Who really is the pro-life candidate?
A Catholic who opposes abortion on why he's voting for Obama -- as the better pro-life candidate!
For those who believe, as I do, that the million-plus abortions a year in the United States represent a tragic moral failure for our country, it may be time to turn away from our obsession with a hypothetical court reversal.
I have come to believe that the true 'pro-life' candidate is not the one who champions opposition to Roe v. Wade but lacks any substantive plan that will actually reduce abortions.
We have had 20 years of Republicans in the White House who ran on the 'anti-Roe v. Wade' slogan, and nothing has changed.
The true 'pro-life' candidate is the one who is supporting social policies proven to reduce abortions, policies that would extend substantial financial and health-care assistance to poor families facing unplanned pregnancies.
The true pro-life candidate is the one who has also emphasized pregnancy prevention and the need for fathers to take greater responsibility for unplanned pregnancies.
There is a pro-life candidate out there and it turns out he's a Democrat!
-----------------------
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Who really is the pro-life candidate?
By RICHARD R. GAILLARDETZ
IT APPEARS that abortion will again be an issue in our upcoming presidential election.
There are many 'pro-life' voters, including Catholics like myself, who believe that 1.3 million abortions a year is nothing less than a national moral scandal.
Because of our opposition to abortion, it is often assumed that we will vote for the political candidate who opposes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protected the legality of abortion.
But should we?
Seeking the reversal of Roe v. Wade may be a defensible strategy for some, but it is not above question.
First we must reckon with the dim prospects of a court reversal. The two most recently appointed Supreme Court justices have already said that, in spite of their personal reservations, they view Roe v. Wade as 'settled law.'
Even with a Republican in the White House, chances of a court reversal seem remote.
Moreover, were Roe v. Wade somehow reversed, the only direct effect would be a return of the abortion issue to state legislatures where widespread criminalization of abortion is unlikely.
And this is to say nothing of the practical problems associated with legal enforcement of anti-abortion laws (are we really prepared to throw poor unwed mothers into jail?) or the fact that illegal and unsafe abortions would almost certainly continue (thereby extending the tragedy by putting many more women at risk).
Perhaps the time has come for those who truly oppose abortion to pursue an alternative approach.
There are a number of countries in Western Europe (e.g., Belgium, The Netherlands) where abortion is legal but where the abortion rate is significantly lower than in the U.S.
Why? These countries have maintained national family policies that provide extensive prenatal, natal, and postnatal care that better equip poorer parents to cope with an unplanned pregnancy.
They also offer generous maternity/paternity leave.
Here in the United States it is a quite different situation: Poor families are often provided little financial support and scandalously poor health care.
In the United States the abortion rate for women living below the poverty level is 300 percent higher than the abortion rate for women living above the poverty level. For many poor women who become pregnant unexpectedly, there seems to be only one choice.
A recent study provides substantial evidence that over the past several decades increases in governmental supports for poor families have consistently led to a significant decrease in abortion rates.
For those who believe, as I do, that the million-plus abortions a year in the United States represent a tragic moral failure for our country, it may be time to turn away from our obsession with a hypothetical court reversal.
I have come to believe that the true 'pro-life' candidate is not the one who champions opposition to Roe v. Wade but lacks any substantive plan that will actually reduce abortions.
We have had 20 years of Republicans in the White House who ran on the 'anti-Roe v. Wade' slogan, and nothing has changed.
The true 'pro-life' candidate is the one who is supporting social policies proven to reduce abortions, policies that would extend substantial financial and health-care assistance to poor families facing unplanned pregnancies.
The true pro-life candidate is the one who has also emphasized pregnancy prevention and the need for fathers to take greater responsibility for unplanned pregnancies.
There is a pro-life candidate out there and it turns out he's a Democrat!
Richard R. Gaillardetz is the Thomas and Margaret Murray and James J. Bacik professor of Catholic studies at the University of Toledo.
Who really is the pro-life candidate?
By RICHARD R. GAILLARDETZ
IT APPEARS that abortion will again be an issue in our upcoming presidential election.
There are many 'pro-life' voters, including Catholics like myself, who believe that 1.3 million abortions a year is nothing less than a national moral scandal.
Because of our opposition to abortion, it is often assumed that we will vote for the political candidate who opposes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protected the legality of abortion.
But should we?
Seeking the reversal of Roe v. Wade may be a defensible strategy for some, but it is not above question.
First we must reckon with the dim prospects of a court reversal. The two most recently appointed Supreme Court justices have already said that, in spite of their personal reservations, they view Roe v. Wade as 'settled law.'
Even with a Republican in the White House, chances of a court reversal seem remote.
Moreover, were Roe v. Wade somehow reversed, the only direct effect would be a return of the abortion issue to state legislatures where widespread criminalization of abortion is unlikely.
And this is to say nothing of the practical problems associated with legal enforcement of anti-abortion laws (are we really prepared to throw poor unwed mothers into jail?) or the fact that illegal and unsafe abortions would almost certainly continue (thereby extending the tragedy by putting many more women at risk).
Perhaps the time has come for those who truly oppose abortion to pursue an alternative approach.
There are a number of countries in Western Europe (e.g., Belgium, The Netherlands) where abortion is legal but where the abortion rate is significantly lower than in the U.S.
Why? These countries have maintained national family policies that provide extensive prenatal, natal, and postnatal care that better equip poorer parents to cope with an unplanned pregnancy.
They also offer generous maternity/paternity leave.
Here in the United States it is a quite different situation: Poor families are often provided little financial support and scandalously poor health care.
In the United States the abortion rate for women living below the poverty level is 300 percent higher than the abortion rate for women living above the poverty level. For many poor women who become pregnant unexpectedly, there seems to be only one choice.
A recent study provides substantial evidence that over the past several decades increases in governmental supports for poor families have consistently led to a significant decrease in abortion rates.
For those who believe, as I do, that the million-plus abortions a year in the United States represent a tragic moral failure for our country, it may be time to turn away from our obsession with a hypothetical court reversal.
I have come to believe that the true 'pro-life' candidate is not the one who champions opposition to Roe v. Wade but lacks any substantive plan that will actually reduce abortions.
We have had 20 years of Republicans in the White House who ran on the 'anti-Roe v. Wade' slogan, and nothing has changed.
The true 'pro-life' candidate is the one who is supporting social policies proven to reduce abortions, policies that would extend substantial financial and health-care assistance to poor families facing unplanned pregnancies.
The true pro-life candidate is the one who has also emphasized pregnancy prevention and the need for fathers to take greater responsibility for unplanned pregnancies.
There is a pro-life candidate out there and it turns out he's a Democrat!
Richard R. Gaillardetz is the Thomas and Margaret Murray and James J. Bacik professor of Catholic studies at the University of Toledo.
posted by Whitney Tilson at 1:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home