A CHRISTIAN CASE FOR CHOOSING A PRESIDENT:
THE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION AND PROMOTING LIFE

Mary A. Parker, Nashville, TN

[10-25-04]

Pro-life . . . Pro-choice. These two expressions have become two of the most divisive terms used in politics, evoking the most visceral of responses from the one opposed to the view espoused by the other. I would suggest that most Christians, whether they use the label of "pro-life" or "pro-choice", in their hearts, believe in the sanctity of life, abhorring both abortion and the death penalty, truly desiring to care for the underprivileged members of our society, including those in poverty and those without health insurance. They want to protect the environment, educate all our children, and avoid going into pre-emptive wars that Christian leaders around the globe, such as the Pope, are adamantly against.

Queries: Can you believe in the sanctity of life, profess to be against abortion, yet, be in favor of the death penalty? Can you believe in the sanctity of life and remove funding for programs that affects an increase in the numbers of abortions? Can you believe in the sanctity of life and promote laws that permit destruction of the environment by throwing toxins into the air and water? Can you be for the sanctity of life and start an aggressive war that causes the loss of tens of thousands of lives? Can Christians vote for "pro-choice" candidates and remain in good standing with their Churches?

In making a decision regarding these issues, it is helpful to examine some history behind each political point of view. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that the number of abortions under both Reagan and the first Bush (pro-life president), increased during both of their presidencies reaching the highest numbers in history during 1990. Under Clinton (pro-choice president), the number of abortions decreased by 15%, after his third year in office and continued to decline through 2000, when they were at numbers around 30% less than during Bush's term (CDC figures). Now, under the second Bush (again, claiming to be pro-life), the CDC has not released numbers and will not do so until December of 2004, after the election. However, it is very telling to note that the number abortions in Florida and Texas in 2000 (the most recent CDC figures available), under two pro-life governors, George W. and Jeb Bush, comprised almost one-fifth (1/5) of the nation's total abortions .

Dr. Glen Stassen*, co-author of Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology and ethics, Kingdom Ethics, analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. Since no federal reports were available after 2000, he had to go state by state. Though many states do not yet make post 2000 data available, he found enough data to identify and substantiate a shocking trend.

Abortion was decreasing throughout the Clinton years. In the decade before George W. Bush became president, the number of abortions in the United States fell from an all time high in 1990, during George H W Bush's term, to a 25 year low by the end of Clinton's term. (Allan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and Center for Disease Control (CDC)). Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge, given his and the GOP "anti-abortion" promises. Instead, the opposite happened.

Four states have posted several years of recent statistics from approximately 2000 through 2003: Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado. Here's what happened to their abortion rates: Michigan's increased by 11.3% , and Colorado's rates skyrocketed 111% . Kentucky's increased by 3.2%, Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002 (2003 not yet available).

He found twelve other states that reported statistics allowing comparison of abortion rates in 2001 and 2002. Here's what happened: Seven states saw an increase in their abortion rates: Arizona (+26.4%), Idaho (+13.9%), Illinois (+0.9%), Missouri (+2.5%), South Dakota (+2.1%), Texas (+3.0%), and Wisconsin (+0.6%). Five states saw a decrease: Alabama (-9.8%), Florida (-0.7%), Minnesota (-4.4%), Ohio (-4.4%), and Washington (-2.1%).

In total numbers, at least 7,869 more abortions were performed in these sixteen states during George W. Bush's second year in office than previously. If this trend reflects our nation, 24,000 more abortions were performed during George W. Bush's second year in office than the year before. Had the previous trends continued, 28,000 fewer abortions should have occurred each year of the Bush era. In other words, at least 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 alone than should have been the case had the Clinton presidency's record of abortion decrease continued. And the figure is likely two to three times that for the entire period 2000-2003. In other words, George W Bush made no progress whatsoever in lowering the abortion rate compared to his Democratic predecessor, and has in fact increased abortions numbers substantially.

How can one explain that the number of abortions climbed under allegedly "pro-life" presidents, yet, reduced significantly under a pro-choice president? Could it be that the pro-choice president really took more aggressive actions to reduce the number of abortions, thereby protecting the sanctity of life, while the pro-life presidents merely paid lip service to being pro-life for political gain?

