidence and logic Stassen uses to reach these conclusions. Now Justin Taylor has posted Stassen's response to the critiques. I don't doubt that Stassen is sincere in wanting to reduce the abortion rate. But to my mind, his response is totally unpersuasive, as was his initial "study." He doesn't establish that higher unemployment or lower health-insurance rates increase the abortion rate, that Bush's policies have caused unemployment to rise, or that abortion rates have even risen at all under Bush. For example, he does not deal with NRLC's point that abortion rates and unemployment rates don't appear to correlate with each other among states. Nor does Stassen attempt to deal with other factors that might have affected the data. Stassen also leans too much on his own family's experience, in a way that attempts to guilt-trip people out of disagreeing with him.

One side-issue that has come up here is whether a statement that the professor signed in 1977 supported Roe v. Wade. If anyone has a copy of that statement and could post it, this issue, at least, could be resolved.

2:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home