Close observation demonstrates that pro-lifers have seized upon a cushy political niche with the abortion issue. Polling suggests that the majority of Americans do not personally approve of abortion, especially, partial birth abortions and abortion as an alternative to birth control. The pro-life politicians get to agree with this principle, while wringing their hands and bemoaning the fact that the Courts have stymied any meaningful change. They get credit for their claims of conviction without actually having to DO anything of any consequence.

A perfect example of their claims to be "pro-life" (but only for political gain) come in the form of the partial abortion ban. You think they passed a bill that would ban partial birth abortions, right? Wrong! John Kerry and John Edwards understood the Constitutional issues (albeit both are lawyers) in the Senate, that when the bill was signed into law, it would never pass muster in the Courts. An amendment that would have included an exception for the life of the mother failed, so they refused to sign on. Now, the bill is being set aside, as predicted, not by "liberal" democratic appointments, but by republican court appointments, because it does not have a provision that excepts the life of the mother. The pro-lifers claim that they passed a bill, but they knew, or should have known, that it would fail in the courts. It did, and not because of liberal judges!

Pro-choice politicians, on the other hand, historically, have worked hard to attack the source of the problem, rather than wringing their hands over what cannot be done. There are not a lot of abortions because the law permits it. There are a lot of abortions, now, as there were prior to Roe V. Wade, because a lot of women end up with unwanted pregnancies. (I remember the sixties and early seventies when there were a lot of abortions and the law didn't permit it. Families with money sent their pregnant family members to the Caribbean and the poorer young women were butchered in back room abortion shops.) Sex education in schools makes sense, and prevents pregnancies, and, therefore, prevents abortions. Providing health care for pregnant women, allowing them to choose life ($6000 medical costs for birth, over the $300 abortion fee), as well as a welfare support and safety net after the birth of the child, will go a long way toward reducing abortions. The current administration has canceled funding for anything that tries to educate young people, has not supported health care benefits for pregnant women or welfare support for the new mothers. Is it any surprise that these young people who get pregnant choose abortion?

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department charged with ensuring fidelity to church teachings. As such, he is the Vatican's arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy. In June, Cardinal Ratzinger sent a one-page confidential memorandum to Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, head of a commission of U.S. bishops on Catholics in political life. In that Memo, the Vatican clearly gave Catholic voters discretion to vote for politicians who support abortion. The Vatican memo stated: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." Each Catholic should consider issues from a faith perspective and weigh all the candidates' positions very carefully before voting. Catholics should not be single issue voters!

If our goal is to protect the sanctity of life, shouldn't we be searching for candidates who have a strong plan for reducing abortions, rather than choosing those who are just going to give us lip service while the number of abortions rises higher and higher? Does the label "pro-choice" or "pro-life" really matter as much as the issues of what is going to be done to reduce abortions; what is going to be done to help the 35 million Americans in poverty; what is going to be done to provide health coverage for the 45 million Americans who have none; what is going to be done for the good of all the members of society in need of our compassion?

John Kerry is not pro-abortion. As a Catholic, he believes strongly that his faith requires him to guide his family members to follow the teachings of the Church and not ever have an abortion. He does, however, believe that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that you cannot force the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church on those who have different faith beliefs. Therefore, he is pro-choice.

George Bush, on the other hand, has consistently claimed to be pro-life, and his stated positions have always maintained that stance.

Would it be America if we legislated that everyone had to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior? That certainly is the strongest issue of faith for Christians, but no one questions whether that would violate the Constitution. Forcing our religious beliefs on others is simply unacceptable in our society. The question is, which candidate will be guided by his firmly held faith beliefs and do everything in his power to reduce the number of abortions? Which one has a plan to educate the young in order to avoid teen pregnancy, to provide health care to those who find themselves in the position of needing to make a financial decision regarding carrying a baby to term, to aid the mother after the birth of a child? If the monetary incentive to abort is removed, more people choose life. Two thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason (AGI).

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. "Pro-Life" rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without healthcare, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers, and who is serious about achieving healthcare as a right of every American despite his or her income.

It is incumbent upon every Christian to look behind the labels and select a President who truly acts on Christian values, not just hypocritically claiming them. By His Deeds Ye Shall Know Him.

Mary A. Parker is a Catholic attorney, practicing at Parker & Crofford in Nashville, Tennessee. She has been an active member of Holy Family parish in Brentwood for the past 14 years.

*Note: Prof Glen Harold Stassen has published statistical analysis articles, one of which was reprinted as a model for political science research. His PhD is in Christian Ethics and he is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary.